The Christian God is more likely to exist than Pagan Gods

In this final round I want to just briefly refute my opponents arguments in his last post, give a summary of my argument as well as refute his former arguments again. Am I claiming that Jesus never existed? No. I am simply saying that there is a possibility that Jesus never existed. Many scholars agree with me. My opponent claims that "thousands" of Christians claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the dead? This is utterly false. There were witnesses who were claimed (in the gospels) to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead, but NONE of these individuals wrote first hand accounts of the resurrection. In fact, as I said earlier, all of the accounts of Jesus's life were written decades or a century after his death and there is little evidence they were written by the apostles. The gospel of luke, the author even admits he was not an eyewitness. My opponent asks how Jesus' followers could have claimed he rose form the dead if he didn't exist. If he didn't exist then he didn't have any followers to begin with. .. How could Christianity have grown if Jesus never existed? Haha, I don't know. .. Very easily probably. I would counter: How could the Greek mythology have grown so much if Zeus or Hercules never existed? Same logic. .. Did Jesus exist? I don't know. IF Jesus existed then his entire life is a mystery because of the (proven) strong influence from pagan myths. See: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Many aspects of Jesus' life and mythology were taken from pagan mythologies. Virgin birth, death by Crucifixion, resurrection, birth on Christmas, etc. The list goes on and the parallels are far too strong to be pure coincidence. My opponent seems to believe that the accounts in the New Testament are totally accurate and infallible. This is a stretch by any means, and can't be defended. I previously offered the idea of the "Swoon" theory to explain the resurrection of Jesus. My opponent seems to believe that the swoon theory is absurd because he takes everything the N. T. says literally. While, in all likelihood, most of it is fictional. Thus, maybe Jesus was put up on a cross and he wasn't speared. Maybe he wasn't speared that badly, maybe he wasn't on a cross at all. Who knows? I'm just offering a non-supernatural and worldly explanation that is more likely than a supernatural explanation. The problem with arguing in support of a 2,000 year old account of a supernatural event, written by people who (by all evidence) didn't even witness the event is that one can dismiss any aspect of the story. It is my opponent's burden to prove that the accounts are historically accurate, reliable, and more likely than not to be true. Now, to summarize my arguments. .. *There is no evidence that Zeus existed. I do not need evidence to make Zeus more likely. I do not need arguments either. There are none and I admit this. Does this mean that Jesus is more likely simply because arguments exist for Jesus? No. Not if the arguments themselves are invalid. *Jesus was prophesied by the O. T? This assertion can only be valid if the prophecy is totally true and free of contradictions or pitfalls. In fact, it isn't as I mentioned above. You can't say that the prophecy from a divine creator of the universe exists if there are problems with the prophecy. That just makes no sense. So. .. In summary.