The Historicity of Jesus Christ as a real Historical figure is valid and sound.

You argument is fairly simple so I shouldn't have to spend too much effort here refuting it. You site no sources at all, you use no evidence to back up any of your claims, you say that "any evidence for Jesus comes from way after his life or from people looking back years later" even though those two things are essentially the same thing making the sentence completely redundant, and you say you don't consider Josephus evidence yet offer no reasoning as to why that is, leading me to believe that it is simply a regurgitation of someone else's argument all together, while also completely ignoring the fact that Josephus was only one of 42 authors who mentioned Jesus within 150 years of his life. The list is as follows. 9 Traditional New Testament Authors Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude. 20 Early Christian Writers Outside the New Testament Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum. 4 Heretical Writings Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection. 9 Secular Sources Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus. . http://carm.org... It's no surprise that there isn't any documentation of Jesus until after his death because he was not a very famous figure in time of his life. Roman historian Tacitus mentions the belief in the resurrection of Jesus as "a most mischievous superstition" As the Roman empire was the most powerful of the time, documentation from the Roman's would have been much more effectively preserved than documentation of an almost unheard of "superstition" from some remote region of the world. In fact, Christianity wasn't even a popular religion until eye witnesses brought the stories into Rome around 50 AD and even then took a long while to catch on. History is written by the victors, the survivors. To the Roman Empire, Jesus was a tiny blip on their self righteous radar. Not important enough to be documented during his life, or to save any documentation of his life. The rest of your argument is invalid and was already refuted in my first argument when I talk about the quests for the historical Jesus. I sited some sources so that further information about this can be read if needed. They, in great detail, describe how the Historicity of Jesus was found to be accurate. You talk about how Josephus was born a few years after Jesus's death making his claim false because he didn't actually see him alive. .. . This is a weak argument if I ever heard one. No writings ever mentioned my great grandfather and there is no documentation of his life as he wasn't born in the United States but in Italy. Does this mean I'm an unreliable source to say he ever existed because I never saw him alive? Absolutely not. He lived not that long ago. I know people alive who knew him as Josephus would have known people who knew Jesus. This is why he mentions Jesus in such a matter of fact way. There is no question as to whether or not Jesus was real to Josephus. He just mentioned him as if expecting anyone who read his writings would simply know who he was talking about. Word of mouth may change the unimportant details, but the main picture still gets across. Thus "Least distinctiveness criterion" I can only hope your next argument is more logical. Thank you again.