Jesus Existed as a Historical Person who Started the Christian Movement

1) I contend the Christians in those days did not believe the resurrection happened physically on earth, so again nothing to confess. This was an error on my part. It should have read "many" before "the Christians". Some Gnostics and in particular the Docetists believed Jesus was only spiritual, thus his body, crucifixion and resurrection were illusory. True, Ignatius wrote against this. Additionally, given the fact that some books in what is now called the New Testament condemned it (for instance 1 John 4:1-3)we can safely say this was a common belief, enough to require such a denunciation from opponents. In any case, the "orthodox" differed from the Synoptic Gospels themselves. Irenaeus stated that Jesus was "more than fifty years old when he died" (Against Heresies, II, 22) and that "he remained among them up to the times of Trajan" (the reign of Emperor Trajan began in 98 AD). Church Father Epiphanius of Salamis, in contrast, placed Jesus around a century before the Synoptic Gospels claim, between 103-76 BC, in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (Panarion, 29:3). "believers of all faiths have died rather than "confess their lies." "Not for an event they made up. If the apostles had invented Jesus they wouldn't be willing to die and be persecuted for this lie. Early Christians most assuredly would have been in a position to know whether Jesus actually existed or not. Just as much as we living in modern times, ancient people kept records, wrote things down, and tracked information faithfully. In Nero's time eyewitness of Christ would still be alive. Not even their enemies claimed Jesus was a myth." We do not for sure who the Apostles were, if they were, or how they died. Regardless, it assumes they would not be willing to die, unlike presumably the adherents of the many "fake" religions around the world. Joseph Smith is a good example, as he "died for a lie" according to you. There have been many others in his mode. I think you are deeply underestimating the power a belief can have, ironically enough. It's not a lie to the true believer, especially if there were no miraculous event fabricated to begin with. The early Christians would not be in a position to know if Jesus existed or the resurrection happened assuming the witnesses and miracle themselves had been non-existent, as my argument has been here. Their enemies were prone to similar fantastic belief, so the lack of disputation by them is unfortunate but unsurprising. Wikipedia says: "Passages corroborated by historical evidence in Acts is considered consistently accurate with regard to specific details of its 1st century environment, specifically with regard to titles of officials, administrative divisions, town assemblies, administrative affairs associated with the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and synchronization of historical details,[24] including:... Felix and Festus are correctly called procurators of Judea. Acts correctly refers to Cornelius as centurion and to Claudius Lysias as a tribune (Acts 21:31, 23:36) The title proconsul (anthypathos) is correctly used for the governors of the two senatorial provinces named in Acts (Acts 13:7-8, Acts 18:12) Inscriptions speak about the prohibition against the Gentiles in the inner areas of the Temple, as Acts 21:27-36 presupposes;...The function of town assemblies in the operation of a city's business is described accurately in Acts 19: 29-41; Roman soldiers were permanently stationed in the tower of Antionia with the responsibility of watching for and suppressing any disturbances at the festivals of the Jew; to reach the affected area they would have to come down a flight of steps into temple precincts, as noted by Acts 21:31-37" Yes, and right under that Wikipedia lists "passages of disputed historical accuracy" including regarding the Council of Jerusalem: http://en.wikipedia.org... "So Acts is quite reliable historically. Con seems to be saying that if Josephus' doesn't mention an event, it therefore didn't happen. Says who that the man didn't have his reasons for not including it? No historical work can be exhaustive anyway." No, I am not saying that. It was your citation of Josephus in the first place (the paragraph devoted to Jesus that I have challenged as interpolation). However, when Josephus, well-known for relating and commenting on even minor events, is silent on such a singular occurrence as the Council of Jerusalem, apparently it means nothing, in contrast to your quotations of him. Indeed, not only Josephus but all contemporary historians were silent, that was my point. "Virtually everything we know about the Peloponnesian war comes from his Thucydides' history. We have more accounts of Jesus existence in the Gospels, church fathers, and non-Christian historians than we do for the Peloponnesian War. Take away Thucydides and we have very little information on the war, take away Matthew and we still have the whole Gospel from other sources." The Peloponnesian war was far earlier, as you know. I am not at all sure we have less on the war than Jesus. Your own claim is that eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection would be still alive in the AD 60s, yet so few were moved to write down such a miracle. Or, as most were illiterate, at least tell others by word and follow the religion. The majority of converts were gentiles, rather than Jews, exactly opposed to what we would expect if hundreds, even thousands, had witnessed him and these miracles. The whole land would have been abuzz with stories, rumors, and writings, not just decades after-during the events themselves. Yet this is not how it was. "Con provided no examples. No NT quotes showing contradiction. I look forward to seeing them. Also, contradictions occur in all works of antiquity, this isn't unusual. There are many contradictions between survivors' accounts of the titanic sinking, and President Kennedy's assasinaiton, doesn't mean kennedy and the Titanic didn't exist or that the events didn't happen." The examples that contradicted were those of the female witnesses you cited being something the Gospel writers would not include if they were fabrications, as women were considered less believable. You yourself did not cite the exact Scriptures, but no matter, here they are: Luke 24:10 (4 women), Mark 16:1 (3 women), Matthew 28:1 (2), John 20:1 (1), 1 Corinthians 15:4-8 (none). 1 Corinthians, incidentally, is where "five hundred" witnesses at once are told of, about whom no record is extant. "Most scholars date the Gospel of Luke to c 80-90,[63][64] although some argue for a date c. 60-65.[65." The quote of Luke in 1 Timothy you seem to have in mind was "the laborer deserves to be paid." Assuming the later date of Luke is true, this may in fact be quoting Timothy rather. Or perhaps mundanely, "the laborer deserves to be paid" could be a common saying. Regardless, both Timothy's authorship and dating are disputed, with the latest possible date as 130-155 AD-plenty of time to quote Luke. http://en.wikipedia.org.... It seems that Wikipedia disagrees with your dates of these. Again, this assumes there were such witnesses to begin with. I said Gospel of Peter, not 1 Peter (or First Epistle of Peter). The Gospel of Peter is among those "non-Canonical Gospels which were rejected [1] by the Church Fathers as apocryphal." The scholars "generally agree on a date in the second half of the 2nd century." http://en.wikipedia.org... I think we're substantially in agreement on the term "Christian" issue now. I know that you used Pliny to prove this, as seems clear from my quote. Our view on Tacitus appears to be the same, at least enough for me. I'm almost out of space anyway. I suggest we drop this as a side issue and move on, unless you feel it needs more extrapolation. I will end it here and wait for your arguments in round 4 (phew)