Jesus was a Historical Figure

As the burden of proof is solely on Pro, I will just be offering rebuttals of his arguments. 1. This quote from Tacitus does not mention Jesus of Nazareth whatsoever. Pro is confusing the Christ, a messianic figure, and Jesus of Nazareth, a possible historical figure. Tacitus is clearly writing about the Christ figure, but not Jesus. While the Tacitus passage is generally accepted to be authentic, it is still written in 116 CE, almost a hundred years after the supposed death of Christ. Tacitus' account is second hand at best. He did not witness a man named Jesus. He is writing that, in the first century CE, there were Christians who worshipped a man named Jesus. This is a known fact, bu the purpose of this debate is to discuss whether these early Christians were inspired by a real man or not. Tacitus does nothing to prove this. 2. Talmud* not Talmund, and this source is also dubious. First off, it is also not written during the supposed time of Jesus, and was likely written after the death of anyone who may have know the living Jesus. It also gets crucial details of the Jesus story wrong, saying he is hanged instead of crucified. This is a pretty huge detail to get wrong. All the Talmud claims is that a man named Yeshua (a very common name) was hanged (not crucified) around the Passover for sorcery. Again, all this proves is that people had heard a story about a figure with some details similar to what we identify as Jesus. This is far from good evidence. 3. Again, this is not proof that Jesus existed as a historical figure. Pro has demonstrated that there were a group of people who identified as Christians in the first century. Great. We knew this already. Lucian is writing in the second century, way too far removed from the time of Jesus to possibly account for his existence. Once again, Pro says that Lucian is "obviously" referring to Jesus, but this is blatantly false. All he says is that the Christians worshipped "a man" and only offers the detail that "he was crucified". No name, no dates, no location, no identifying characteristics, nothing. This does not prove that Jesus was real. 4. I'm surprised to see Josephus used here, the scholarly consensus here is that the passages related to Jesus are forgeries. See my sources for details. So here we have Pro's best arguments. One forgery, and three historians, none of whom lived within 50 years of Jesus' supposed existence, writing about early Christians, not Jesus of Nazareth. Not one source from the actual time of Jesus, not one first hand account, nothing. If Jesus was a real person, as Pro claims, how could no local historians, government officials, or religious authorities have taken note of him until decades after he died? The absence of good data speaks volumes. A man as noticeable and popular as Jesus is said to have been in his lifetime either A) never existed or B) never did anything out of the ordinary in his entire life. I believe that I have sufficiently demonstrated that Pro's arguments do not prove that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historical person, only that there were people who identified as Christians in the first century. I await Pro's response. https://www.academia.edu... http://www.westmont.edu... https://www.academia.edu...