Jesus of Nazareth never existed

"No, they were not anonymous… written the Gospels." Wikipedia on the Gospel of Matthew states, "Irenaeus had reasons to convince his readers of the apostolic origin of the books: Irenaeus and many other Church leaders were involved in heated debate over correct doctrine... Each group adhering to a certain doctrine had books in proof of their view. In order to support the authenticity of previously anonymous gospels, names were attached to them."(1) "For one thing, you claim that… can actually be countered." It's rather absurd to think that "critical textural research" can occur on a specific page number in a book, or that credible critical textural research is found from an online source. The evidence is in these books, in tens or hundreds of pages, with the testimonies of knowledgeable authors. It's simply regrettable that they are not more easily accessible, but that is a problem inherent to high-level debates like this one. "Furthermore, it really does you… would be needed." A bit more evidence for what? That Jesus isn't the son of God? At what point does evidence become irrelevant and faith become sufficient? I ask only because there will reach a certain point in this discussion where my claims are rejected on the basis that "Jesus is a miracle-worker" or that "John was blessed by Jesus with the good fortune to live 4x the average life expectancy of a man at that time." Dating could be wrong, or it could be right. I am not infallible, nor are the archeologists and historians investigating this time period. Nevertheless, "the burden of proof lies on those who believe Jesus existed as a real person". A 50% chance of these dates being correct does not mean anything, just as a 50% chance of Jesus being a real person does not mean anything. "Well, by all means, give us this detailed look... Yet again, I encounter source-less claims about general scholars." For those unfamiliar, it is commonly referred to as the Synoptic Problem, which remains completely unsolved. In the three Synoptic Gospels, there are numerous lines that are almost copy and pasted into one another, which is a problem if the Gospels were constructed in very different places at very different times, as is likely the case. It seems that Mark is the source for the other two Gospels. I refer you to source (2) for a detailed analysis of the textural similarities between these documents and the hypotheses regarding the "Priority of Mark": the thought that Mark is the source of the other two Gospels. "Ah, but how do they disagree?" For one, they disagree about the length of Jesus' ministry, which is a rather important point and something the apostles should have known equally well. The Synoptic Gospels estimate the length to be 1 year and the alleged Gospel of John estimates 3 years(3). "And could you give an online source to back the Greek argument?" (4). "Perhaps the idea of ‘an… about fifty people per sermon, and it would be a great multitude under the eyes of some." That is beside the point. Apparently, all of the scribes knew of Jesus, so it is disingenuous to think that despite there being no evidence, that there could be evidence or was evidence that was unfortunately destroyed. All I have to say is try working that defense in a court of law. "Furthermore, the Bible is that something that survived." The Bible is hearsay evidence. The apostles did not write the Gospels. Their names were attached to the Gospels, which were until that point anonymous. "If all of the Romans… done a very good job." Well, that's a possibility. Unfortunately, that's all it is. Aside from that, there is little evidence to support that the Romans hated Jesus that much, or feared Jesus that much so as to erase him from history. There is no evidence that the Romans hated Jesus. Mark's Gospel says that Pontius Pilate tried to release Jesus on the pretext that he should release a prisoner during the Passover, but the people demanded that he crucify him, while Pilate asked, "Why? What evil has he done?" (15:6-14). "Many of the people who met Jesus were probably illiterate, so only a few people could write decent accounts of Jesus: the four Gospels." Jerusalem was a center for education and Jewish record keeping, and the Romans were quite diligent in their reports. Consider Philo Judaeus, a noted philosopher and historian of the era who lived in the region of Jerusalem, and wrote detailed accounts of events in his neighborhood during the time of Jesus. And yet not one word of Jesus. Was Philo was literate? "… it is easily possible… the exception of the Bible." I will grant your conclusion, namely that it is possible. Unfortunately, I conclude possibility is not good enough. The Bible is hearsay and clearly contradicted by the facts that we have independent of that one source. The Gospels are not the product of the apostles. The Synoptic problem poses a specific problem for anyone who wants to believe that the Gospels are really accurate at all. The Gospels disagree with one another in very significant ways. These holes are simply too big for apologists to fill. Even if we decide to grant all the leniency we can, it remains a huge mystery why the only knowledge we have of Jesus comes from these hearsay documents. "Vote CON." Vote CON if you believe that "easy possibility" and hearsay double as evidence. But before you vote CON, think of the precedent doing will set and how low you will set the bar for the absurd and the arbitrary. Even if you do not want to agree with me, look at the lack of evidence and the shoddy excuses that have been offered to refute credible objections to the reliability of a long tradition of untruth and bad scholarship. Vote PRO. ------ (1) = http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) = http://www.crivoice.org... (3) = http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com... (4) = http://www.newadvent.or...