There are references to Jesus in Josephus. Of disputed authenticity, but they're there. Also the "bible" - or more accurately the New Testament - is a collection of somewhat independent writings about Jesus. So you can't dismiss it as useless when considering historical events.
We accept Julius Caesar's history of his campaigns in Gaul as authentic even though the most recent manuscripts we have were written 1300 years after those events and are fragmentary at best.
No, we recognise that Caesar's writings contain a great many fabrications and exaggerations, seeing as they were written for propaganda purposes.
During the Spanish retreat from the Aztec capital it has been accepted that Alvarado pole vaulted over a gap in the causeway using his spear even though experts say it was physically impossible.
Thanks for proving my point. There is no objective, independent evidence of Jesus' existence. As you rightly point out, Josephus' writings on the subject are highly contested and, in any event, his accounts of the origins of Christianity were written close to a century after Jesus supposedly died. Likewise, the New Testament is also highly suspect as pure contemporaneous evidence of Jesus' existence, as they were also written decades later.
Numerous writings accepted as historical accounts were written sometimes hundreds or even thousands of years later.
Most of which are backed up by corroborating or archaeological evidence. Again, I ask what do you need evidence for when you have faith?
Paul Bunyon's bootprints became the great lakes. He also cleared forests with one swing of his axe. Pecos Bill ride a tornado. Both of those historical figures were witnessed by several people and their accounts were written as they happened or shortly there after.
Josephus didn't write about the origins of Christianity. He made two references to Jesus in a work about something else (60 years after his death, not close to a century) and at least one of these references is probably authentic. The New Testament is obviously unreliable in its specifics, but it is difficult to maintain the position that the writings of several independent eye-witnesses are all pure invention. I'm not clear what you would regard as "independent" or "objective" in this context.
There are no writings from antiquity that are accepted uncritically. If you have counter-examples, then name them.
Wait on a sec, why would anyone need to pray to an omniscient god? If she needs informing of current event she can't exactly know everything can she?
I don't need proof. I have faith. And as you haven't provided links to accounts to prove what you are claiming then I am not obligated to do so.
What about Livy's accounts of the history of Rome? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_Urbe_Condita_Libri_(Livy)
That's providing proof that someone has won the lottery. Lottery officials aren't omniscient, they cannot know everything. Your claims in the past have said that your God is omniscient and all knowing. Your analogy this time, like many other times is flawed and not relevant to the point you are failing to prove.
IIRC, I read about and I'm 53% sure. The articles are somewhere in a rabbit hutch, and I am not obligated to prove anything to non believers.
What a pity @Dayton3 obviously cannot read, so he's resorted to using to what he's referred as idiotic emoticons.
Read your own link Dayton. That contains stories of Aenaes. Do you think those are regarded as historical?
Dayton's link has material that is pornographic in nature and is NSFW. He should receive a warning for that.