Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure.

I will focus much of my response to the "Jesus myth" hypothesis that has finally come up. Unfortunately, my opponent has committed the same illogical errors when it comes to the claim that Jesus was a reinvention of one or several pagan gods. Most obvious is the fallacy that "post hoc, ergo proctor hoc," or "to precede is to cause." This fallacy holds that if figure A comes before figure B, then figure A must have caused figure B. Undoubtedly, this happens sometimes, but it is fallacious to claim that this always happens. Also fallacious is the jump from "similar" to "parallel." Many Jesus mythicists claim that, if two figures are similar, they are the same. Put this simply, the fallacy is obvious. We could go through each of the figures you listed (that long list was very convincing!), but rather than wearing us both out, I"ll state why basing Jesus on any pagan god is a fool"s errand, and then I"ll discuss Heracles, since my opponent focused on him, and since I"ve never seen Heracles mentioned in discussions like these. In Jerusalem in the first century, nearly all people were devout Jews. According to Jewish belief, adopting any pagan belief was to be avoided at all cost. Many Jews cut their hair and shunned gymnasia because of their associations with pagan culture. These people simply would not have adopted any pagan beliefs into their lives. Yet according to mythicists, many hundreds did; not only that, but they also claimed he actually existed. Jesus mythicists must explain how hundreds of devout Jews merrily adopted the myths of Horus, Dionysus, Attis, and others, combined them into a Jewish/pagan hybrid (which they would"ve viewed as an abomination), forgot he didn"t exist, and then claim that he actually did, as early as two months after his fictional death. This alone is reason enough to dispense with the Jesus myth nonsense. Like I said, my opponent has committed, or at least perpetuated, the fallacy that precession equals causation, and similarity equals parallel. In the accounts of Heracles, my opponent mentioned that he was born of a chaste mother (which is the same as being a virgin), that Hera wanted to kill him (which is the same as Herod wanting to kill Jesus), that he died (which is the same as being crucified), went to Mt. Olympus (which is the same as heaven), and became a god (which is the same as always having been God for eternity). The author of the article my opponent cited goes further: that he was his fathers" son and great-great-great grandson (which is the same as Jesus existing before David), and that he did many good works (which is the same as the good works Jesus did, and for that matter, the good works that, say, Gandhi has done). The author also claims that the Ephesians verse indicates that Jesus descended to hell. This is not claimed in the Ephesians verse, and the idea of Jesus descending into hell is not a scriptural idea, so there is no parallel here. I hope my opponent can see how these characteristics, though similar, are not the same, and how Heracles, though a predecessor of Jesus, did not necessarily cause Jesus. Also, my opponent asserts that every culture has a "super-savior." Let"s go back to Heracles. What exactly did Heracles save the world from? Saving the world from lions and hogs and hydras and rivers is not the same thing as saving the world from sin and death. To be parallel is not the same thing as being equal. Also, my opponent claims that many historians were Christians, and were biased as such. This is completely untrue. The two historians about whom we have been centering our discussion, Philo and Josephus, were both Jews. They would not be motivated to perpetuate the discussion of a person who, in Jewish opinion, was an imperfect Messiah. Unless it was historical fact. I hope I"ve illustrated how fallacious it is to say that parallels indicate that the figures are the same. As I said before, the idea of Jews adapting the Greek myth of Heracles and building a religion around it is ridiculous. It does not deserve scholarly review, and it hasn"t received any. The names "Acharya S." and "Kersey Graves" have no weight. My opponent still has not tackled the issue of the accounts in Acts or in Paul"s writings. I look forward to a response to those topics. My opponent has stated many times that all the gospel accounts and such are all hearsay. But I remind him that from the start I included a passage from the book of Acts where an eyewitness, Peter, speaks to other eyewitnesses in Jerusalem two months after the crucifixion, and states it as a fact that Jesus had died and was buried. I would like to invite my opponent to consider the cited source I have included. This post was written by a man named Tim O"Niell, one of the more prolific writers on the website Quora. Tim is an atheist bible scholar and historian who systematically demolishes arguments in support of incorrect theories, including the Jesus myth hypothesis and others, such as the theory that science was squelched by the church during the middle ages. Many of his thoughts I have adapted and used in my opening remarks. I repeat my very specific challenge at this point. In my opponent"s rebuttal to this round, I expect him to respond to the account in Acts and the creed in 1 Corinthians. How does he expect the world to discredit the eyewitness account in Acts and the creed in 1 Corinthians? http://www.quora.com...