There is no credible historical proof of the Biblical Jesus.

I must begin this round with giving Kudos to my opponent. Your argument was a pleasure to read. Your conversational tone is well received, and to see a Christian that doesn't resort to logical fallacies and that labels unprovable beliefs as just that is refreshing, to say the least. Thank you for that. Best to do this rebuttal point-by point for clarity. My opponent cited that I attempted to discredit the sources of the history of Jesus, instead of the actual person Himself. Well, that is my resolution - There is no credible historical proof of the Biblical Jesus. I must say this – Where does our knowledge of Jesus come from? Not Him. I must rely on written history and archaeological proof to make a case. If Jesus had written ANYTHING – I'd have no case. Josephus - Josephus is the first non-Christian writer to mention Jesus. He does this in Books 18 and 20 of his Antiquities, from about 93 AD. It is worth giving the reference in Book 18- Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ . And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. For two centuries no Christian used this passage, although many of them quoted Josephus. For example, Origen quoted Josephus when writing 250,000 words against the pagan writer Celsus but he never uses this passage even when it would have been most useful. In Chapter 6 of Book 1 of 'Contra Celsum', ' Would not Origen have loved to show Josephus as writing that Jesus performed wonderful works? It is admitted that the 2 passages of Josephus were tampered with by Christians. This rules them out altogether as evidence. If a prosecution lawyer in a court case tried to introduce evidence that had been tampered with by prosecution witnesses, that evidence would be rejected. It is worth pointing out that any Christian scribe who had just copied out 17 books of Josephus would be familiar with his style and easily able to express Christian thoughts in Josephan language. Conclusion - Christian defenders as early as Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) never cited it. Origen (185-254), who dealt extensively with Josephus, wrote that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the messiah nor proclaim him as such.ï¿½ Eusebius, in 324 CE, first mentions this passage (twice), and is likely the forger of it. Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc. – in all their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus' wondrous words. Please note that both Herod and John the Baptist are in Book 18 - a forgery by Eusebius. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus - Writes, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome."ï¿½ (circa 120 CE) - Derivative from heresay, useless for evidence that Jesus was an historical person. Chrestus was itself a common name, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful. My opponent - "there are many contemporaries of Jesus who wrote about him, and who are not questioned about their veracity." This is an untrue statement – as there are no contemporaries who wrote of Jesus that are credible. What writings we do have were made years after his death and are heresay of easily questioned veracity. In fact, the absence of the Messiah in so many of the contemporary histories of the time is in itself revealing. http://www.bandoli.no... It is fallacious to compare the history of Jesus – THE SON OF GOD -to any other historical figure, but to satisfy the point, proof of Alexander - Coins minted while he was alive, and The Elephant Medallions - http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.savingantiquities.org... http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk... Translation - From king Alexander to the people of Chios, All those exiled from Chios are to return , and the constitution on Chios is to be democratic. Drafters of legislation are to be selected to write and emend the laws so as to ensure that there be no impediment to a democratic constitution and the return of the exiles. Anything already emended or drafted is to be referred to Alexander. The people of Chios are to supply twenty triremes, with crews, at their own expense, and these are to sail for as long as the rest of the Greek naval force accompanies us at sea. With respect to those men who betrayed the city to the barbarians, all those who escaped are to be exiled from all the cities that share the peace [of Corinth], and to be liable to seizure under the decree of the Greeks. Those who have been caught are to be brought back and tried in the Council of the Greeks. In the event of disagreement between those who have returned and those in the city, in that matter they are to be judged by us. Until a reconciliation is reached among the people of Chios, they are to have in their midst a garrison of appropriate strength installed by king Alexander. The people of Chios are to maintain the garrison. To answer my opponent's next question: Are you more worried about Jesus' historical nature, or more worried about the spiritual nature that his life means on you? First, I am an atheist. I do not believe in the Biblical Jesus. Jesus was a common name among the Jews in antiquity. I don't doubt for a second that there may have been several men named Jesus that were itinerant Rabbis. But none could perform miracles. None walked on water. Do not forget I am disproving the Biblical Jesus – not a man named Jesus. But seeing that this Savior, according to the Bible, turned religion on it's head- and there is not one shred of credible evidence for that – for me disproves the Biblical account. Besides – if that ossuary you referenced is found to be TRUE – that will prove that Jesus was not the savior depicted in the Bible. If FALSE, that those bones are of a common man, not of the Messiah, then we are back to square one in proving Him. Either one would be a blow to Christianity. But I doubt that either will ever be absolutely confirmed. I don't disagree with you about BC and AD. Just as in God We Trust on money- I don't agree with it, but it does not affect me. Many militant atheists do, what I will call Capital "A" Atheists, but I am not one of them. I recognize history as having a heavy religious undertone, and am fine with that. To attack BC and AD is ignoring this. For if it weren't for religion, there'd be no atheists!. ;-) (But I do have issue with the Pledge – I say it the original way.) As for the Quranic and Talmudic proof - I hold them in the same regard as the Bible. They are wonderful stories, full of adventure, but alas – just stories. Talmud - Jesus as a name was from the Old Testament, where it is written Yeshu(a). The new religion gains legitimacy by attaching itself to the Old Testament. This includes Jesus' name, his lineage and the idea of the Messiah. Quran, – I'm sorry, but Koranic references were made to legitimize Islam, they helped to popularize it. Jesus not existing would severely weaken Islam, whose scripture, the Quran, refers to Jesus as a historical figure. That is all – The Koran, IMO, is more flawed than just about any holy book – well, Dianetics, and The Book of Mormon tie for a close second. To close - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan