I don’t claim that David, Moses, etc are still alive.
***Follow the ball. David died. So did Moses. Neither died due to claiming equality with God. Jesus died due to this claim, even his enemies acknowledge it. There is no other person in history with this much evidence of what happened at his death, and why he was put to death.
Pontius Pilate did leave behind a stone carving with his name and title. That appears to be more than the contemporary evidence of Jesus that is available to us.
***Is that your standard? That there has to be contemporary evidence of the person? in rock, rather than on paper?
The John Rylands papyrus is the oldest piece of paper with New Testament writing on it. It’s dated to AD 130, and was found in Egypt. Modern historians accept manuscript evidence of historical persons such as Julius Caesar dated several CENTURIES after their death. How do you defend your position against all of modern history?
There is another stone inscription which verifies bible factual history: the title of treasurer for Erastus. Historians use these titles as a way of dating things, because if a document was written many years later they tend to have the wrong titles of the people mentioned.
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/erastus.php
So there appears to be 2 people in the new testament whom you accept as historical because there’s a piece of rock with their name on it. Does this mean you do not accept Julius Caesar as historical if his paper chronicles are thrown out but he has to have a rock with his name on it? There’s only a handful of people in history with this distinction. Having this as a standard is irrational. Look at the title of this thread.
People were posting christian symbols on their tombs before the year AD 70. Is that contemporary enough for you?
http://www.esgetology.com/2012/02/29/discovery-earliest-archeological-evidence-for-christianity/
He has a rock with his face on it, wobbling on his shoulders.
Keep in mind, Jesus putatively died about CE 27 to CE33. That would be contemporary.
AD 70.... not so much.
Imagine if there was noone who had ever written about G. Washington until 1825. What a loss that would be.