The historicity of Jesus Christ

Con seems to have lost much of his resolve to continue this debate. Probably due to time issues, as his pm would suggest. But he has clearly not put as much effort into his last post as he did his first. Tacitus Con begins his attempt to refute my last post by saying that I picked my own translation to use to my advantage. I wouldn't call that a fair assessment given that I've been deliberately using my opponents own source. [1] He goes on to introduce his own source that he doesn't cite from anywhere. Poor sport. Con summarises his entire case against Tacitus into a single sentence: The bias which he presents could his judgement on many issues. Adding correct grammar, we get this: The bias which he presents could impair his judgement on many issues. For this claim to even put a scratch on my case would mean using Cons famous x hence y non sequitur fallacies, which he has been using everywhere in this debate. I have addressed this faulty reasoning twice already. We have already concluded that a) Any bias that Tacitus had was overruled by his presentations of facts that contradicted his views. b) No bias was present in the passage that we are concerned about. I would also request that Con cease putting all his effort into trying to establish that Tacitus had a bias and instead try to prove that the Annals 15:44 passage does not prove Jesus lived. So far he has failed to do thus, and since it’s the last round, I guess it’s too late. My opponent brings up again his previously destroyed argument that Tacitus' sources were unreliable. I guess Con has forgotten why he dropped it in the first place. To begin with, I would like to point out my opponent’s faulty reasoning. Again. His source was most likely Christians... compare this premise with his conclusion: this evidence itself has no solid basing. One cannot assert that if x might be true, then y must be true. This entire argument is invalid. Moreover, assuming Con presented this argument properly, then it would still be false due to: a) The blatantly negative tone he uses to insult Christians means he wasn't being informed by them. b) It is more likely that he got his information from Piny the Younger, another source of evidence for Christ; however, in Annals 15.53, we again see evidence of his integrity when he heavily disputed it and considered it absurd. c) If he got it from Christians, then due to his dislike of them, he should have put his usual disclaimer on it. None is present. So from all that we have argued over in this entire debate, we can now establish that Tacitus: 1) Was among the most honest historians ever to live. 2) Was one of the most reliable historians ever to live. 3) Presented evidence for Jesus that was not refuted by Con. It’s sad to see that points 1 and 2 were heavily yet unsuccessfully attacked by Con, and point 3, the most important one, was ignored. Tacitus alone affirms the resolution completely. The Talmud Con's case against the Talmud is self-defeating. He asserts that since it gets facts wrong, its unreliable. Yet the only reason we know some things are wrong in it is because we compare it with other sources, when the sources agree, we know it is reliable, when they disagree, one of them is wrong. However, when it comes to Jesus, the Talmud says the same thing as everything else: He existed. The Talmud presents the Jewish leader's interpretation of events, in this case they deny Jesus performed miracles and was resurrected. However, one blatantly obvious fact that I asked Con still remains unanswered: Why didn't these people just claim that Jesus never existed in the first place? Instead of going through all the effort to concede his existence but make him look very bad in history. Josephus Con's attack on Josephus' passage is that neither passage proves Jesus. Very interesting rebuttal. Let’s have a look at Josephus' antiquities: Antiquities 20:9:1 "...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." [2,3,4,5] My opponent claims Josephus made a grammatical error in which he states that Jesus was so-called Christ, instead of this so-called Jesus. If Josephus wasn't certain of Jesus' historicity, he would have not used the phrases: αδελφός του Ιησού, που ονομάστηκε Χριστός,του οποίου το όνομα... but instead phrased it as either: ο αδελφός του λεγόμενου Ιησού ο αδελφός του λεγόμενου Χριστού Antiquities 18:3:3: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man." [6,7,8,9] This passage clearly states Jesus' existence. Since my opponent has not come up with an effective rebuttal yet, this entire passage remain unrefuted. And since this is the last round, the resolution is yet again affirmed. Lucian What Con was trying to say is that Lucian didn't write facts into his writings because: "being factual would make it dull." He didn't provide any sources to back his claim. This attempt by Con was quite honestly rubbish. As I stated before, despite what Con thinks would make a good writer, Lucian still made sure his facts were correct. His satire was still there, but all the events he talked about where correct. We can see what a fanatic he was about accuracy in a letter-formatted treatise entitled "The Way to Write History," addressed to Lucian's friend, Philo. I quote from his work: History...abhors the intrusion of any least scruple of falsehood; it is like the windpipe, which the doctors tell us will not tolerate a morsel of stray food. The historian's one task is to tell the thing as it happened. (The historian) must sacrifice to no God but Truth; he must neglect all else; his sole rule and unerring guide is this - to think not of those who are listening to him now, but of the yet unborn who shall seek his converse. [10] No other historian has ever personified the truth as divine. And no other historian has been so vehement about accuracy. Since this point is unrefuted by Con in the last round, it too affirms the resolution. I had prepared some stronger defences for Lucian in case my opponent was using a valid rebuttal, but I'll have to see them go to waste due to Con's apparent lack of effort. >:( Scientific history: Con's case against Jesus' historicity is rather peculiar, let it be noted that he doesn't introduce any historical argument against him because every historical record we have claims him to have existed. So instead he argues that we cannot trust our sources. If that’s the case, written history began only a few hundred years ago. I would like to point out that by attacking events that supposedly happened during Christ's time attacks his divinity and the gospel accounts, but not his existence. In fact, Con's case in its entirety it’s an attack on the events that happened during Christ's time but not his existence. His attack on sources for Christ has already come to a withering death with his failure to refute my 4 secular sources of evidence for Jesus. Con's case is largely irrelevant to this debate. My case: Tacitus provides a report that Jesus existed. My opponent failed to assert why it isn't the case; prefering to attack his person rather than what he said. The Talmud contains errors, but Con failed to demonstrate that the references to Jesus where errors. He merely attacked the Talmud as a whole Josephus provided two passages to this debate which were simply dismissed by con as not constituting as evidence, a claim which was thoroughly dismembered. Lucian remains the least touched by Con; he not only failed to assert that his passage was not evidence for Jesus, but also failed to attack him as a valid historical source. Concluding Thanks Con for the debate, it was a good challenge in the first few Rounds. The motion: Jesus probably existed has been easily affirmed due to my superior arguments and Con's failure to refute them. I have posted my sources in the comments as per rule 4, there are 51 sources in all.