The Evidence Shows Jesus Historically Existed

There are a number of factual errors and disputable claims in Pro's argument that need to be addressed before moving on to other matters. To make it easy to follow, I'll consider the points in the same sequence and under the same headings as they were presented. A brief disclaimer before I begin: At various points I will refer to something Jesus did or Jesus's life or death, or make some other reference as if we are discussing an actual historical figure. I don't believe we are, but I don't want to make the discussion tedious by inserting "alleged" in every sentence. Please take it as implied. 1.Paul Paul does indeed refer to Jesus. However, it is perfectly clear that Paul never claims to have met him in person. Paul claims to have heard a voice and seen a light [1]. It is interesting that Pro refers to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians being written "within five years of the Resurrection". It would appear that resurrections were commonplace in 1st century Palestine [2], however if we wish to base this debate on historical fact, and are discussing a historical figure, I submit that the assumption of a resurrection is not valid. Neither does a voice and a light from heaven constitute eyewitness testimony to the existence of a historical figure. Pro also states categorically that Paul was "a persecutor of the early Church during the time when Jesus was actually still alive with his ministry." The biblical reference he gives [3], does state that Paul persecuted the early church, but it certainly doesn't claim he did it while Jesus was alive. On the contrary, Paul's persecution of Christians began after he witnessed the stoning of Stephen [4], some time after the death of Jesus. There are a number of other debatable issues in this section to which I will refer in later rounds if required, including the fact that Jesus having a brother called James is widely disputed [5], and that the earliest existing copies of any of Paul's letters date to the third century AD [6], but to avoid making this initial response too lengthy, I'll just point out that any evidence Paul offers for the existence of a physical person named Jesus is, by definition, hearsay, and move on to the next set of suggested "proofs" referred to by Pro. 2.Secular records of Jesus: Josephus: Early Christian writers (pre 3rd century) make no reference to either passage, and many Christian scholars regard them as fraudulent, most likely having been penned by a church historian named Eusebius [7]. Also, even if they were authentic, these writings date from 60+ years after the death of Jesus - the author wasn't even alive at the time Jesus is supposed to have died, so again it would constitute nothing more than hearsay. The final objection I'll make here is that if we take out the two passing, and almost certainly fraudulent references, how odd is it that a conscientious, thorough Jewish historian like Josephus would have nothing to say about Jesus and the Christian movement which is supposed to have had such a massive impact on Jewish society? Tacitus: Again, the authenticity of this passage is disputed, and the question remains, if it is authentic, why did none of the early church fathers quote from it? Additionally, it appears that there is photographic evidence to suggest the earliest existing copy of this document has been altered to introduce the term "Christians" [8]. Clement: Although some claim the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians was penned around 95 AD, internal references indicate that it couldn't have been written until the second century - long after the first generation of Christians [9]. 3.Matthew It's important to note again that the earliest existing copy of the Gospel of Matthew dates to the 4th century, and the earliest suggestion of it being written by the disciple Matthew comes from the middle of the second century [10]. Furthermore, most scholars appear to agree that it was written between AD 80 and AD 90, and was not written by the disciple Matthew. One of the main reasons for this is that it copies almost the entirety of Mark's gospel, and an eyewitness to the life of Jesus would not need to source his information from somewhere else. It is unlikely the author of this or any other gospel ever met Jesus [11]. No doubt more will be said on this as the debate progresses, but at the moment we can reasonably conclude that not one of the so-called testimonials described by Pro as being "conclusive", "reliable" and "accurate" was written by anyone who had ever met the person claimed to be "the historical Jesus". Additionally, the various pieces of "evidence" range from being mildly to extremely likely to be fraudulent. Having addressed the "evidence" presented by Pro, I would like to give a few brief excerpts from a book by one of the leading advocates of the idea of a historical Jesus. The book is Did Jesus Exist? : The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman. These quotes are taken from a review by Jim Walker [12] : "There is no hard, physical evidence for Jesus." [p.42] "No Greek or Roman author from the first century mentions Jesus." [p.43] "I need to stress that we do not have a single reference to Jesus by anyone---pagan, Jew, or Christian---who was a contemporary eyewitness, who recorded things he said and did." [p.46] "The Gospels of the New Testament are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. Neither are the Gospels outside the New Testament, of which we have over forty, either in whole or in fragments. In fact, we do not have any eyewitness report of any kind about Jesus, written in his own day." [p.49] Hearsay evidence is not considered proof in any civilised court of law. And yet, by Erhman's own admission, hearsay evidence is the only evidence there is that Jesus ever existed. Not one person who saw, heard or met him has left any account of his existence. In the next round I will look at some examples of mythical figures who have "evidence" of their existence at least as good, if not better than the evidence for Jesus, and also at people we should expect to have much to say about Jesus who remain strangely silent. References [1]Acts 9:1-9 [2]Matthew 27:51-53 [3]I Corinthians 15:9 [4]Acts 7:57 " 8:3 [5]https://en.wikipedia.org... [6]https://en.wikipedia.org... [7]http://www.truthbeknown.com... [8]http://www.jesusneverexisted.com... [9]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com... [10]https://thechurchoftruth.org... [11]http://www.humanreligions.info... [12]http://nobeliefs.com...