Jesus probably did not exist

I again, send Thanks to my opponent for this debate. Rebuttal: My opponent said, I did not rebuttal his first argument but only against lack of sources. Well under the circumstances, since we are debating, I thought it would be proper if He did give sources. He basically tried to subtle readers with His own story telling as long as He could convince them ahead of giving resources that made it justified. He then gives us claims of people like, Dionysus, Zoroaster and Horus. What does the claims of these people offer to discredit that a man named Jesus Christ of Nazareth from the Bible ever walked this earth? None. These people at best discredit's that Jesus was a God, not a man. Should we think that Jesus, Zoroaster, Horus and Dionysus were not all actual people, that were just given elaberate stories around thier lives? Most likely they were actual people, instead of created figments. We can be confident that Zoroaster was, http://en.wikipedia.org.... My opponent then goes about discrediting the Bible itself. He must do this, because the Bible gives the best documentation of Jesus Christ. Let's notice, as I go over my opponents attempt at discrediting the Bible, the weakness of his claims on top of the fact that they are false. Q: Matthew 1:17 and Matthew 1:2 "He says I'm skipping a generation." No, I said you are adding a generation. Matthew 1:17 "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations." We can see here that David is added twice, making it 42. When all are written from Mat. 1:2-16, we see David added once which counts the total at 41. Q: 2 Timothy 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 7:12 "I say, not the Lord." Paul had restated the direct teaching of the Lord Jesus concerning divorce, but Jesus had not given any instructions about mixed marriages. Paul was going to provide it under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Q: Acts 20:35 "and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus;"The apostle had collected a sense of some passages of Jesus and/or had been a saying of Jesus. Passages such as: Luke 12:15Ephesians 4:28Ephesians 4:28Q: Luke 4:29"First he rejects that Luke is canon." Lol, I never stated this. The city of Nazareth is nestled in the hills of the Lower Galilee. I provided evidence of such. Q: Matthew 14 "He says I should provide the records. Since my opponent apparently has a copy of Josephus' history, he should simply read that." My opponent makes a claim then expects the reader and I to find the literature ourselves? That is highly irregular and completely fallious in a debate.Q: Luke 2:1My opponent does not know nor can He prove that Quirinus was not governor twice. Once before the famous census He refers and after. Not even historians can prove that. Q: Judas' ending My opponent again fails to provide His example and expects the reader and myself to look up evidence that He should provide. This is dropped by concession. Q: Thomas 42 and Luke 10:25-37I never stated either work is lying. I said, that one was canon and one was not. To be mistaken is not to lie. Thomas could be mistaken and that would make sense why it is not canon. S: Mark being midrashic: Most Jewish sources read the book of Mark as midrash. This does not mean the literary work of Mark is solely a midrash interpretation. According to early Church tradition, c. 140 C.E., the author of the text is ascribed to be Mark the traveling companion of Paul, the apostle of Christ, and the interpreter of Peter.(Kealy, Sean. Mark’s Gospel: A History of Its Interpretation.) S: Christ meaning anointed: Christ does mean anointed one or Messiah. My opponent, as I, have shown that the Christ wrote about, is Jewish and the Biblical Jesus Christ. Though others could have this title, none offer a Jewish heritage or a Biblical recording. S: Josephus being edited: Considering Josephus is Jewish and his writings are sacred for Jewish historians, it seem's hard to believe they would allow Christian's to touch His works, much less edited them. Jewish people do not reconize Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Furthermore the recordings of Josephus do not reconize Jesus as the Messiah at all. My opponent has not shown without a doubt that these writings have been edited by Christians. He furthermore is tarnishing Jewish historians by suggesting they would edit thier history for Jesus Christ and Christians. S: Most of the letters being from long after Jesus' death: A minimum of 30 years and a maximum of 50. Revelation makes some prophetic references to the Fall of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70AD. The other disciples were dead before 70 AD, they had to have written their "books", about 40 years after Jesus died. S: Mark composition date: Most scholars date the gospel between 65-70 C.E.(Kealy, Sean. Mark’s Gospel: A History of Its Interpretation.) S: Judean life expectancy: There many things that comes into play in life expectancy. The average has no weight in individual's. My oponent states, "He further agrees that non-canonical gospels are works of fiction." I never stated this, and my opponent seem's to either make claims on his own or is just dishonest. Clarification of this debate: My opponent must fully overcome the 2000+ years of documentation by historians to prove his case in which he hasn't. Jesus is mentioned by historians far more than any other religious figure in history. 96% of historians agree that Jesus Christ of Nazareth did walk this earth either by man or God, my opponent must dispose of atleast half of them and their records to even attempt to be justified in his claims. My opponent should circulate a petition against most the historians in history that his claims and stories provide more evidence than theirs. P1) Validality of the Bible: The quality of the Old Testament is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good also. Both are considerably better than in other acient document. With the countless verifiable evidence that show Biblical claims are true, it would be foolish to think that the man named Jesus Christ of Nazareth was not real at all. There is no readings or variant that are significant enough to call into question any of the New Testament documents. The New Testament is considered 99.5% pure. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls dating back to 200 B.C. for the Old Testament, to 68 A.D. for the New Testament, drastically reduces the time span in which the New Testamant was written. This gives the best evidence in itself that Jesus Christ did walk this earth. The time span of the New Testament remains exceptional. To summarize this, the Old and New Testament are far greater in terms of quanity, quality, and time frame than any other acient document. I offer a video of the Bible's history.----> Affirmation: To summarize my opponent's case is like expecting us to pull into a gas station to get gas and wanting us to wash our entire car with the window washer, it is ridiculous. Then He gives me slack about my sources, which Btw were completely valid, is like someone who is big into worrying about the threat of global warming and rejecting their own carbon dioxide and body heat contribution to the planet. His sources and conduct have been just the same if not more harmful. My opponent has failed to provide reason to reject recorded history. He has failed to give reason to reject Biblical history. He has failed to show any errors of scripture. He has done nothing but try to convince us with flash and elaberate stories, I hope that did not work on the reader. His argument has some rather blatant errors. I thank my oppponent and send it back his way. http://bible.org...http://www.youtube.com... http://www.seeking4truth.com... http://www.seeking4truth.com...