jesus Christ was not a real historical figure

First I would like to say that I am a Christian so many people will believe I have a biased opinion. However, I will be looking at Jesus as a historical figure and won't be using the bible as the main source of evidence in this debate, although I will reference it from time to time. My opponent is right in saying that the Romans were incredible record keepers. However, the Romans did tend to destroy many things. One of the cities that they destroyed was named Jerusalem. For the readers that don't know, Jerusalem was the town where Jesus did many of his teachings and miracles. This means that many of the eye witness evidence and probably some documentation were destroyed. This will limit the evidence we have on Jesus. Although many documents were destroyed, there are many famous historians who wrote about him. One is ironically a first century Roman, Tacitus. He is considered one of the most accurate historians of all time. He wrote about "Christians" (this comes from the word Christus which means Christ in Latin) who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. There is also another example written by the chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian named Suetonius. He wrote about a man named Chrestus, or Christ, who lived during the first century. Those are just a few of the documents that confirm Jesus' existence. I would also like to talk about my opponents argument when he/she said that the gospels were not written by apostles. Most of the gospels, except Matthew, were not. Matthew was written by Matthew (writers of the books of the bible were very original with their names) who was a disciple of Jesus. Mark was written by John Mark, who yes wasn't a disciple, but was a follower of Jesus. This means that Mark was exposed to many eye witness accounts. The gospel Luke was written by Luke who was a Gentile physician who traveled with Paul, an apostle, on his missionary journeys. Luke was probably exposed to many stories of Jesus that Paul told him. People will think that the gospel of Luke will be the least credible source, but I will get to that in a minute. The last gospel John is written by John who also was another eye witness of Jesus. For the readers wondering what the gospels are, they are the books of the bible telling about Jesus' life. Many people ask, why are there four different books written by four different people? The answer is very simple. The four books all tell the same story of Jesus, but they are all from different view points. This helps the reader get the full story. The cool thing about the gospels is that each and every one tell about the same story. There are parts missing from some that are in others, but that's why the bible has four of them. I would also like to say that my opponent is right in saying that the documents were written many years after Jesus had ascended. He did this quite literally. He flew away up in the sky, which is pretty cool if you ask me. However, most of the writers of the gospel were out preaching and teaching about Jesus and didn't have time to sit down and write a book. Most of the writers also had great memories. In that day in age, most stories were orally transmitted, so they had to have a good memory to remember stories. If you have ever played telephone, you know that it's hard to relay even a small message around to many people. However, it can't be a coincidence that four stories all match up over a 100 years. If my opponent would please site his/hers sources to increase credibility that would be great. Sources: https://www.gotquestions.org... http://www.padfield.com...