The Jesus of History Probably Existed - D

Much thanks again to InquireTruth for the fantastic debate. It has been a pleasure to debate someone of your ability and conviction. My opponent's burden in this debate has been to present enough evidence and reason to establish the probability that Jesus existed, while mine has been to demonstrate the doubt and uncertainty surrounding this supposed evidence. I think it would be unfair of me to make any new arguments in this final round as my opponent would not be able to respond to them. Instead I will merely attempt to summarise the debate. _____ Tacitus and Josephus: These two fragments of writing from long after the alleged life of Jesus are the only historical references to Jesus that my opponent presents as evidence. As we have seen there is doubt and scepticism among scholars on both sides about whether either of these texts can be regarded as reliable or meaningful confirmation of the existence of Jesus. We have examined the errors and alterations in the Tacitus passage and the contextual irregularity of the Josephus extract. There is a precedent for additions and alterations made to historical texts by the catholic church as seen elsewhere in the works of Josephus as well as the epistles of Paul. My opponent acknowledges other alterations but will not accept that these could likely be further examples. This is of course because there is so little written history to suggest Jesus ever existed, that these two weak and disputed alleged references are championed by some Christian scholars as conclusive proof. When the silence is deafening, any potential whisper is valuable. _______ Insufficient Time: This point WAS never adequately addressed, which was partly my fault for my cut-off 4th round but I believe that my opponent didn't make this argument clear until late on in the debate. I now understand that what my opponent has been hinting at is that people would not have believed the story of Jesus as preached by Paul and the other early Christians. It is too late to respond to this point in full now but I believe it is entirely insubstantial as there are plenty of cases of people doubting and questioning the story of Jesus both in the New Testament itself as well as documented evidence of Gnostic groups that denied an Earthly human Christ. ___________ Parsimony: If I have appeared to be "shrugging off" this point it is because it is a very vague one with no real substance to it. To maintain either position with certainty requires a number of assumptions to be made and it is my opponent who has made the assertion that needed to be proved. In his summary my opponent accuses me of <<"making many unfounded assumptions that are poised against contradicting evidence and are based on little or no evidence at all">> but the exact same could be said of my opponent's position and I believe I have backed up and provided ample evidence for every point I have made. __________ Paul: My opponent claims that <<"there is great textual evidence for believing that Paul believed in a literal, human Jesus".>> In fact as we have seen there is actually very little, hence the so-called 'argument from silence'. There are though plenty of passages in Paul's epistles that make far more sense when considered in the context of a purely symbolic Christ, as I have demonstrated. Since these are the first of all Christian documents and were written mere decades after the supposed death of Jesus, the 'silence' is most deafening and most relevant here. ________ Extrabiblical accounts: All my opponent has proved here is further evidence for the existence of characters portrayed in the Bible, who's historical existence has not been in question. These are well-known public figures and although none of them performed feats equivalent to Jesus, there is plenty of historical evidence for them existing. This should tell us something. ________ The Bible: In this debate my opponent has attempted to present the New Testament and in particular the Gospels as if they carry the same historical weight as independent, non-religious and un-biased historical accounts. He says: <<"all ancient historical sources contain elements of religion or the supernatural.">> I beg to differ, sources such as the non-biblical ones cited in this debate do not make claims of divinity or describe seemingly miraculous events. The gospels also describe many events which are historically false or scientifically impossible. For a brief list of some of these see my round 2 above. He goes on to claim that <<"the gospels are not religious in "nature." In fact, they are purported as historical accounts and are therefore HISTORICAL in nature.">> This seems ludicrous to me. How can documents that purport to identify the son of God and which are composed mostly of references to holy scripture be regarded as more historical than religious. Real historical texts do not make these kinds of claims. <<"the historicity of the biblical claims ring true by leaps and bounds.">> The census? The slaughter of the innocents? a burial site? No, most of the claims ring hollow. My opponent has enjoyed calling my arguments and my sources biased and/or amateurish while linking to Christian bloggers but it is only a biased perspective that could ignore the clearly false historical claims in the Bible while saying: <<"The reason other sacred texts are NOT typically used as historical by modern historians is that they FAIL specific historical criteria.">> __________ Conclusion: I don't believe my opponent has presented enough evidence or us to assume a strong probability for Jesus. The lack of concrete historical proof is overwhelming and examination of the texts we do have raises more questions than answers. This has been a fascinating topic for me to research and I hope that it has been a thought provoking debate for all concerned. I also hope that people will vote according to the proper debate categories rather than their personal opinions on the existence of Jesus. Thanks for reading. Con.