The Jesus of the Bible Probably Existed

Introduction: I hate to repeat myself but it seems I am not being understood. I am not arguing the existence of Jesus according to or as stated by the Bible. I am arguing for the historical existence of said person. While the Bible does refer to Jesus as Christ, son of God, son of man, the true vine, and etcetera, I am only referring to the existence of said person and not the validity of the titles ascribed. Jesus "of" the Bible in no way implies that I am arguing for the actions, miracles or titles ascribed in the Bible, but rather for the historical existence of the one they were ascribed to. "I fail to see how any reading of the resolution can refer to ONLY Jesus of Nazareth, considering the Bible explicitly states the Jesus is the Christ." Sad I suppose. I expected more from my opponent. We are not arguing the validity of ascribed titles; we are talking about historical existence. My opponent's misunderstanding does not change the resolutions proper understanding. If he needed clarification he should have asked. His misrepresentation still stands as egregious and conniving. .;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^? "False - unless my opponent contends that the Bible only gives an account of Jesus of Nazareth." What other Jesus does it give an account of? The existence of the Jesus of the Bible is not contingent on the titles ascribed therein. I wrote about how my Dad was superman once. It turns out I was wrong. My dad, the one I wrote about, still existed even though the ascribed superhuman title was incorrect. .;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^? I accept my opponent's forfeiture via concession. I have given him another round to respond to my first 3 arguments and he has left me with nothing to refute. Indeed he concedes that Jesus existed. .;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^? 4. Well what you have read is apparently not congenial with contemporary scholarship – but that is neither here nor there. Textual criticism has revealed that all extant manuscripts have virtually no margin of error. The fact is that Paul wrote epistles approximately ten years after Jesus' death. The Gospels as oral traditions existed even before that! The notion that Paul does not mention Jesus in Romans 11:26-27 is ridicules – he is quoting Old Testament scripture. Before that he refers to the Gospel, which, by definition, is the good news of Jesus. Even still, Paul's entire ministry was predicated on the idea that Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy. Before he ever starts preaching to the gentiles, he visits the Jewish synagogues to try and convince the Jews. Let me say this again as my opponent is not getting it: the problem is that the time between the events themselves and the authorship of the gospels is too short for the MEMORY OF WHAT ORIGINALLY HAPPENED (or had not happened) to be erased. .;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^? 5. I am arguing for the historical existence of Jesus, not the validity of the titles ascribed. My opponent compares suicide bombers to Jesus' immediate followers. The problem? The suicide bombers had convinced themselves that there interpretation of the Quran was correct. That is to say, they died for something they thought to be true. The difference? My opponent would have to contend that Jesus' immediate followers were persecuted, tortured and killed for something they knew very well to be false. If they actually did not see an empty tomb, and really did not have post-mortem visitations – they all died for something they knew was not true. Why? It is more parsimonious to believe that they died for a person that literally existed. .;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^? A.The Horus Comparison My opponent is not showing any extant Egyptian sources. First of all, Horus was not born of a virgin. Isis was married beforehand and had sex with a makeshift penis on a revivified Osiris (1). Then my opponent goes on to make the lamest connection between a boat race and Jesus walking on water. Horus only had 4 followers that were demigods. There is vague mention of 16 human followers and then an unnumbered amount of blacksmiths that joined him in battles (2). This is supposed to be considered a viable parallel? .;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^? "Wikipedia article on the Epistles... I will track down the quotes from their actual works and put them in the comment field - they are too long for here. Also, this is not irrelevant - it goes to the application of Christianization and how the message was spread." My opponent gave only 2 quotes from Justin. These quotes actually show that mythology was stealing from Jewish tradition. .;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^?.;'^? Conclusion: A. My opponent believes that I need to argue for what the Bible called Jesus. This is not the case. I needed only to argue the historical existence of the Jesus of the Bible – not for the validity of the names they called him. B. He conceded Jesus' existence and thus loses the debate C. He fails to give extant Egyptian manuscripts to support his points. D. His idea that Jesus is a compilation of Greco-Roman mythology is neither parsimonious nor defensible. The supposed parallels are dubious, lies, oversimplifications, or post-date Christianity. E. Where's the beef? Thank you, InquireTruth Sources: 1.Frazer, J. G. Adonis, Attis, Osiris. 1961. 2.http://tektonics.org...