Jesus probably did not exist

Thank's for the debate, Larz! Last retort: My opponent claims that the Bible is a candidate for flash and elaberate stories. This considering that the Bible is the most well preserved document in history and has endless archeaological evidence. My opponent brings elements that Biblical writers are dishonest. I think, I shown shown that my opponent himself puts words out there that just was not said, this right here show's my opponents case can not be trusted. My opponent claims Zoroaster was fictional. Zoroaster was born in eastern Iran and lived from about 660 BCE to 583 BCE by most resources. My opponent then still goes on about Matthew being incorrect about the number of generations. It is not Matthew's fault if my opponent can not read nor add properly when it is clearly shown that David was added twice and Matthew never stated 42 generations, that is a addition by my opponent. In Timothy and the Corinthians claim, I offer you this: If I go around saying things and people hearing me write it down, then later on a friend of my companions write something that it is known I said, is that making things up I did not say. No, it would still in fact be my words. Then my opponent tries give indication what Biblical authors meant in Acts. Well my opponent's judgement is faulty at best and that is not what we are looking for, we are looking for correct interpretation. My opponent then further claims that there is no mountain in Nazareth, well no there is not, Nazareth sit's on a mountain, again in round two I provided varification for this. Then my opponent suggest that it impossible for Quirinus to not be governor twice, Lol, any respectable historian would not make any claims of the such because that is very well what it is, a claim. Then my opponent claims that scripture is false and then want's us to accept non-canonical scripture as fact. My opponent then suggest that Mark was to old to recount Jesus Christ to give us a accurate portraile in the gospels. That is just nonsense to think older men could not remember what they have seen, then or today. Debate Summary: Let's summarize this debate in short. I have stated that, Jesus was virtually unknown for thirty years of His life and only in the last three years of His life was He a public figure. This fact is just one of many reasons why Jesus Christ would have little records outside the Bible. Another reason I mentioned, is that Jesus lived in Judea a small providence outside the major landscape of the world. My opponent brought up non-canonical scripture that in fact helped my case because these record's also noted a man named Jesus Christ of the Bible. We know, Jesus is known throughout the world to this very day, which shows that either the world has love for fantasy instead of real life or Jesus Christ actually existed. Scriptures have minimal errors. They remain some of the most well documented recording's in history and my opponent concedes this fact. We have shown numerous acient historians as recording Jesus Christ as follows: (Josephus ben Mattathias)Antiquities, XVIII, 33 (Jewish Antiquities 20:29)- He says Josephus's account was edited by Christians despite modern day historians and scholars having the surving original copies. Cornelius Tacitus, (AD55-120) Roman historian- Tacitus is a renowned historian by not only Roman's but most of the world. He is not even the shadow of the character my opponent paints nor is his accounts. Suetonius: Roman historian and court official- Suetonius places Christians in the Roman capital less than 20 years after Jesus Christ. He reports that they were suffering for their faith and dying for their conviction that Jesus had really lived. He also reported that they made numerous disturbances. Pliny the Younger was the governor of Bithynia (AD 112) and a Roman senator- Pliny refers that Jesus Christ was worshipped as God. That Christians met on a fixed day of the week. They sang songs to Christ and committed Holy behavior. Julius Africanus- around AD221- wrote that an eclipse happened in the same time period as Jesus's death and records that fact. The Babylonian Talmud- The Talmud simply recorded what the Jews were merely accounting towards Christian's and Jesus Christ. My opponent never offered any reason why the Talmud would record a made up account. We established that Jesus Christ had a few names. In Hebrew, "Yehoshua", in Aramaic, "Yeshu", in Greek and Roman, "Chrestus or Christus". Voting: Who had better conduct? I feel we both had fairly good conduct. I think this is a even vote here but that is always up for the voters discretion. Who had better spelling and grammar? I know I had a couple of spelling errors. This could go evenly but I can understand if my opponent takes this vote. Who made more convincing arguments? Since my opponent really had all the BOP and I have poked many wholes in his case, then this should be awarded to Con. Pro failed to make any sure fire points against The Bible or historians(weither Jewish, Greek, Christian or any variant). Resolution is not affirmed! !!