Jesus Christ Existed As A Historical Figure

Thank you for this debate. In this debate, my opponent attempts to demonstrate that Jesus was a historical figure. In doing so, he attempts to rely on two sources; Josephus and Tacitus. 1.Josephus Josephus was born in 37AD (http://en.wikipedia.org...). He therefore did not and could not witness any events contemporary to Jesus (who was allegedly dead by 37AD). At the most, he could rely on what he heard from other sources. There is no evidence at all that any sources he relied on were drawn from any official (or otherwise trustworthy) documentation. Rather, it seems rather probable that he is simply describing the claims put forward by a sect who believe in the existence of Jesus in the first place. And of course there is no doubt that some people have (and some still do) believed in the existence of Jesus. That fact is not in dispute. Without doubt, early Christians did too. There is nothing special about a historian describing a legend. But the problem goes further. There is no consensus amongst scholars as to the authenticity of the works ascribed to Josephus. Many parts are, to various degrees, hotly contested. This is both for contextual reasons and linguistic reasons. It is notable that he makes no reference to "St. Paul, St.Peter or any the Twelve Apostles, nor does he refer to basic Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation or the Atonement, which has led some to suggest that Josephus may have been an Ebionite Christian" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). In addition, many parts of the writings ascribed to Josephus are believed to have been altered by subsequent Christian "translations" (Ibid). What we are therefore left with is a dual problem. Firstly, we don't know who wrote the passages in question and which parts (if any) are authentic and which parts (if any) are fraud committed subsequently by Christian translators. Secondly, and even more importantly, the passages (even if authentic) take the matters no further in any event because there is no evidence at all that they themselves are based on anything more than a legend. 2.Tacitus In relation to Tacitus, we have the same problem as with Josephus. He was born in 56AD (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and therefore anything he did write had to rely on external sources. There is no doubt that by 56AD there were clearly visible markings of the Jesus Cult and the legend must have been alive. But of course he couldn't write the Annals in the year that he was born. It is important to note that Tacitus' reports about Jesus are said (in my opponent's own argument) to be contained in The Annals (as opposed to The Histories). Scholars are very skeptical of the ac of accuracy the Annals because "[they] are based in part on secondary sources of unknown reliability, and there are some obvious mistakes, for instance the confusion of the two daughters of Mark Antony and Octavia Minor, both named Antonia" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The Histories, on the other hand (which DO NOT speak of Jesus) are said to be more reliable because they are known to be based on primary sources (Ibid). It seems, with respect, that my opponent's contention that Tacitus claimed to source his information from non-Christian sources is pure speculation, as is his contention that Tacitus most likely sourced the information from a government official. There is a further problem with my opponent's argument. He says that Tacitus' anti-Christian tone would indicate that he could not source his information from Christians. That suggestion in itself is an attack (ironically, by my opponent!) on Tacitus' credibility and integrity. What good is a historian who will only use information from folks whom he happens to like? No good at all. Now, let's assume that the sources of Tacitus' report were indeed not Christians. So what? By the time of his writing (50+ years after Christ's alleged death), the legend was there; there's no disputing this. There WAS a cult called "Christians" and they DID believe in the authenticity of a man named Jesus. Without doubt, there must have been others (non-Christians) who also accepted the authenticity of Jesus, based on the same legend. Legends do tend to have this effect. Once a legend gets a substantial following, there is an entire spectrum of various degrees of belief in various aspects of the legend. What do we then get from Tacitus? How does he assist us in finding whether Jesus was a historical figure? He does not. We get nothing. Unlike Josephus, it is not really disputed that the Annals were indeed written by Tacitus. But just like Josephus, it's completely unknown where Tacitus gets his information from and the authenticity (and accuracy) of the Annals is subject to much skepticism amongst scholars. All we can really be sure of is that a legend existed. But we already know that. The legend did exist and it continues to exist today.