Christianity is not real.

If possible would it be more comfortable, if Con could actually make in-text-references for his sources, because after checking them I noticed a fair amount of copy&paste material; especially the first argument. Round 2 Structure [Rebuttal 1] General problems with comparing Jesus to other religious authorities1a: The case Horus1b: The case Krishna1c: The case Buddha[Argument 1] Evidence for Jesus the historical personNote: I'll continue these arguments next round, when I don't run out of characters[R1] General problems with comparing Jesus to other religious authoritiesI respect my opponents concept of comparing Jesus to others but I see some grave problems in this technique, if the intention is to show, that Jesus is made up. On first though, Jesus doesn't necessary need to be made up, just because there are stories about him that are. Jesus doesn't even loose his status as the messiah, just because some of his doings might or might not have happened. Mark for example never wrote about Jesus birth yet his gospel is included in the bible and he was obviously convinced that what he wrote was enough to show Jesus as the saviour. We can't even be sure how much the gospel writers plagiarised from other religions to show that Jesus was the saviour. Some links can easily be meant as metaphors (such as the virgin birth) while others rather can't (such as the healing). The bible is a complex piece of writing. Most of it's parts were written (long) after Jesus died, in many different languages that are not spoken any more (e. g. traditional Greek) and the whole thing has been edited by each subculture of Christianity many times (I am talking for example about the Vatican Councils), meaning that the bible is not even reliable in terms of representing their original sources properly. My opponent yielded to the temptation of arguing that the bible is either true or false. And if it is false, it must be made up. And if it is made up, Jesus must be made up. But this logic has its problems. The real question is: do we have reason to believe that there was person (ideally named Jesus) that served as the role model that inspired the creation of Christianity? (see Argumentation below)1a: The case Horus Anyway, I'll take the time to show why the given comparisons are even weak if we ignore that they can't show what Pro is trying to. With Horus we have a similar problem as we have with Jesus: that the stories about him developed and changed a lot and are only partly reliable. Different subcultures praised different forms and back stories of Horus, in one he, for example, is the son of Ra. Just as Osiris (another father) is a male god but still the father. AncientEgyptOnline already lists seven different types of Horus-cults of which the average Horus isn't much Jesus like {1b} but in case of Horus, the child of Osiris and Isis, his conception is most similar to what we find in Christianity, especially as Art later represented Jesus and Mary similar to Horus and Isis {1c}. This tells us, that people have later tried a lot to create and show similarities as a method of communication. We have to understand that people could not always read or had a very limited knowledge. Links like this are methods just as rhetoric to underline a message; plagiarism used to be good style. We might even consider Jesus to underline the parallels. If we assume that the people at his time knew about Horus so did he. Similarities can be intentionally. Just considering the number of disciples: twelve as it seems to be but the crowd around Jesus might have been bigger {2} meaning that the choice to mention mainly the twelve most trusted was also choice of those who told the stories. A good example is the translation of Lazarus and Asar. I strongly believe neither one of them was actually named that way. These names are often assigned to serve the purpose of the story: Lazarus is the Hebrew version of Eleazar, meaning "God" and "support" or "help" {3}. 1b: The case Krishna I don't want to say much on Krishna, especially because I don't want just repeat points from 1a. But the links to Krishna are really not substantial. A barn and a prison have nothing in common. To have children nice and smooth at the hospital is certainly a modern day thing. The survived-death-thing and the temptation-thing is what we also find with Horus. Did Krishna plagiarised the Egypts, too? And in terms of the sharp objects: Before guns were developed you only had three options to kill someone if you weren't willing to wait till they die of natural causes: hard objects, poison and sharp objects. And stabbing has a different poetry than hitting Krishna and Jesus with a stone. Anyway, to draw a line between being crucified (a punishment) and shot with an arrow (a war and anger act) is pretty far-fetched for everything before the 15th century. 1c: The case BuddhaHere we have a nice example that great ideas and morals can develop apart from each other and still focus on the same points. The given examples sound similar, but we have to consider, that they are both translations into English from two languages that have not the same origin as English. Which is by the way a nice example because written languages are a very similar form of communication yet developed partly unknowing about how other cultures communicated. An interview with the sutta translator Bhikkhu Bodhi shows for example how translations sometimes sacrifice content to have a nice rhetoric construct; "This problem becomes all the more acute when one is translating from an ancient language utilizing a somewhat archaic set of conceptual metaphors into a modern language pertaining to a very different culture" (Bhikku Bodhi; Interview) {4}. This explains why Buddhas teaching and Jesus teaching sound so similar. The same morals have been translated by using similar words. Or to say it differently: Two authentic ideas can still be paraphrased similar. [A1] Evidence for Jesus, the historical PersonThere is documentary evidence for Jesus life, or at least his death, from different sources, that are not the bible such as Tacitus the Roman historian (55 - 115. A. D. ) and Flavius Josephus (~ 37 - 101 A. D) a Jewish priest. Josephus, in the Arabic version of his writing {5}: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. " (Josephus)And Tacitus, who hated both Jews and Christians and had therefore even less reason to foster any believe in Jesus reported: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate [. .. ]" (Tacitus) {6}Even the Talmud mentions Jesus {6} and though this is another religious (yet not Christian) source, there seems to be no reason for Judaism to mention Jesus if there was not reason to believe that he, as a person, was real; as his whole existence challenges core points of Jewish believes. Sources {1a} . http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk... {1b} . http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk... {1c} . http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk... {2} . http://www.crivoice.org... {3} . http://www.abarim-publications.com... {4} . http://www.inquiringmind.com... {5} . http://carm.org... {6} . http://law2.umkc.edu...