Fred, wilful ignorance is certainly on display. There is no contemporary corroborating evidence of the Jesus story.
Tacitus was not born until the late 1st century CE. So he was not a contemporary of Jesus, and can only at best have been recording later reports from Christians, which is clearly not corroborating evidence but only a repetition of what Christians already said.
Josephus, too, was born after the supposed time of Jesus, so was not a contemporary. Moreover, the single to Jesus in his work is widely regarded by historians as having been altered by later scribes.
If we had an unaltered text, from the actual time the events are supposed to have taken place, that was historically verifiable as being from a source without a Christian bias, then you might have a case.
Until then, there is no good reason to accept any part of the Jesus story, and to believe it anyway is wilful ignorance.
