Did Jesus Exist

"And yes, we can't violate the laws of G-d, think of it, when is the last time you saw a Jew eat of the pork?" This is obviously false, due to the fact that if Jews never violated the laws of God, that would make you sinless, which means the Burnt Offerings and Sin Offerings to God during the exile of Egypt would've been pointless? From a biblical standpoint, the suffering of the world enters through sin, are you saying that all the times God punished the Israelites by losing battles and becoming captive wasn't because they broke his commands and disobeyed him? "That being before this you would be burnt at the stake for something like that." This is a fair argument once the Roman Catholic Church was established during the 4th century onwards, however, you still have 300 years where political enemies such as Lucian of Samosata who had a great hatred for Christianity in the 2nd century, never doubted the existence of Jesus. "and here's a good point t bring up, Mark 16:9-16, it isn't in he original manuscripts, {1} {2}" We don't know whether or not Mark 16:9-20 was within the original manuscripts, since for no ancient work do we have original documents, and before you try to use this to your defense, just remember my previous argument of manuscript tradition in comparison to other ancient writings. Mark 16:9-20 as you said, probably wasn't within the manuscripts, as it isn't present in the Codex Vaticanus and Siniaticus of the 4 century, since it wasn't within the original, you then can't use this to historically undermine the gospels narrative of Mark, as it wasn't his writing in the 1st place. Secondly, Mark 16, has nothing to do with the crucifixion, and is one of the two examples of interpolations along with John 7:56-8 within the gospels, apart from these two, 99% of the text is can be established by scholars and historians as original, that 1% is spelling punctuation and grammar. "And the Sanhedrin isn't a historic record, even if it was its story is different than that told by the Non-Testament since it says Jesus was hung," It's quite a paradox when someone who is Jewish undermines the reliability of the Talmud, the main source for a large amount of Jewish History and commentaries on the Torah. Crucifixion, was actually a form of hanging, the majority of people crucified, didn't die as a result of bleeding, but rather the asphyxiation or suffocation, caused by the bodyweight collapsing onto the lungs, even in Acts, we find the word "hung" being used, the same author as that of the Gospel of Luke, it's a common term for crucifixion that the Romans used. "there are many people who are Named Joshua," The same way there are many people called Aaron? That's an irrelevant comment, there's only one person we know who in the 1st century was called Jesus and considered a sorcerer and leading the Jews astray who resulted in dying by crucifixion, can you name another who had these events? I don't think so. "Josephus was born in 37 C.E., 4 years after the death of Jesus, {3} so....." yes, so what? I even stated this in my previous argument, are you saying historians of today can't make sense of the events of WW2? through primary sources? From the educated background, being raised by Jewish Pharisees who had internal divisions within Christians, following the rising of Christianity throughout his life and fighting in the Jewish War, don't you think in his antiquities of the Jews when mentioning Jesus, TWICE, if he didn't exist would state it?