Jesus Existed as a Historical Person who Started the Christian Movement

Response to Con's rebuttal from round 1 con't: "believers of all faiths have died rather than "confess their lies." Not for an event they made up. If the apostles had invented Jesus they wouldn't be willing to die and be persecuted for this lie. Early Christians most assuredly would have been in a position to know whether Jesus actually existed or not. Just as much as we living in modern times, ancient people kept records, wrote things down, and tracked information faithfully. In Nero's time eyewitness of Christ would still be alive. Not even their enemies claimed Jesus was a myth. "Josephus... makes no mention of them [Jerusalem Council in Acts and explosion of Christianity], nor do any other contemporary accounts." McDowell observes how some scholars assumed that Luke's use of the word 'politarchs' (17:6), as a title for civil authorities in Thessalonica was thought to be an inaccurate description since the word was not known to exist in classical literature. However, more recent discoveries have shown Luke to be perfectly accurate in his use of this word, since some nineteen inscriptions were discovered that make use of the title, five of which are used in specific reference to Thessalonica. (J. McDowell, Christianity: A Ready Defence (San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers Inc., 1991), 111; Ibid) It may just be a matter of time before other things like the Jerusalem council find more historical verification. Wikipedia says: "Passages corroborated by historical evidence in Acts is considered consistently accurate with regard to specific details of its 1st century environment, specifically with regard to titles of officials, administrative divisions, town assemblies, administrative affairs associated with the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and synchronization of historical details,[24] including:... Felix and Festus are correctly called procurators of Judea. Acts correctly refers to Cornelius as centurion and to Claudius Lysias as a tribune (Acts 21:31, 23:36) The title proconsul (anthypathos) is correctly used for the governors of the two senatorial provinces named in Acts (Acts 13:7-8, Acts 18:12) Inscriptions speak about the prohibition against the Gentiles in the inner areas of the Temple, as Acts 21:27-36 presupposes;...The function of town assemblies in the operation of a city's business is described accurately in Acts 19: 29-41; Roman soldiers were permanently stationed in the tower of Antionia with the responsibility of watching for and suppressing any disturbances at the festivals of the Jew; to reach the affected area they would have to come down a flight of steps into temple precincts, as noted by Acts 21:31-37" So Acts is quite reliable historically. Con seems to be saying that if Josephus' doesn't mention an event, it therefore didn't happen. Says who that the man didn't have his reasons for not including it? No historical work can be exhaustive anyway. "If this event were so known, including 500 witnesses supposedly witnessing Jesus resurrected in Jesus, it seems far more accounts would be available." Virtually everything we know about the Peloponnesian war comes from his Thucydides' history. We have more accounts of Jesus existence in the Gospels, church fathers, and non-Christian historians than we do for the Peloponnesian War. Take away Thucydides and we have very little information on the war, take away Matthew and we still have the whole Gospel from other sources. "Using the New Testament to prove itself is not a good argument, especially when it disagrees with itself, as shown above in my examples." Con provided no examples. No NT quotes showing contradiction. I look forward to seeing them. Also, contradictions occur in all works of antiquity, this isn't unusual. There are many contradictions between survivors' accounts of the titanic sinking, and President Kennedy's assasinaiton, doesn't mean kennedy and the Titanic didn't exist or that the events didn't happen. The "anonymity" of the Gospels authors is something that many skeptics claim but they never explain to us how their arguments would work if applied equally to secular ancient documents whose authenticity and authorship is never (or is no longer) questioned, but are every bit as "anonymous" in the same sense that the Gospels are. The Gospel authors nowhere name themselves in their texts, but this applies equally to numerous other ancient documents, such as Tacitus' Annals. Authorial attributions are found not in the text proper, but in titles, just like the Gospels. Critics may claim that these were added later to the Gospels, but they need to provide textual evidence of this (i.e., an obvious copy of Matthew with no title attribution to Matthew, and dated earlier or early enough to suggest that it was not simply a late, or an accidental ommission), and at any rate, why is it not supposed that the titles were added later to the secular works as well? "they have been dated to generations after Jesus" Not true; 1 Tim 5:17-18 quotes Luke 10:7. Since Paul wrote to Timothy around 61-64 CE, Luke must be written before. Paul calls it Scripture and assumes the congregation is familiar with it. Luke must have been written early enough to gain wide acceptance. 1 Cor 15:3-7 say that the Scriptures discuss Jesus' third day resurrection and appearance. This is nowhere in the OT, so Paul must have meant some of the Gospels. 1 Cor is dated 55 CE, pushing Luke and other Gospels back to at least the 40s CE. Jesus died in the 30s, this puts the Gospels in the same generation of witnesses to Jesus' life. Response to Con's counter rebuttal in round 2: The term "Christian" may or may not have been well known in Nero's reign, but to show that he means not all the Jews, but specifically the disciples of Jesus, Tacitus calls them Christians. Tacitus doesn't claim that this is what they were called back in Nero's time. When a book on black history says that "the first Africans migrated from the Nile Vally in X BC," it isn't saying they were known as Africans during their first migration to populate the world. It is simply using a modern word to identify an ancient people. Further, even if the term were unknown to most people, it doesn't prove Nero couldn't have knowledge of it. Con is assuming that what is unknown to the maority is unknown to all! When most thought the earth was the centre of the cosmos Galileo knew it revolved around the sun. Acts 11:26 shows the term was indeed used in Nero's time. "In any case, the Gospel of Peter has been dated to the mid-2nd century." The letter of Polycarp written about A.D.110 shows complete familiarity with 1 Peter. (Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, chap 1-2; Ecclesiastical History 3:39.17; 4.14.19) His contemporary Papias quotes from and alludes to it in his Letter to the Philippians (see, for example: 1.3 = 1 Pet 1:8, 12; and 2.1 = 1 Pet 1:13, 21) The Epistle of Barnabas, probably as old as A.D.98 or older, quotes 1 Pet. 2:5. Again, it seems certain that the Epistle is quoted, though not by name, in the Epistle of Clement (1 Clement vol.1, p.13; 1 Pet 5:5) of Rome, A.D.95. So it had to exist before the mid-2nd century. The letter's authority in the early church implies that it was written by an authoritative figure, such as Peter. The persecution in 1 Peter fits Nero's time. "Pliny the Younger made his first alleged reference to Christians in 112 AD, long after the date in contention." I used Pliny, not as proof Jesus existed, but to back up that the word "Christian" was used in Tacitus' time, which you admitted and corrected your argument. Ancient people kept records, wrote things down, and tracked information faithfully . They had libraries, government records and records from religious authorities. Pliny could have known from such such sources. If modern historians can find out what happened 1000 years ago, Pliny can know what occured just 58 yeaars before him.