Jesus Christ doesn't exist

There is no excuse for how horrible my opponent's arguments are. The sheer stupidness of the arguments indicate he's trolling and should have conduct points taken away. I'll do what I typically Do when frustrated with incompetence, and take this point by point. "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" So Jesus had a brother. Can you show me James, and have him say "Yes, I am Jesus's brother". And if that was the verse you were talking about, how does that even link to the first quote?" The first quote mentions Jesus dying on a cross, the second quote mentions the name Jesus without the first quote the second one is silly because it refers to Jesus who wasn't introduced. I really don't know if I can dumb it down any further. You're asking a question that has already been answered. Also, No I can not show you James and have him say that he is Jesus's brother, because James is dead, nor would it even be useful to do so, because the debate isn't about whether he is actually his brother, but about the existence of Jesus. " Can I see the source, as well as explained to me how it is reliable? Again, a non-existent person cannot be punished. You can pretend a non-existent person has been punished, however. I need to know if Jesus truly was punished, and it's not being made up." The source is in the debate I linked to and named as a source. All sources are easily accounted for. I guess you could pretend a non existent person got punished. Anything is possible, try applying Occam's Razor and recognize the importance of multiple witnesses. Also recognize the fact that Tacitus wrote about numerous historical events and is a reliable contemporary historian. Is it possible that you'll win the lottery tomorrow, sure, but saying that something has a chance of not being true is stupid, and not even a rebuttal. I've provided reasons to believe this is true, and my opponent needs to provide a real rebuttal as opposed to pointing out that a possibility may exist where this historian is accurately recording every historical event he encounters, but decided to play a joke by recording something about a man from a religion he doesn't even believe just to screw with future generations who may or may not even get the joke because the small cult surrounding this guy fades into oblivion. "Is there evidence of Jesus having impacts, though? A non-existent man can't have flaws, but you can pretend a non-existent man has flaws, and I think that's what the gospel is doing; pretending Jesus exists, and having flaws." Did you even read what I said about this. This is literally the kind of stupidity that makes me tempted just to randomly quit this debate, so I don't stoop to the level of my opponent. Here is what I said, genius. "Most importantly is the embarrassment factor which is something historians look for in determining reliability of a text. [9] The church would have incentive to cover up the embarrassment factor and you can actually see this with the gospels written later then Mark where Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit when it wasn't in season was left out (Mark 11:12), Or Jesus's first failed attempt at healing a blind man which makes him have to attempt it again (Mark 8:28). In the gospel of Mark John the Baptist, baptizes Jesus but the later gospels eliminate John the Baptist from the picture or the Baptism or try to down play his role." The embarrassment factor is important because it shows these people giving their God very human flaws when his godliness is more believable and less embarrassing if he were perfect. Please take the time to actually address the premises, and perhaps work on your reading comprehension skills. "Hmmm... It is true someone would catch James on lying, however, what is James never existed in the first place? Assuming James isn't real, someone else made him up; perhaps a group of Christians. If James is to be evidence, Con needs to show he does in fact exist! Yeah, those people may get caught lying, but it's religion!" Paul was likely still alive when he wrote his books. I guess it's possible that he lied, like it's possible my mom is lying about actually being my mom, but it's a stupid thing to believe and not the product of using Occam's Razor. Not to mention that I provided within my argument the responses to all his stupid questions. Also I provided the sources by linking to the debate I copy and pasted my argument from, which has the sources in it.