Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure.

Hope my opponent enjoys the debate and I will counter argue his claims he made in his opening statement. ( Will post the sources I'm going to use in this debate in the comments section at the end of this debate or whenever my opponent desires) 1. ) Are the gospels really the most comprehensive source we have about Jesus? First and foremost the gospel authors are unknown for the most part and they are written in a narrative format, third person, not an actual eye witness account which would have been written in first person. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone, if so, who heard him? It becomes even clearer when it's reported what Jesus was thinking, who did Jesus confide his thoughts to in order for them to be recorded? Clearly, the gospels are not a suitable source for providing proof of a historical person. Another factor to consider is that there are no surviving original texts that provide all the gospel accounts, even dating close to the time of Jesus life. (Just copies of copies of copies) His supposed life story isn't written down until way after his alleged crucifixion and death. The gospels are a prime example of hearsay and nothing more, no proof that they came from an actual eye witness account. The most overlooked yet most outstanding piece to show that the gospels are a poor source for evidence towards his existence is writings from important figures that were alive during the supposed time Jesus was alive. Consider that the gospels write about how Jesus was so famous that people are claimed to know him from far and wide. Not only is he supposedly known far and wide but that great priests of the day, Roman governor Pilate, and Herod claim that they too heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1). There are several scriptures written in the gospels where Jesus is portrayed as being famous enough that he is heard from other nations and close neighboring cities. So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet, and a healer, with great crowds of people who supposedly knew about him, including very important figures in history, yet not a signal one of them wrote anything concerning Jesus. If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, why didn't they not write about him, if he had such an impact? Then we have a supposed miracle that occurred, that should have been recorded by anyone witnessing it that day. The day when he died on the cross and there were celestial events going on, earthquakes, the dead rising, etc. none of which are recorded by contemporary historians, not even a lowly simple person just happen to be around. I will elaborate on the next round more argument against the gospels to prove further that they are a unreliable source for his existence. 2. ) The events in Acts detail what happened immediately after Jesus was crucified. Paul's biblical letters serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts known to date, dated to around 60 C. E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that some of them were in fact written by him (including Acts). With that in mind, not a single instance in any of Paul's writings though claim that he ever meets or sees an 'earthly' Jesus (except for the alleged Damascus incident) nor does he give a detail written account about the life of Jesus. His accounts are an example of hearsay at best. 3. ) Paul was a Pharisee who grew up hating and persecuting Christians. This is a failed attempt to provide evidence for the existence of a historical person seeing that this can be likened to someone hating Hindus until one day the persecutor sees a vision of Krishna and stops hurting and starts serving Krishna's followers. Not a valid way to provide evidence toward someones existence. 4. ) There are several reference to Jesus in contemporary sources. Instead of me rewriting what my opponent had written, I will consolidate it by just presenting my counter argument. Essentially all claims about a Jesus comes from sources outside of Christian writing, yet when used as evidence for his existence it becomes poor at best because the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived years after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the supposed Messiah, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence, only hearsay. I will cover a few historians of old that made mention of Jesus: A. ) Josephus Flavius - this is a fairly overused historian that Christians use as piece to prove that Jesus in fact existed, yet his short accounts of Jesus came years after Jesus supposed life and death. Josephus was born in the year 37 C. E. which puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in the year 93 C. E. , after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, the information he presents could only serve as hearsay. B. ) Tacitus - the Roman historian's birth year was 64 C. E. put him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives brief mention of a "Christus" in the his Annals book which was written around 109 C. E. Seeing that his writings regarding Jesus are set well after his alleged life, this also puts the writings as merely hearsay. C. ) Talmud - this is used almost as much as the references made by Josephus, Christians claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a possible disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perchia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. In any case, Talmud can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus. Now take for example the works of Philo Judaeus whose birth occurred in 20 B. C. E and died in 50 C. E. He was known as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and a historian of the time. He lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding areas, yet, not once in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Messiah" nor do we find any mention of Jesus from other known historians that were alive during Jesus' supposed life. You would think that if Jesus truly had an impact, was able to draw the amount of crowds that he supposedly did, was known far and wide, you would think that a known historian living around the same time Jesus supposedly did, there would have been mention of him, but there isn't a single shred. Based on failed supposed eyewitness accounts in the gospels, the hearsay of Acts - the writings of Paul, awful outside bible sources, we can conclude that Jesus did not in fact exist. Look forward to the opponents response