You can believe in the resurrection as a matter of faith, but not as a matter of history. The New Testament is not a book of history. If Jesus was a historical figure, how was he historical (which is not the same as saying he didn't exist; he more than likely existed as a 'canvas'?) That's the question. Philo, Damis, Clovius Rufus, Pliny etc don't mention him. Much of what is claimed as evidence of early Christianity/Christians is often preserved only in apologist rebuttals. Cassius Dio's Roman History has 6 to 2 BCE and 30 CE missing for example. Quite a lot of what would establish Jesus as a historical figure (and detract from him as a supernatural figure) doesn't survive for the same reason as early Christian works contrary to the Roman Church don't survive. Building a state religion requires a lot of clerical 'assistance'.
The argument from silence is a tricky thing one to make. One has to make a compelling case for why a writer ought to have mentioned X. Josephus does twice (I'm aware of the interpolation of one of the passages but most scholars agree there is an authentic core), but then he is writing Jewish history. Why would one expect the writers you listed to mention Jesus in more detail than Josephus did?
The rest of your argument is a mix of presentism and conspiracy theory silliness. Apparently backwater preachers from two thousand years ago just leave reams of documentation for future generations to suppress.
Do you believe that the early Church retained all historical and
theological works on or referencing Jesus of Nazareth?
Poll
