Christianity is not real.

Round 3 | Rebuttal and Arguments | by Eav | 9/11Thanks to my opponent again, it has been a pleasure so far.Round 3 Structure [Addressing Rebuttal 1] Lack of eyewitnesses1a: Flavius Josephus1b: Tacitus[Rebuttal 2] Contradictions[Argument 2] Logical Approach[AR1] Lack of eyewitnesses1a: Flavius Josephus was born very close to Jesus death. At the time he heard the stories people who knew Jesus were still alive. His writing clearly indicates that he spoke to eyewitnesses and though all of them could have been lying, I don’t see a reason why all of them would, because not all of them can have been Christians. The time of FJ had no media and creating a person like Jesus would have taken much more time to spread and ensure. And we can see that FJ is not a blind believer; because he shows doubts concerning the rising of Jesus. If he was critical enough to doubt people there, he wouldn’t ignore if the majority of eyewitnesses or contemporary witnesses would report that certain events never took place. 1b: TacitusNobody likes to quote a filthy Roman. Seriously, that Tacitus was ignored that long comes clearly from him being anit-Christian. Also for a long time, the gospels were considered a proper source {4b} for Jesus existence, scientific methods were still in development.Tacitus relies on what he knows from Romans. That means he used Roman documentary and Roman witnesses. If he concluded that Jesus existed, than based on stories from Romans who put a lot of effort into making Jesus a myth (or at least profited highly from that). How many secretly christian-reborn-Romans could there have been to falsify Tacitus report? [R2] ContradictionsI can only repeat what I said before, in Round 2: That the bible doesn’t necessarily needs to be right, holy or reasonable. It is no reliable source. But it indicates that it interesting to find out, on who it is based.The bible is based on Jesus, therefore effect. Jesus existence is not bound to the bibles reliability, because that was the cause. I have tried for two rounds now to keep this scientific, but my opponent keeps attacking the bible without realising that this arguments base on the logic of fanatic Christians: that the bible is a reliable report and has fallen from heaven in the holy wholeness that it is. It isn’t, and I pointed out before why. If Jesus did not exist we could still have the Bible, but we would not have reports like those from Tacitus and Flavius Josephus. (Fig.1)The contradictions actually point out that Jesus did exist (see A2), also because, if Jesus was fully made up, someone would have made sure in the editing process, that nasty contradictions don’t occur. But for the sake of proper rebuttal, I’ll address the given contradictions shortly.1: “Love yourself and your neighbour” pelages you to forgive. Doesn’t mean god will. The two statements don’t work together because that the sinning humans should forgive each other stands in no relationship with Gods final judgment of them. Not a contradiction. 2: Borderline. Jesus was raised in a society of racist people but to our modern views this sure sounds racist. But with Jesus being primarily the promised saviour for the Jews he did have his point there. Jesus was not perfect. Till his resurrection he was human. 3: Oh that’s lovely! Just as many, many things said by Jesus, this a metaphor, meaning that however necessary and loved and belonging one thing or person is, if it causes you to sin, it’s time to leave it behind, even if this feels violent. Who would be so mentally deluded to think that his foot can make him sin?[A2] Logical ApproachIt seems unlikely that Christians all over the world, even only a few years after Jesus supposed death doubtlessly fell into blind believing, especially because the bible wasn’t written yet, nor one of the gospels. They must have had other sources telling them about Jesus. And these sources reported mostly the same. Con has picked some contradictions to point out why the bible is not reliable: I say, that there are only so few contradictions is surprising. Actually unlikely if they were based only on the conspiracy of … twelve people? With the gospel of Mark being the base narrative for Matthew and Luke, it’s clear why we have more similarities between them than to John {4a}. But that John who lived significantly after these three (~130 A.D.) and used none of them as source {4a}, still gathered information so much similar overall, is an indicator that there is some real cause that keeps the stories somewhat similar. If Jesus had never existed, the bible would be a big conspiracy by a few people that managed to spread a story so effectively that even hundred years after it was developed, people still would gather extremely similar information about a person that nobody had a reason to believe in apart from being suicidal. Has anyone recently skimmed over all the contradictive material we have about people like Hitler and Stalin? And during their lifetime we had proper recording methods. I don’t see a way how people could have pulled that stunt to invent the person Jesus from scratch. Sources{4a} http://www.bc.edu...{4b} http://www.bc.edu...