Jesus Existed as a Historical Person who Started the Christian Movement

Regarding Tacitus, we seem to be simply rehashing the same arguments. I have already said my piece on that. I am not offering speculation as proof in terms of the Jamesian reference. (1) Unavoidably, in all such writings there are copies of copies of copies. This is not only true for Josephus but also the Gospels. As to (2), and (3), this would follow given the fact that all these manuscripts necessarily copied by hand, making it difficult to challenge or defend (as we have seen with this debate itself). As to (4): "It may be admitted that the style of Josephus has been cleverly imitated, a not very difficult matter ...", Jesus by C. Guignebert, University Books, New York, 1956, p. 17. 2) Except perhaps "who was the Christ" would seem over the top, especially if the writer is supposed to be non-Christian. You see how speculation becomes unavoidable? "Just because an interpolation would make this passage easy for Con to understand doesn't prove it was a forgery; historical truth is not determined by what makes more sense to Con." I am well aware of that. However, the opposite applies to your viewpoint as well. This is a matter of differing interpretations, obviously, and my argument on context applies here. Since there is no evidence Josephus was Christian, as I have argued myself, a more central focus on Jesus might lend suspicion of forgery. A well-regarded source that is not known to have any stake in the claim is perfect to use. If the interpolation were too blatant, this could be ruined. 3) I am hardly the only person to have suspicions of Tacitus or Josephus' references. Hindsight can indeed lend us more insight than people living then often have, since we have the benefit of time and perspective they may lack. Regardless, we have too much evidence for the pious fraud of early Christians to have it dismissed as impossible. As to enemies of Christianity, they also believed strange things, at times even stranger than Christian beliefs. So they were used to such ideas. People of these ages did not have a clear divide between "supernatural" and "natural." It was, in fact, "nothing new" as the Church Father Justin Martyr himself said: "We say the Word, the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union. We say that He, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, rose again and ascended into heaven. We are propounding nothing different from what you believe regarding those that you esteem to be sons of Jupiter."–First Apology, circa 150 AD. I have already gone into the Josephus reference at length. I would only be repeating myself. We both know these references are the only ones claimed from Josephus. "If the early Fathers were not familiar with Tacitus' Annals, this would be yet an additional reason why they didn't quote this insulting reference to Jesus and Christianity." Yes, agreed. "Considering how Celsus was attacking Christianity, the Tacitus quote could have done more harm than good. Why bring in all those negative comments about the faith just to prove something that both parties in the debate already agree on?" That was exactly my point. Yes, there was time for interpolations. However, it is not simply a matter of opportunity, but motive. I see no motive to tamper with these ancient works, and yes, there must be more than merely suspicion of it. However I should also note that as these were major historical events and personages, there is archaeological evidence of them along with those. We are left with far less for Jesus. "Just because Origen claims Josephus didn't believe Jesus was the Christ, Con accept that it is so, but Origen also said that Jesus existed, and Con doesn't believe him! How's that for double standards? Con provides no quote from Josephus to back up Origen's claim that Josephus didn't believe Jesus was the Christ." It should be obvious that someone can be wrong in one instance, but right in another. I do not accept that Origen knew for either of these cases. However, you have cited Origen, and this was to show he disagreed with you in the matter of Josephus' faith. Going by your own standard, there is no evidence for Josephus being Christian. "Con has given us no examples of Origen quoting Josephus to prove that he was familiar with Antiquities, so we don't know that he was." Again, that was in fact my point. "Only if Josephus believed in their other doctrines. Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is the Christ, yet most Christians don't consider them Christians. Simply calling Jesus the Christ doesn't prove you are Christian. I know Hindus who believe he was the Christ and in his resurrection, but no one I know considers them Christian." This would lend weight to my claims that early Christians had no set canon, doctrine, etc. Which makes pinning all this down even more difficult. For instance, the Gnostic Gospels I have mentioned were not accepted. However, even the renowned Book of Revelation was initially considered spurious and only accepted into the canon in 397. http://en.wikipedia.org... "I'll respond to the remaining objections in round 4." You mean round 5, and I look forward to our conclusion of the debate.