Jesus probably didn't exist

Pro says he copied his arguments from some Christian theologican Celsius, again without any reference whatsoever. He says I didn’t quote some references, whereas he actually doesn’t. I seldom quote details of secular non-biblical historical sources for Jesus since that are very well known and available on net, also due to the word limit. See for the particular one of the Talmud www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud Josh McDowell also quoted other historical sources as well. His given link where some internet lurker questioned the Talmud’s reference for Jesus is doesn’t hold any weight. You can read the details along with some other extra biblical sources. (Evidence that Demands a Verdict Chapter 5: Jesus, a Man of History ) http://tinyurl.com...... He also denied the authenticity of the narration of Pliny the Younger. It is ignorance to the historical evidences, which can be easily corrected as well. Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia (AD 61-113) likewise writes of his actions against Christians. He interrogated Christians, asking if they were believers. If they answered, "yes," he asked them two more times, threatening to kill them if they refused to recant. If they continued their confession, he had them executed. Of Pliny, Murdock states, "One of the pitifully few ‘references’ held up by Christians as evidence of Jesus’s existence is the letter to Trajan supposedly written by the Roman historian Pliny the Younger. However, in this letter there is but one word that is applicable, ‘Christians,’ and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is also suspected of the entire ‘document.’" Are Letter 96 of Pliny and the Emperor Trajan’s response forgeries as Murdock suggests? Murdock provides no reasons to believe this. NT scholar, Robert Van Voorst says no. The text of these letters is well-attested in the manuscripts and their authenticity is not disputed seriously by scholars. They were also known by the time of Tertullian (AD 196-212). The prominent Oxford historian A.N. Sherwin-White, who is not a Christian, has disposed of the few suggestions that never gained credence which claim that the letters were part or wholesale forgeries. (Michael Licona, A Refutation to Acharya S or Murdock’s book “The Christ Conspiracy” http://tinyurl.com......) The objection against Tacitus: He said he should have referred to him Yeshu instead of Christ, but that’s wrong expectation since he was not a Jew who’d not refer to him as his popular title. Tektonics.org Objection: Tacitus may have borrowed his information of Jesus from Christians or from Pliny the Younger, or from some other secondhand source. Overall, Tacitus' reliability as a historian counts against his having borrowed information uncritically from any source. Moreover, and as further support: That Tacitus got his information from Christians is shown unlikely by the negative tone of the reference. That Tacitus got his information on Jesus, or some of it, from Pliny originally is quite possible: The two men were close friends. Tacitus sent his works to Pliny for criticism, and "he himself begged for the product of Pliny's pen" Tacitus also "turned to Pliny for first-hand material for his Histories", so he was not hesitant to use Pliny as a source. However, this does not mean that Tacitus accepted Pliny's information on Jesus, or on any topic, uncritically. Annals 15.53 indicates that Tacitus did collect some information from Pliny - and that he disputed it, and even considered it wholly absurd. Simply because Pliny was Tacitus' friend and confidant does not mean that he believed everything that Pliny told him.(..more) Objection:Tacitus is in error because he refers to Pilate as a "procurator" when in reality Pilate was a prefect. This means that he is unreliable, or that he probably did not consult written documents. In practical terms, "both the procurators and prefects in Judea had the power to execute criminals who were not Roman citizens" Practically, in this context, "A difference that is no difference, is no difference." Mythicist sympathizer atheist scholar Richard Carrier agreed that Pilate was both procurator and prefect. Read http://www.tektonics.org...... I also showed that the Christ, Suetonius mentioned is the same Jesus reading in context; we even have specific reference of the banishment of Jews from Rome he talked about. Moreover objections like “this doesn’t prove he was a physical person or that there could by other Messiahs apart from Jesus” these doesn’t even deserve to be addressed since no historian holds such view that the Christ he mentioned is an ambiguous figure, rather the only Christ all independent historians mentioned was only Jesus of Nazareth that the Christians believed. There were no other Christians who believed in some other Christ that time. Moreover that is no method of historiography the historians use to establish facts, that Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus had to be eyewitnesses (to see the physical Jesus) in order to be historically reliable. For how do you appeal to historians like Tacitus and Josephus, and other historians of today’s time who attest their writings, when neither the modern historians nor you have ever been eyewitnesses to those ancient historians? His objection to Josephus’ writings is usually silly. Josephus clearly writes the details which Jesus Christ he is talking about, the person is unambiguous. It’s also absurd to argue that if a passage of his writing is in dispute that entails whole writings are in dispute, this is no historiography method. He accepts that the NT epistles do ascribe human attributes to Jesus, mentioning his flesh and blood and that how he died on the cross, suffered in humanity at all; BUT they never explicitly called him “human”; this objection despite my references like (NASB) Hebrews 2: 14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.". Romans 5:15 "the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many". I’d call this the Muslim objection just like they object that the Bible does not present him to be God because he himself did not explicitly uttered these three words “I am God” despite of his many other deity claims. I never saw any news agency calling Obama as human, let’s assume Obama is a mythological creature. I don’t think any contemporary historian refer to historical figures homo sapien and human being either; I hope none of you rejects that historians believe them to be humans. The independent transmission chain of NT, I mentioned is the textual authenticity and reliability of whole it the various independent lines of manuscript are seen in full agreement as I shown in my other debate of NT’s textual authenticity. Same is with oral history of the Gospel found in whole world where apostles planted churches and kept refuting the Heretics preserving the same message & tradition. None of the four claims that Jesus was a myth or that some guys are inventing imaginary character named Jesus. Pro only argued for extremely minor contradictions. I said that even if we assume them are true, they don’t affect the core facts about Jesus (far from creating a doubt on Jesus’ existence). Such as the 12 Facts that Habermas compiled attesting 22000 sources of scholars. The foundational facts such as “Jesus Existed” or the first among those 12 facts: “Jesus died by crucifixion”