Just to rebut 2 of your argumentsBeowulf DW said:1) I only mentioned Buddha and Muhammed to offer some comparisons and as such they DO have a bearing on this argument. If it's true of those two religions (or at least just Islam) it might be true of Christianity as well.
2) If you don't trust the Church (I don't blame you), how can you trust whatever source you're using? If the Church burned the older documents and killed the questioners, what information are you going on? If it's information obtained recently through archeological digs and such, then by your own reasoning it's useless because this information was recorded after the fact.
3) Just because they opposed the Church, that doesn't mean that the opposers automatically told the truth. They may have had their own motivations, say...undermining an entity that they saw as a threat.
1) The existence of Mohammad is not evidence of the existence of Jesus. We are debating historical evidence to their existence, not probability.
3) (this is in response to your 3rd argument, I am not a numerical tard) Just because they ARE the Church, that doesn't mean that they automatically tell the truth. They may have had their own motivations, say...undermining an entity that they saw as a threat.