"...as I previously mentioned I am not claiming them as absolute proof and irrefutable evidence of the existence of Jesus, though I certainly think they point that way."

They do not in any way point to absolute proof or irrefutable evidence. At best, they are a vague indication that he may have existed. But a neutral observer, taking the evidence you've presented, would probably put it at less than 50-50. I have no dog in this fight, as the historicity of a Jesus, or not, makes not a jot of difference to me. The lack of certainty on my part is irrelevant. The lack of certainty on your part is far more problematic, because everything you want to tell people about your faith is predicated on certainty. I have no desire to prove that Jesus never existed, but I have every desire to get you to admit that there is a distinct possibility that he didn't.