Seems to me there are lots of secular records that have nothing to do with religion that mention Jesus. The second link provided above shows a ton of different people mentioning big and little things that coincide with both the Bible and History.

IF he didn't exist, then why would so many different people from such diversified places mention the same name/man?

Now, Paul......how come if someone gives you "proof" of EXACTLY what you wanted, i.e. Roman records that Jesus existed, do you still contend that the Bible is fictional? Do you also believe the Quran is false too? Did we not all agree that it (the Quran) has not been translated from it's original form? If so, how would that religious book be "tainted" as you claim the Bible has been via it's translations? If THAT is so, then how could a religious book that we all agree has not been lost to translation mention the existance of Jesus Christ yet he NOT exist at all?

In other words, connect the dots. The Bible says he lived. The Quran said he lived. The historical records said he lived. Why would anyone say he didn't then?