Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection

First and foremost notice how PRO has failed to make any ACTUAL arguments to support his proposition. He made a fallacious argument from authority in his first round and attempted to do the same in his second round. Let’s merely review my points that PRO drops. Each of these Points I backed with mountains of evidence. MYPoints Pro never mentions. 1. ”jesus' crucifixion on passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically” 2. ”But when you add to this the fact that in the story the members of the council slap Jesus and spit in his face the implausible borders on the impossible. ” 3. “Nazareth did not exist during the time of Jesus” 4. “There where many early beliefs that jesus never existed on earth in the flesh” 5. “Not only can Christianity be explained without a real historical Jesus but the historical facts that we do have are best explained if Jesus never existed . ” Now that we got that out of the way unto my rebuttals. “1. Not one single writing from or about Jesus during his lifetime Agreed and irrelevant. ” Pro agrees that his supposed God was unable to write anything down himself! .WOW. This merely corroborates to my case. 2.2. “False writings about Jesus. Agreed ” PRO agrees that EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS WAS FABRICATED! Lacking any real evidence Christians fabricated evidence. Pro again has all but conceded. This adds to my case. 3. “Josephus” Pro contradicts himself here first he says that the passage is mostly authentic. “Christian scholars concede that some words may have been an interpolation, but the basic testimony was still there. ” I beg to differ and a peer-reviewed paper Proves my claim. Richard carrier proves exactly this. . http://muse.jhu.edu... This is a peer-reviewed scholarly paper. Let’s now compare this to Pros source which is a biased and untrustworthy source. “4. Christianity borrowed from Pagan Myths “ “it is always found as the pagan myths borrowing from Christianity” This is a blatant lie from pro. Every figure I listed existed before Christianity. “The Gospels Disagree with History” “ Just because we do not have an outside source corrborating these events does not mean that they are untrue. ” I beg to differ. Here are a few examples of claims that are made in the Gospels. Star of Bethlehem - No record of such a celestial event Roman census in Jesus birth story – No record of any census that matches this description. Massacre of the Innocent - No record of this event John the Baptist – Killed early in the Gospels, died in 36 CE according to Josephus. Death of Jesus – Accompanied by blackout of sun, earthquakes, and raising of the dead Absolutely not a shred of evidence of any of the above. An entire blackout of the sun earthquakes and raising of the dead. Yet no outside evidence confirms one of these. Conclusion . Cons only argument is one from authority he has yet to provide a case for the existence of jesus. I can make one too. The Resurrection of Christ by Noel Coypel(1700)— myth theorists see this as a case of a dying-and-rising god. Description Jesus of Nazareth never existed as a flesh and blood historical figure, but is a mythical or fictional character created by the early Christian community. Early proponents Charles François Dupuis (1742–1809) Constantin-François Volney(1757–1820) David Strauss (1808–1874) Bruno Bauer (1809–1882) Edwin Johnson (1842-1901) Dutch Radical School (1880-1950) Albert Kalthoff (1850–1906) W. B. Smith (1850–1934) J. M. Robertson (1856–1933) Thomas Whittaker (1856-1935) Arthur Drews (1865–1935) Paul-Louis Couchoud (1879-1959) Modern proponents G. A. Wells, Michael Martin, Alvar Ellegård, Thomas L. Thompson, Thomas L. Brodie, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, D. M. Murdock, Richard dawkings. It is more than likely that jesus DID NOT EXIST. It provides the only possible explanation of the events I made convincing arguments against the historicity of Jesus PRO HAS YET TO MAKE ONE ARGUMENT. Jesus Christ never existed and it relies on much more than simply stating that we don't have evidence for his existence or that the Gospels are unbelievable. It rests upon mountains of evidence. We have sources and traditions that not only provide all of the material for the Jesus story, but it is clear that the Jesus story is developed from these sources, and this fact undermines the possibility that the stories are based on observed historical events. Not only can Christianity be explained without a real historical Jesus but the historical facts that we do have are best explained if Jesus never existed .