The historicity of Jesus Christ

The motion has already been stated and defined: Jesus probably existed. My opponents first post narrowly scrapes breaking rule 3, but since I wish to have a good debate, we will let it pass. My arguments this round wil concern secular evidence concerning the validity of the claim that there was a person called Jesus on this earth. Miracles and Divinity are for another debate, here we will focus on whether or not he actually lived. Scholars do not debate this issue, but it is still fun to do amoung the non-scholary 'uneducated,' people. In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" [1] Van Voorst, Robert E (2000) states that modern scholarship views the theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted. [2] Michael Grant states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[3] James D. G. Dunn states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis" [4] Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore." [5] My R1 arguments are: 1) Evidence for Jesus is presented by Roman Historians. 2) Evidence for Jesus is presented by Jewish Rabbi. 3) Evidence for Jesus is presented by Josephus. 1) Tacitus was a Roman Historian and Senator [6]. He is considered the father of written historical texts by modern day historians. After the fire of Rome, he documented the following record: 'Nero fabricated Scapegoats, and punished with every refinement, the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this setback, the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but also in Rome.' [7] Looking at the text, it can be concluded that Tacitus shared a disdain for Eastern religions along with Nero. Nero especially disliked the new religion of Christianity which can -to an extent- be associated with Tacitus. Here Tacitus provides a factual report that: “…Christ, had been executed…” Also note how it was formalised and official. 'Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus.' Tacitus is reporting a factual event that is not questionable. It was an accepted fact that Jesus was a man who was executed. As far as the Romans were concerned, he was just a meddling upstart who got what he deserved. This brief mention of Pontius Pilate by Tacitus is one of five historical references which historians count as valid. One of the other five is the canonical gospels. Scholars consider this source as authentic, and as having historical value as an independent Roman source. [8, 9, 10] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[11] Jesus had to exist in order to be crucified. The attack my opponent will make on Tacitus is that he was reporting hearsay, however, as Paul R. Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.[12] 2) Writings from the Talmud dating from 70 AD to about 200 AD depict in accurate detail, occurrences regarding Christ. 'On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu(Jesus) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and has enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forth in his favour, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.'[13] This passage can refer to 3 possible people who were hanged on Passover. A thief, another thief and Jesus. The thieves were not accused of sorcery or enticing an entire nation to apostasy, so it must have been Jesus. The other Obvious hint is that it says it was Jesus. Yeshu is the Hebrew spelling of Jesus. [14] Also note the Authors of this text, the Jewish Rabbi. The Rabbi, Pharisees and Sadducee's of the Jewish nation were all enemies of Jesus. He had undermined their teachings multiple times and made direct accusations at their integrity. There is absolutely no chance what-so-ever that these religious leaders were in a plot with the Disciples of Christ to 'conjure' his existence. What they documented was this text about Jesus that painted him in a very bad light. 3) Josephus was a Romano-Jewish historian,[15,16] who wrote valid passages confirming Jesus’ existence.[17,18] He also fought in the war against the Romans, a war which he recorded in several Volumes after his capture. The Roman who captured him later became the emperor, and exulted him to a position of elevated status among the Roman historians. Josephus is worth noting because in his book, the antiquities of the Jews, he makes the following statement: 'Ananus brought before the Sanhedrin "a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. he accused them of having transgressed the law, and condemned them to be stoned to death."' [19] Note, Josephus was not a Christian. He was not interested in Christianity, and he showed complete impartiality to the new religion. In fact, Josephus talks very little about Christianity and instead focuses on Judeo-Roman history. But the references to this 'Jesus' who was called Christ are very present and do not fit the descriptions of any of the other 60 self-proclaiming Messiahs who were alive in the same century as Christ. James, who is the highlight of Josephus's writings here is recorded as being the brother of Jesus in Mark 6:3. Another famous passage about Jesus is found in source 20. [20] Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus probably existed. The rest of my case will be in the next round. Souces:______________________________________________________________[1]B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285 [2]Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 [3]in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200 [4]James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 [5]in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould[6]http://en.wikipedia.org......[7]Annals 15:44[8]Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0-391-04118-5 page 42[9] Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 2001 ISBN 0-86554-373-9 page 343[10]Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond 2004 ISBN 0-521-61620-4 page xi[11]Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127[12] The Jesus legend: a case for the historical reliability of the synoptic gospels by Paul R. Eddy, et al 2007 ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 pages 181-183[13]The Babylonian Talmud. Volume 4 Seherdrin, 43a pg 281.[14]http://en.wikipedia.org... [15]http://en.wikipedia.org...[16]http://www.josephus.org...[17]http://www.biblestudytools.com...[18]http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com...[19]Antiquities of the Jews 20:9:1[20]Antiquities of the Jews 18:3:3.