There is no credible historical proof of the Biblical Jesus.

And here we are at the Last Round. I will allow myself to step out of the "scholarly tone", and step into a more conversational tone. To turn a phrase, let's let our hair down. Thanks for a most interesting and enjoyable debate, elgeibo. It has been a pleasure. I look forward to debating you again soon. Act 3, Scene 1 My opponent admits that Josephus is as credible as James Frye. ( http://www.slate.com... ) My opponent states that Gaius Tranquillas had to be writing about Jesus, for the story was still being told. OK – I can see that. But as with the Bible proper, it is not credible, no matter how many times or how long into the future you tell the story. We still hear stories about Hercules, whom in Ancient Greece was though to be real, too. The point is – and remains – There is no credible historical proof of the Biblical Jesus. (argument from tradition) Jesus the rabble-rousing single man who roamed around preaching – if I stretch my imagination – MAYBE. But as for Jesus the Christ – the water-walking wunderkind of Jehovah – the rising Rabbi of religion – the "water into wine, here's a 2 fish and a 5 loaf of bread for 5000 men, raising of Lazarus" fellow so many have come to know and love – NOPE, NADA, NIL, NYET – there isn't just the lack of extraordinary evidence – the isn't even ORDINARY evidence. And that is the basis of faith – the belief of something without sufficient evidence. Religion is the ONLY discipline that not only doesn't think it strange to believe in unprovable things without question, but will attempt to destroy and divide those that do question . (Christianity is a lot more well-behaved these days, but that gem of a religion- Islam, is taking up the slack.) As far as the analogy to Stanley Tookie – What to say? ..I know – Stanley never claimed to perform miracles, never walked on water (at least to my knowledge) and his Last Supper wasn't at all based in cannibalism (again, AS FAR AS I KNOW – DON'T quote me. I live in LA part time, and the CRIPS don't need a reason to start looking for me. ;-)) Now, that is not to say he won't become mythical, at least with the CRIPS – I'm willing to bet most if not ALL CRIPS know who Stan is, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go out and ask one. ;-) (Red Herring) I do agree the myth of Jesus holds sway over millions of people. It has produced HISTORY, WEALTH, DISCORD, DEVUSIVENESS, and CHARITY , among other things. All the hallmarks of a wildly held faith. But does this basis of this faith hold up to real scrutiny? NO. (appeal to consequences) I will also concede that it is ALMOST impossible to prove Alex the Great – but Historians do not doubt his existence. He left a little burg in Egypt called Alexandria, and several battle sites that are unmistakable for his brand of conquest. – Point being, although you may nay say the proof, no matter how you look at it, it is proof – you'd be harder pressed denying his existence than I am with Jesus the Miracle Man. Besides – the point is moot, for as I said before, To compare The Literal Son of Jehovah's existence to a mere mortal is ridiculously absurd. Historical myths based on real people abound – but, there was only ONE SON OF GOD. To actually not record His existence in ANY credible way is unbelievable – if He existed. To be honest, I would expect HUNDREDS of relatings, if not THOUSANDS. In the time He was supposedly alive, His actions and subsequent execution as represented in the Bible would have been the OJ trial of The 1st century AD. (or BCE, don't wish to offend.) (Red Herring) The denying of Alex only shows how flawed written history can be, and supports my resolution more than refutes it. My opponent - like someone would put God's name on money! (appeal to common practice) I wish to address this for one reason – it is widely misunderstood WHY it's there. It was placed on all money in response to COMMUNISM, in other words, to irk the crap out of the Reds. It is Ceremonial deism, which is is a legal term used in the United States for nominally religious statements and practices deemed to be merely ritual and non-religious through long customary usage. Examples of ceremonial deism include the reference to God introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, and the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency. So, for that reason, I haven't an issue with it. Besides the point, but worth noting. (Thank Debate,com for 8000 characters!) As for Abraham Lincoln, I don't have to stick with this type of proof – which is NOT helping your case - http://www.liveauctiontalk.com... You should've stuck with Alexander. ;-) "My opponent then denies the Quran and Talmud as proof because they are nothing more than "story books", though they have no need to mention Jesus, since they are not about him at all, yet still do anyway. " I have shown they had a GREAT need to mention Jesus, and your correction that the Talmud was written after Him (and thank you again) helps me, not you. The mention in the Talmud was in response to the claim of his Holiness, and attempted to further legitimize Judaism. It was a reaction to the growing Christian movement, and was not historical proof of anyone – just proof of the new religion. Jesus was used as a tool – and worked very well in the texts of these Holy Books. His last argument (look how long Christianity has been around and how many peeps practice it) is best refuted by saying that he is using the logical fallacy of appeal to belief. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true. But - countering his appeal with a couple of fallacies of my own – Islam is the fastest growing religion (argumentum ad populum) and Hinduism is the oldest (Appeal to Tradition) There. I can do that, too ;-) In summary – Where do we go from here? Does the debate about the authenticity of Jesus really mean much? Nope. I just find it a fascinating little window into the mysteries of human thinking. I mean, we are debating about whether a person really existed in the flesh and blood in order to prove that a supernatural being exists. But it is really for naught – I am no more going to convince my opponent that he is wasting his time with Christianity that he is going to prove to me that out of thousands of religions that exist, his is the true one. But, it was fun, and I thank you for reading, and voting based on the debate, and not your personal beliefs. I hope that is not asking too much. Remember, I didn't say your Savior did not exist, I said it's impossible to credibly prove Him. *shakes elgeibo' hand.