Jesus probably did not exist

I accept my opponent's definitions. I think my case from the other debate doesn't need revising given what my opponent has said last round, so I'll just repeat it here.No evidence he did existFor most figures we consider historical, we have artifacts. Take Augustus. We can see his temples, buy coins he minted, read his writings carved in stone, dated to a time before his alleged death. There is strong evidence that Augustus is a historical figure. And now take Jesus. We have relics. Trouble is, zero relics have been dated to the time of Jesus, almost all have been proven fake, and there is zero evidence any of the relics were connected to Jesus other than the fact the church said so. There is only one respectable source for Jesus - literary evidence.Not all the literary evidence supports the idea that Jesus came in the flesh. Most surviving non-canonical gospels belong to one of two schools - docetism or marconism. These both taught that Jesus was not absolutely incarnate. Others aren't very clear about it, such as the gospels of Thomas or Judas, and so don't provide evidence either way. Mark is an interesting case because it's written in a midrashic style, used for Hebrew myths and fables as opposed to histories, but I'm going to give Mark the benefit of the doubt in my investigation.But let us look at what evidence we do have. We have four canonical gospels, and one or two non-canonical, such as the Acts of Pilate. We have a tiny number of references by other historians, although this number is of course dwarfed by those who made not one mention of Jesus, including historians who wrote books about the lives of important Bible figures, as well as every single contemporary writer. And we have a few dozen early letters.Let's start with the easiest - the group I tentatively called the "other" historians. There are three important ones - Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus. Others existed also, but their flaws fall into either the Suetonius, the Tacitus or the Josephus category. Suetonius mentions that followers of Christ were causing trouble (actually he says Chrestus, but let's assume he can't spell). However, that does not prove that Christ came as a physical person. Furthermore, it does not prove that this "Christ" was in fact Jesus. There were many messiahs called Christ back then, which isn't very surprising because Christ means "anointed" in ancient Greek. Tacitus mentions that Christ was executed by Pilate. However, he does not tell us how he found out this information. It cannot have been an official document, because they would have called the man "Jesus" and not "Christ" (Christianity being illegal at the time). In fact, the only people who were calling him Christ were either Christians themselves, or Romans who knew very little about Christian beliefs and hadn't done enough fact-checking to know his name was Jesus. It is more probable that Tacitus was the latter. Josephus mentions Jesus twice, but the text has almost certainly been edited by Christians, because before the 4th century, writers quoting Josephus give a very different account of the passages. In all likelihood, the original version probably had a Tacitus error, but given that we don't have access to it in full there's nothing we can say about it, therefore it is not evidence.The letters are all not eyewitness accounts. Galatians 1 and 2 respectively make it clear that Paul and Peter, the two most proximate authors of the letters to Jesus (if the authorship of Peter is authentic, which even Christian historians doubt), were giving their testimony through divine revelation instead of meeting the guy. Most of the letters are from long after Jesus' death. But here's where it gets interesting. Every letter authored before about AD 80 (Romans, Philippians etc) only mentions Jesus in the future tense, as if Jesus will soon come and be a saviour. After the gospels, later letters (including the infamous book of Revelation that even Eusebius and Origen had serious doubts about) clarify this by explaining Jesus both has come and will be coming back. This theology is not reflected in the early letters. And to really ram the nail home - NONE of the epistles mention a HUMAN Jesus.According to Randall Helm's book "Who Wrote the Gospels", Mark could not have been writing at closer to the third remove from Jesus, and probably the fourth. Luke and Matthew primarily copied Mark, while John was written much later. According to the Christian estimate, the gospel was written in AD 70, 40 years after Jesus' death. From a sceptical perspective this is quite ridiculous, as it is based upon nothing but the fact that tiny portions of the text are attributed to a gospel by John Mark in church accounts written around AD 95, and the church just assumes the church fathers took 25 years to notice the gospel's existence at a time when the average Judean life expectency was 29. Imagine if I was to ask five friends about Hitler (died a little less than one modern lifetime ago), put all that into a grand narrative about Hitler's life, and then have somebody else add in an ending 150 years later (where Hitler rises from the dead to make it consistant with Hollywood movies). Now imagine if, 2000 years from now, that's the BEST evidence we have for the existence of Hitler. Before now, nobody thought to write anything about this guy. It might be rational to conclude the NAZIs existed, but not Hitler. I don't know whether my five friends lied, made a mistake, or genuinely believed something that did not happen. Remember that none of the people the author of Mark asked knew Jesus. And that's presuming that Mark told the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.Good evidence he did not existI'm going to point to two bodies of evidence. Character counts limit the detail I can give to these points, but they will be expanded on in later rounds.The first body of evidence is the apparent similarity of the Jesus story to that of pre-existing saviour narratives. Given that everything we know about historical Jesus is literally by Chinese Whispers, it seems more than plausible that it developed out of other traditions. Narrative similarity is itself strong evidence that the later narrative was written to be as the earlier one.Examples would include:Orphism (Dionysus)Similar or same birth, death, trial, afterlife, epithets and symbolsZoroastrianism (Zoroaster)Similar or same birth, baptism, temptation, miracles and second comingEgyptian religion (Horus)Similar or same birth, baptism, miracles and deathThis is not to say that Jesus was the same as these characters, but that the fitting of the Jesus narrative to these narrative archtypes indicates the the Jesus narrative is a traditional saviour narrative rather than a historical record.The second body of evidence is that writings detailing Jesus' life are notoriously contradictory and counterfactual. The real world is completely consistant and factual, so these stories cannot possibly be both non-fiction and accurate. We have very early copies of the stories available to us in the latest Bibles, and they're pretty accurate (not entirely, but probably better than most historical texts). This shows that the stories are almost certainly not factual narratives. Some examples of contradictions:Matthew 1:17 and Matthew 1:2 - is it 41 or 42 generations?2 Timothy 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 7:12 - one says all scripture is of God, the other that some was written by the author (apparently Paul) and is not of God.Acts 20:35 - references a passage that does not existLuke 4:29 - Nazareth is not on a mountain but in a depressionMatthew 14 - John the Baptist was beheaded 5 years later according to Roman recordsLuke 2:1 - The census actually took place a decade after Herod's deathJudas' ending - contradicts Gethsemene storyThomas 42 and Luke 10:25-37 - conflicting advice of Jesus