Did a man named Jesus of Nazareth once Exist - Team Debate

I must sincerely apologize for me "forfeiting" the round. I got a little busy over the weekend and did not have time to post my argument. I am sorry. I hope I can do my best to come through with the other two rounds. Thank you for your patience. Starting with your sources, Josephus according to your second source for him was alive at approximately 37 AD. However, Jesus was to be born at around scholars estimate from 7 to 2 B.C.E. The average life expectancy for a male in this time was about 35 years of age. So, even if Josephus was alive barely at the time of his crucifixion, a reliable account of Jesus existence is not the case with this man. He is too old. He would barely have access to any of the supposed witnesses of his murder. And even if he did have sufficient access, by all definitions, Christianity is a cult. And, If they wanted to build a story of Jesus, they well could have. Thus, he can not be depended upon for reliability. He was not an eyewitness. This is also the same case for your next source, Tacticus. He is born at around 55 C.E. (A.D. C.E. is a Christian translation of the time A.D.) and thus, he can not be accounted for a witness to the trial. (also, his birth was from the first listed source for him from Pro's argument with Tacticus, a .edu domain..) Lucian lived at around 120-180 A.D. according to my opponent's third source for Lucian. There is not a chance that he had an account of Jesus. Your next argument is not any better with Julius. He is even older than the other two. According to my opponent's encyclopedia source (Britannica), he was born at around 180 A.D. There is not any chance or way he had access to any reliable account of Jesus. Pliny the Younger was a person that wrote a letter at about 112 A.D. according to my opponent's PBS source for him. So, if he lived at this time, there is no way he had access to any of the witnesses to Jesus or Jesus himself. Suetonis started to write according to my opponent's second source (tektonics.org) at 120 A.D. This still proves that he is too old to have any actual testimony to Jesus Christ himself. So, we have determined that none of my opponent's sources could have actually witnessed Jesus himself. The only one that could barely have been true was Josephus, and even on those grounds it is shaky, because the only time, according to my opponent's third source for Suetonis, that he could have possibly even witnessed his trial was when he was three years old (According to the source, Jesus was on trial at 40 A.D., and since Josephus was born at 37 A.D. , I think the math is right...) I await the next round for the biased sources (Christian sources of course wish to spread the religion, but I shall disprove them irregardless) and the Talmud. I will repaste all the sources that I mentioned in Chronological order as I have used them that were from my opponent : http://beginningandend.com... http://law2.umkc.edu... http://www.neverthirsty.org... http://www.britannica.com... http://www.pbs.org... http://www.tektonics.org... These are my sources for the info on the life expectancy of Jesus and the average life expectancy of the average person: http://didyouknow.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... (Yes, I know, Wikipedia. Post a comment on how it is unreliable. Sure, people can change it, but they do fix the error almost immidiately) My opponent also likes to use pictures... Really... Big... Pictures.. If he could please not do that, that would be greatly appreciated. Personally, I found it annoying when the picture was bigger than his points. That is just my opinion. He can if he feels it is necessary. I am just asking politely. (Why am I asking him via the debate and not message? So the audience knows in case if they are wondering why the pictures {rum (Pirates of the Caribbean reference)} is gone. Since I am done disproving my opponent's sources as false, I next shall disprove the religion that is based around Jesus, called Christianity, where it's beliefs can contradict themselves. How this helps my argument? It points out that the story behind Jesus himself is false. I will be using the Bible and its direct verse contradictions, and I will also use common belief structure of the religion and its many contradictions. To begin, we must understand a few things. Judgement is upheld to God, and to God alone. God unconditionally loves all of his creations. God knows every single thought or action you will ever do or think. These are the three main principles of God. The universality of God amongst the religions. (Those that do not believe Judgement is upheld by God, you contradict yourself. The Bible says that he judges you numerous times. If you wish me to pull quotes, please comment because I am running out of room. If you do, It will be in the next round) Now, from these principles, we can point out a couple things. Sin is a lie. Hell is nonexistent. Some of you may be wondering how that is possible, but let me explain how. God loves all of his creatures. Why would he punish us if he loves all of his creations? Common response: Because we have free will and we do evil. But he knows every single action or thought you will ever do. So, thus why would he punish you for something that he knows that you will do? Common response: Because he is God and we will never understand him. (This doesn't make sense. We don't need to understand God to understand his work. Otherwise, how is there knowledge of such places? How do we know how the system of Heaven and Hell works, that good people go up and bad goes down? Clearly, this is circular logic, because this contradicts its own argument. Thus, the loop is not true logic, since logic builds off itself, and does not run in a constant loop. Sin is a lie. ) Now, since we have determined this, we can also point out evil is something that God also loves unconditionally. Why? Because he invented it. If God didn't like evil, he would have made it so it didn't exist. Thus, we know he wants evil to exist. Thus, sending us to hell over something that he wants to be in the world is wrong. It doesn't make sense. The system that has been presented to you is a lie. So, if sin is a lie, then why does hell exist? If it did, it serves no purpose. Hell is nonexistent. Since sin is a lie, and the books of Jesus from the Bible claim he is the savior due to the cleansing of our sins, they are a LIE. Jesus now has no point of dying. Because if he was the Son of God, he wouldn't have died over something that doesn't exist. I really don't need to provide contradictions from the Bible at this point, but I will irregardless. The story of his death from the Gospel of John and that of Matthew, along with Mark, contradict each other. John claims that he died from a soldier's spear. In Matthew, however, he uttered his last breath while hanging on the cross. Without a soldier's spear. He also says two completely different things before he dies. Jesus dies twice while on the same cross. 2 Peter also states that the Bible is infallible and not wrong. This is a lie, since Genesis is impossible. Since the Bible can indeed be fallible, and the religion is fallible, then what part of the religion around Jesus Christ can be true? Thus, using Christian sources is NOT credible. They are biased, trying desperately to use a circle of illusions and false logic to prove something that never existed. Well, since I just proved my opponent's next argument for Christian sources to be false, he can now skip to the Talmud, where I await his argument. I must also thank you for your patience once more. And I also must re apologize.