[Manco]

I'm sorry I promise I'm not trying to be snarky or down right rude to you but I am so tired from rugby, can I just link you this wikipedia article to you, it gives for and I think against arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

From that very article:

Material which refers to Jesus includes the books of the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, hypothetical sources which many biblical scholars argue lie behind the New Testament, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources[24] such as Josephus, gnostic and other apocryphal documents, and early Christian creeds.[25] Not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable,[26][27][28][29][30][31] and elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as the resurrection and certain details about the crucifixion.[32][33][34][35][36]

The evidence for the existence of Jesus all comes from after his lifetime.[37][38][39] As a result, some critics argue that Biblical scholars have created the historical Jesus in their own image.[40][41] A small number of scholars believe the gospel accounts are so mythical in nature that nothing, not even the very existence of Jesus, can be determined from them.[42]

There's no hard, historical evidence of Jesus' existence that wasn't written after his death. Like OANST said, no proof of birth, imprisonment or death.