Has Mr. Paulkovich read carefully the 126 authors?

Is he aware that the Talmud mentions the historical

Jesus describing him as a law transgressor, practicing Magic and whose disciples cured ill persons in his
name? Besides that:

Pliny the Younger, historian and proconsul of Bithynia, mentions Jesus in a letter to the roman emperor
Trajan.

Suetonius, historian, mentions in his Life of the Twelve Cesars a man named Chrestus, describing him as
a troublemaker among the Jews in 49.

A Syriac manuscript (#14658 British Museum) mentions the name of Christ: it's a letter from a Syrian
named Mara ben Serapion to his son, encouraging him to follow the path of wisdom like Socrates,
Pythagoras and Christ.

There are many others proofs and testimonies in the any languages spoken at that time in that region.
There are also linguistic facts and proofs as well as archeologic ones.

Now, even if Jesus didn't exist historically, why bother arguing on that topic? Unless there is a hidden
motivation