You obviously haven't done your research.
Oh, but I have. Based on your replies in this thread so far and also on your extra-biblical "contemporary" historical sources you brought as evidence for Jesus existence, I'd rather suggest you spend some more time doing research.
Why did a HUGE movement of the spread of Christianity start if Jesus didn't even exist?
And now you're just falling back to fallacies to push your point.
This is both an appeal to belief as well as an appeal to popularity. "A lot of people started believing X, thus X must be true."
That certain aspects of Christianity made it appealing to both the ruling elite (for whom it was a useful tool) as well as to the uneducated masses (for whom it made their hardship a little bit more bearable) is by no means an argument that the story of the NT is actually true.
"Why did a HUGE movement of the spread of the Islam start if Mohammed didn't even exist?"
"Why did a HUGE movement of the spread of Buddhism start if the Buddha didn't even exist?"
And as a side note it should not be forgotten that Christianity only became such a "HUGE" movement after
it was declared state religion of the Roman empire and was spread by the sword. In the time before that it was far away from being a "HUGE" movement.
Shouldn't it also give you pause that according to the NT thousands of Jews revered Jesus and witnessed his miracles yet the areas where all of the NT is supposed to have taken place were also the ones where Christianity was hardly picked up at all?
You could know Jesus was real without any sources
Can I interest you in some snake oil? A lot of people swear on it, so you can know it works without any sources to show the claim is real, right?
but I'll give you some anyway.
I had some hopes to see something new, but unfortunately that's not the case.
I shall quote myself:
There are two very important things about this passage in Tacitus' Annals:
1) This passage in the Annals is about the persecution of Christians by Nero. It is strange however, that this is the only passage in all of Tacitus' numerous works, where he mentions this. Nowhere else in all his writings does he write so much as a single sentence about this.
It is even stranger, that early Christians, who did have access to his works, never mention this. Clement of Alexandria or Tertullian, two of the great early apologists, simply don't know about this passage or any persecution of Christians by Nero despite having access to Tacitus' works (including the Annals).
The earliest point in history, that this passage in the Annals is mentioned is in the fifteenth century. Strangely nobody ever noticed it before...
2)Assuming the passage is genuine and written by Tacitus himself, his sources are likely of christian origin instead of any official records, because there are a number of flaws in the passage in question:
a)Pilate was a prefect and not a procurator. (and if he had been a procurator then Tacitus would have written his title as “procurator of XYZ” and not just called him “procurator”)
b) Tacitus does not use Jesus' name but writes “a man called Christ was executed.” “Christ” is a title, not a name. Why should the Roman records say that “the Messiah” was executed?
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." -Flavius Josephus
Ah, the good old Flavius Josephus and his "Antiquities of the Jews." It's a classic which always turns up in any discussion about historical evidence for Jesus.
It has just one little flaw: This whole passage about Jesus is a complete forgery.
There are a lot of things wrong with this passage, so I will name a few for good measure.
a) The passage does not fit in with the surrounding text.
b) The whole passage is extremely pro-christian in writing. That should make you wonder, as Josephus was a pharisaic jew, who did not hide his dislike for the new Christian cult in his other works. It even makes Josephus seem Christian, given how highly he speaks of Jesus, even going so far to wonder if he can actually be called a man.
c) In this passage Josephus calls Jesus “messiah”, yet according to the church father Origen Josephus did not recognize Jesus as messiah nor did he believe in any other Christian claim of miracles of Jesus.
d) Josephus writes about this period of time in some of his other works too, but this passage or any passage mentioning this is nowhere to be found in those.
e) None of the early apologists like Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria and not even the church father Origen, who otherwise quoted often from Josephus' works, picked this up and you have to keep in mind that they had access to the Antiquities and were actively searching for passages and quotes like that. The earliest point in time, where this passage is mentioned in 324 AD by Eusebius.
f) As late as 891 AD this passage still does not appear in most works concerning the “Antiquities of the Jews.”
g) Even several centuries later there are versions of the "Antiquities of the Jews" that are reported to be missing this particular passage.
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others" -Flavius Josephus
Another interesting passage from the Antiquities of the Jews
But once again it's of not much use since "who was called Christ" is deemed to be a later interpolation. This little line is one of the two only times Josephus ever uses the word "Christ" (the other time the word "Christ" turns up is in the forged passage you cited before this one).
And just as Christians always demand that verses out of the bible should not be taken out of context, we should also look at this passage in context. Because, surprise, the aforementioned Jesus turns up again just a few lines below that one.
"on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him [Ananus, the one who brought James to court], when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest"