There is no credible historical proof of the Biblical Jesus.

Thank you to whomever accepts this debate. I am arguing Pro. My position - There is no proof that Jesus existed. It would be difficult to credit the Bible generally (and the gospels in particular) as proof of anything. It is, at best, anecdotal evidence, viz. stories whose authorship cannot be authenticated and which cannot be corroborated except by other hearsay evidence. Although there are references in the Scriptures of persons, places and events whose existence can be corroborated by other historical records, it is hard to credit the story of Jesus in the gospels as anything more than fable. The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) cannot be authenticated; and even if they could, they cannot be proved to be contemporary accounts as witnesses to the events described or even recorded recollection. They were most likely popular stories handed down by verbal tradition and miscellaneous writings of the early Christian sects, which were later collected and revised under the support of the Church (not all of the gospels were approved), and eventually translated into Latin by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. The English Bible, as stated supra, is even more "attenuated", being translated by William Tyndale, who used the Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Latin Vulgate; which translation was later revised (and edited) as the King James Version. To argue over which version of the Scriptures is correct is merely to argue the question. For the same reason, it is debatable that these texts can even be relied upon as an historical record. For example, we know a great deal more about Pontius Pilate than we do about Jesus. Pilate was a Roman aristocrat, a knight of the equestrian class, and appointed Procurator of Judea as representative of the Emperor Tiberius. The historical references to Jesus, on the other hand, are sketchy at best. Philo of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul, does not mention Christ or the Christians; and the brief account of Flavius Josephus in the Testamonium Flavianum (C.E. 93) appears to have been added by a later hand. Even the reference by Tacitus is second-hand hearsay (probably from his friend and correspondent Pliny the Younger, who was Governor of Bithynia, and would have had access to the historical records and reports of the region). See Annals, 15.53. The proof (or disproof) of an alleged fact is determined by evidence of which there are many kinds, e.g., physical evidence, testimonial evidence, opinion evidence, demonstrative evidence, scientific evidence, etc.; and what is required to prove an asserted fact depends on the matter in question, and the probative value of the relevant evidence of it. In this respect, the Bible is no more relevant than other ancient literary works such as Homer as proof. Questions of this sort require one to assume as true what may not be prone to proof; which presumptions invariably result in irrational arguments that get nowhere. The truth is that the Scriptures are just not intended to be subject to such critical examination; and to argue the validity of the numerous texts, again, merely begs the question. You can argue it forever, but it will bring you no closer to the truth. Although apologist scholars believe that an actual Jesus lived on earth, the reasons for this appear obvious considering their Christian beliefs. Although some secular freethinkers and atheists accept a historical Jesus (minus the miracles), they, like most Chrisitans, simply accept the traditional view without question. As time goes on, more and more scholars have begun to open the way to a more honest look at the evidence, or should I say, the lack of evidence. So for those who wish to rely on scholarly opinion, I will give a few quotes from Biblical scholars, past and present: When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up. -Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason) The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life. -Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought) It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all. -J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs) Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character never existed as a person. -Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar (Gerald Massey's Lectures: Gnostic and Historic Christianity, 1900) I look forward to the response and rebuttal, and hope for a clean, lively debate. Source Material - Note - I will accept Wikipedia, if corroborated with external, reputable links. http://www.bandoli.no... http://www.provethebible.net... http://mama.indstate.edu...