The Jesus of the Bible Probably Existed

Thanks to InquireTruth for this interesting topic. I might be arguing a revolutionary view of Jesus, but we shall see where this leads us. First of all, I am not contending that Jesus of Nazareth existed. However, this is not what the resolution states. The resolution states that Jesus of the Bible existed. This presumably means the conjunction "Jesus of Nazareth AND Jesus the Christ existed." That is the resolution I shall be arguing against. I assume that we are not going to be quibbling about probabilities and whether or not our arguments satisfy 50 % probability. I submit that "reasonable doubt" is a high enough bar to negate the resolution. Second, I'd like to personally interject that I am quite happy to be debating InquireTruth again, as he seems to be a theist that thinks with his brain and not the Bible. The quality of his argument pleases me to no end. However, I shall still begin my attempt at tearing it apart. ********************* 1. Tacitus speaks of Jesus of Nazareth. The passage my opponent refers to is concerning Nero's persecution of Christians, and mentions Christ in passing - it doesn't say anything about whether or not Jesus the Christ was really the son of God, just that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was sometimes called Jesus Christ. >> "With Tacitus' reliability it seems unreasonable that he would be wrong in his assessment." Tacitus' assessment was that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was killed because he was considered the leader of the Christian movement. The point is moot towards the resolution. 2. Josephus has merely verified the existence of historical figures that we know to have existed. This is again directed towards the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus the Christ. 3. Other extrabiblical accounts that verify the existence of historical figures are not good evidence for the existence of Jesus the CHRIST, but work well for Jesus of Nazareth. *** I should interject that I will address the 2nd and 3rd points a little later *** 4. I do not find this position to be very compelling ("There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts"). The notion here seems to be that there was not enough time after Jesus's death to falsify an account of his life before the four gospels were written. A timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org...) with conservative dates first and later dates second: 0 CE - Jesus is born. ~ 33 CE - Jesus is crucified. ~ 65 CE - Mark (as late as 73 CE) ~ 70 CE - Matthew (as late as 85 or even 100 CE) ~ 80 CE - Luke (as late as 100 CE) ~ 90 CE - John (as late as 110 CE) Thus, we can see that there is roughly 30 years between the death of Jesus and the authorship of the first gospel, which is plenty of time for there to be an adaptation of pre-existing legend to the historical context of Jesus of Nazareth's life. My opponent even admits (or presents) that "we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Christianity's beginnings." I submit that there is evidence that another figure or the combination of other figures can satisfy this proposition. 5. The rule of parsimony (similar to Occam's Razor) is not a very good one to apply to Biblical discussions, as the simplest answer is most likely "The Bible contains exaggerations and fairy tales," NOT "The Bible is true." My opponent includes this point to combat the notion that Christ-Myths can be introduced as a good explanation. Passion of the few, closed locales, and modification can be explained simply by asserting that those that spread the myth of Jesus did so quite eloquently. Consider that not many people had actually met Jesus to begin with (many had HEARD of him), and the spread of Christianity was based on people that had never met Jesus believing stories that were told to them by eloquent speechcrafters. So it would not be surprising that many people firmly believe a myth, if they can believe the SAME story as fact. ***************************** (That took longer than I expected...) I indeed do intend to compare Jesus to other legends and myths including Horus. However, the only evidence I can find for the exclusion of Massey is that he is self-taught. I ask that my opponent provide evidence for their exclusion. I might as well do as my opponent expects and get the similarities between Jesus and Horus out there. There are many of these parallels, some of which are in question, but the ones that seem to be valid are: Born of a Virgin and a God (Mary's virginity afterward is in question; Isis was a virgin till she & Osiris did the nasty). Of Royal Descent (Duh - sons of Gods. Horus was supposedly related to a Pharoah, Jesus to David). Birth "Announced" by a Star (Sirius for Horus, probably a supernova, Sirius, or Orion for Jesus). Had Murder Plots (Set for Horus, Herod for Jesus) Gap in Historical Record from about 12-30 Both Performed Miracles Both Can Control the Weather These comparisons seem fairly well documented, if not highly compelling on their own. However, there are additional, less specific parallels... Jesus walked on water - Horus attained power in a boat race. Horus had a collection of devout followers (20) - Jesus only had 12... Additionally, there are other aspects of mythology that contribute to the construction of the character Jesus Christ to fill a convenient hole in history. For example, the God-Mortal birth story is common to Egyptian, Pagan, Christian, and Greek/Roman mythology. Dionysus was the son of Zeus and a mortal, later given to Hermes to be cared for. It is easy to see that only minor adaptation would yield a story consistent with Christianity. Many of these comparisons only serve to show that the adaptation of universal mythic elements (Such as gods, conflict, resurrection, etc...) could have easily been applied to Christianity. Furthermore, these parallels were acknowledged by early Christian writers like St. Justin and St. Ireneaus. Other early Christian writers apparently omit mentions of Jesus the Christ (Justus Tiberius and Philo) or make mention of Jesus as a political figure, but not as the son of God (Suetonius). Other figures have incomplete and suspect records (Thallus' reference to darkness at Christ's death, even though he was probably not alive at the time; Acts of Pilate has an amendment that is supposedly written from Pilate to Claudius as an account of the resurrection). Lastly, every person that wrote about the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth had already read the Old Testament. Thus, it would be child's play to make the minor modifications to one's writing necessary to "fulfill" these prophecies. Also, Christianization of pre-existing events (dei solis; the winter solstice) may have contributed to the spread of Christianity by supplementing these events with Christian themes. I too, must cut my dissertation short if I am to remain within the character limit. I look forward to a very engaging debate. *********************** Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Other Wiki articles on Horus, Thallus, Pliny, etc... I will run out of characters if I include them all. My apologies.