Jesus probably didn't exist

Notice I did not give any positive arguments, I only remind existing established historical facts' and about some sources to refute my opponent. Again I am not going to offer any positive evidence but will continue the remaining arguments that I wanted to give but fell short of word limit. In history we don't talk in absolutes like; it's inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive. For ex. our daily experience of sunrise doesn't make it logically necessary to happen tomorrow. Same with history, there are no absolutes; you can't prove in absolute certainty what you did yesterday, because you can't bring others to past, all you can do is to present some evidences supporting your testimony. That's what historian's job to establish best evidences as facts which are most plausible and convincing. If you wish you can deny them just as you can deny possibly any science. I didn't appeal to authority of historians, but to their evidences showing they don't believe things without any reason. Epistemic Skepticism: There have been all sorts of ridiculous skepticism in philosophy, but on rational grounds one needs to hold the view that is more reasonable and plausible from available evidences. Many things are possible, though their mere possibility doesn't entail good probability and plausibility. Philosophers in past entertained certain possibilities -Some suggested that we are merely brains in vats, kept alive by a mad scientist who feeds us patterns of electrical impulses that mimic our sensory organs. Consider also the possibility that you are at this very moment dreaming. (This example originates with Descartes [1596-1650]. ) Whatever you see, touch and read-is simply part of your dream. Because such radical skeptical possibilities, should we go on to agree with them and deny the objective reasons and external reality? This is what a rational man should be mindful of holding the rational theory of epistemology. Let me address Pro's arguments. The handful of Jews who deny the reference of Jesus in Talmud is not surprising because the religious rabbinic Jews have been holding the greatest enmity against him even today those Jews who reject him never write or utter his name because of their tradition, a phrase is well known in their tradition Y'mach Sh'mo V'Zichro(no) meaning "may his name and memory be obliterated" (from wiki/Yeshu) that's a good reason for why they kept his name as Yeshu instead of Yeshua. Though even some other Jewish scholars admit and agree to the clear references of his in Talmud. There is such dispute among historians on this. The [rich text] editing has been very annoying for me. The links couldn't properly get posted; here are the sources once again. (Licona's refutations to Murdock; Evidence that demands verdict; response on Tacitus' records) . http://tinyurl.com... . http://tinyurl.com... . http://tinyurl.com... Mythicists theory was easily refuted in light of actual evidences, where we see that the conspirators like Zeitgeist failed miserably in manipulating the historical evidences and actual mythologies, though they continue to propagate their work even today. This is what I said earlier as well. Pro repeated the false claim that I conceded to those alleged contradictions (he even mentioned Gospel of Thomas' as NT Gospel there). I explained how they are irrelevant to the core message of the Gospels; even if we grant them, they don"t affect the core message. We gather specific evidences from historical records be it from NT or from non-secular records. Such as the list of 12 facts I shared that Habermas made by collecting more than 22000 sources from historians: 1. Jesus died by crucifixion 2. He was buried 3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope 4. The tomb was empty (the most contested) 5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof) 11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic) 12. Paul was converted (He was an enemy earlier) None of these established facts are affected by those absurd contradictions of extremely peripheral accounts. For example if the way of Judas' death is mistaken by one or both accounts where we found seemingly discrepancy, this affect no other vital message of Gospels. If there are certain mistakes and contradictions in Josephus' Antiquity, no one can deny the reliability of other specific facts because of them. Pro assumes "if they contain fiction, why not assume they are wholly fiction? " Not only historian can't but this reasoning can't be taken by any one for any text. Suppose you find few spelling, grammatical, factual errors in your academic book or any book; that doesn't lead you to assume that the whole book is full of mistakes and no information. That's fallacy of composition, as well as a straw man. Same reasoning was against Josephus' account. Pliny didn't just record the activities of Christians and their worship; he also recorded that he "made them curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do. " He also recorded how Christians were punished and other information about them - . http://tinyurl.com... Pro will say, well that doesn't prove he really existed. That's plain denial. His denial to Tacitus also holds no weight, as there is no such criterion and condition as to from whom did Tacitus or Pliny got their information from, Christians or non-Christians doesn't matter. Pliny and Tacitus being from the very first century and being a secular non-christian source of history makes the skeptic having no room to hold his denial on the evidence concerning early Christianity or existence of Christ. Pro says "Tacitus may have heard about Jesus from Pliny. That may be true, but it does not prove that Pliny was right either. " This objection again is fallacious; for how does the skeptic know that Pliny himself existed in first place? He denies Pliny's source because it might have come from his contemporary Tacitus; for the same ground he will reject Tacitus saying his source doesn't mean Pliny was right. The denial is absurd, as the two contemporary sources are commutative thus greatly reliable. He maintained that the evidence from Pliny (or anyone else) doesn't imply that Jesus existed. That's purely argument from silence and radical denial; moreover he assumed the false criteria for historiography that historians must be eyewitnesses as well. He asserts- the historical evidences doesn't follow Jesus existed. No one argued for absolutes, the non-biblical evidences only attest to the already existing best attested historical books of Bible. The early records of Christian's practices give evidence concerning Jesus. If my opponent accepts only the sources from eyewitnesses of Jesus, then he has the New Testament which we didn't even discuss, he only objected to the secular sources by attacking mythicist arguments. The authors of NT are those who lived with Jesus and their companions. Another fallacy: the text should be written by the person himself concerning any information about his own. This is absurd first because how does the skeptic know that the record is really written by the guy in the first place? Second, if we were to adopt this criterion then we would only believe those historical records to be reliable which are written by someone about himself. See Scholar's approach to reliability criteria -wiki . http://tinyurl.com... Anything's possible; it's possible we are fooled by everyone from the past in all knowledge of history. We may be brains in the vat operated by mad scientist or we are dreaming this life all along. Some believe 9/11 and holocaust didn't happen, they also believe Quran's testimony that Jesus wasn't crucified and killed. I have even debated people who reject the absolute nature of logic.