I wonder who these doctors of religion are, from whom rob takes such assurance to bolster his unbelief in even the person of Christ . I can certainly cite many whose relevant qualifications apply, who vouch for his historicity. but to be fair, it should be the data/ evidence, not the numbers and authority arguments that count.......or I should be doing the same as the evolutionists , in arguing from that angle.
an argument from silence is hardly conclusive, and that argument assumes that political, secular commentators will make much mention of religious issues. however, reference to Jesus and/or his followers are not so far removed, and are close enough to be challenged at the time. there are more than rob concedes...
pliny the younger, writing to emperor Trajan
the Syrian,mara ben-serapion [british museum]
tacitus
Suetonius in -the life of Claudius.
josephus...there is an incidental ref beside the contested ref.
the Talmud contains hostile ref [ which makes it all the more valuable !]
most of the foregoing if not all, may not be written in Jesus' lifetime here, but might well be closer to the time than many other events and persons that are accepted as historical.....as, for those, there are no philosophical filtering considerations.

there have been many claims that details in the bible were wrong, but then archaeology has confirmed them. it is now known that quirinius held relevant office on two occasions, and so lukes setting seems to be confirmed. wait long enough, and chances are other details will be too.