@Rubric:
I don't think I'm demanding too much evidence at all. We're talking about a man who was supposedly a god, who brought great upheavals socially, politically and religiously who started a religion that went on to surround the earth. You're saying it is unreasonable to demand a single eyewitness account, a single diary entry even mentioning a man who resembles Christ? Why are all documents regarding Christ dated 3 decades after his supposed death or later? As for Tacticus on Christ, all that made clear was that there existed a heretic Jew, who was executed, and that he was linked to a new religious movement across Judea. Firstly, this annal was written, once again, several decades after the supposed death of Christ, and that it makes no reference to a source makes me understandably skeptical. Secondly, Tacticus didn't even know the name of this "leader of the Christians," something he would have known if his sources actually said anything about the man. Once again, this is a hearsay account based on decades old information from a dubious, unknown source.
The recounts of his life fulfil prophecies that had been considered mutually exlusice: the imagery of both lion (warrior-king) and lamb (sacrifice), as an example among many. A rather basic response on the part of the Christian believer would be that other belief systems mirror christianity so that it makes them more believable, as they then carry the ring of truth.
The other belief systems in question predate Christ, and often even Judaism. However given that Christ was supposedly divine, and that he came to Earth solely to profess these belief systems, as Inkwell said, why wouldn't he go to a place where the basic philosophy already existed? Why would a god whose purpose was to save mankind from their sins, only profess his teachings to a single small Middle-Eastern country?
I would cite a basic truism that many young earth creationists forget when overreaching with their arguments concerning the fossil record: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. To argue that such is the case is an argument from ignorance and generally considered to be fallacious.
Quite true - but the absence of evidence (valid evidence) does mean that we cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion. So while it's quite possible Christ existed, lack of evidence means that it cannot be proven.
