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

As I quote, "Currently, 98-99% of scholars agree that A man by the name of Christ, who led a group called the christians, was trialed by a man named Pontitus Pilate. Many atheist scholars have been vocal, that they can not respect any educated man who denies Jesus of Nazareth existed. There is just an overwhelming amount of evidence, and some scholars have even went as far as calling mythicists uneducated and ignorant." This is called Appeal to Popularity. Or Fallacy of Majority. This is called trying to validate a statement based on the number of people that support it. An example: People used to believe the Earth was flat, however this was not the case. http://logical-critical-thinking.com... "We have more evidence of Jesus then..... Julius Caesar. The great general who conquered Gaul, invaded Iberia, established a dictatorship, and defeated Pompey in the Roman Civil War. Books were written about him, hell, he even made some himself. " Ummm.. pardon, but when did this become an argument of Julius Caesar? And where is this evidence? Oh wait, 20 rounds? "If I were to put the rest, and all the non-secular authors, I would have went 20 rounds. " Then how come we are having trouble getting valid proof? This is called a red herring fallacy. This is trying to switch to a different topic in order to prove something true. The equation for this is Red herring = A is B, therefore C. This is a false way to prove something like Jesus existed. Just because Julius Caesar existed or there is “more” evidence for Jesus does not alter the fact that the point of that statement is irrelevant. There is no point, and it does not help your argument, especially since you did not provide a source for this new information. This is a violation of the rules. He has not provided a source for this information. I urge the audience to look at that. http://logical-critical-thinking.com... "I figured you would bring this up. Josephus, was in fact, quoting multiple sources in "Testimonium Flavianum" Something he was admired for. Josephus even confirmed John the Baptist, another famous man/prophet who wrote 100's of letters and records of Jesus's existence. Please read the below article regarding Josephus on Jesus:" Ummm... point being? He may of confirmed John the Baptist (a very good member to the Jesus cult), but this still is not evidence for the man that walked around. Great, he wrote a story about a man that is told from another man. No actual eye-witness testimony from any of these "secular" sources about the man Jesus. There are absolutely no eye-witness testimony from an honest and secular source! Not one! Every single piece of evidence that Pro has provided has been either passed down through Christian scribes or they all are relying again on Christian eyewitness testimony. "I am doubting whether or not you actually looked at the actual text. Tacitus was the most respected and generally considered the greatest Roman historian. Almost all Roman scholars agree the passage was genuine, and showed a complete knowledge of the time, and was most likely sourced from the roman archive, as he was a high official, and had access to every single record that the scribes had ever recorded on Rome. " Ummm... I do not have to say any more. Pro is refuting my argument without sources. His point is that he is an honorable historian from the Roman times. He may be famous, but he is still past the age limit... He was not an eyewitness to the trial, thus he is not a reliable source. "I request Con to relook at the passage I provided for Sextus Julius Africanus, as he has clearly passed over the details. It is Thallus who was eyewitness to Jesus, a secular man who had lived during the crucifixion. " I looked at it. Guess what? Christian website... Christian Think Tank? We have discussed and determined that Christian sources are biased and cannot be used. Also, your previous sources still say otherwise. Why is the argument contradicting itself? "I would like to remind the audience has actually provided no sources of his own. He has only repasted my sources in a list, even though he did not dispute manyof them, or did he make solid cases regarding which, besides age. Also, if you have a request (pictures), please tell me over pm. I will stop if it bothers you, but it seems like you are attempting a conduct attack." I have provided sources. They are in a list, clearly defined as to what they are used for. Some I did actually hunt down on my own, but I did not have to do a lot seeing how I didn't DISPUTE your sources, but merely used them as they were provided. I used your own sources to prove out facts. Facts that object to the sources' credibility. Like I also said, it was for the audience to know, since I have seen a few of your arguments, and you generally have pictures. I was being polite. - Makeing a argument that Jesus was or was not god is a loss of conduct. - All new evidence must be backed up by sources or a loss of conduct. - Any developments outside the debate are void. These were the three main rules of the debate. The ones in Round two are listed below. - There is absolutely no reason to turn this into a god exists debate. This debate is simply if a man named Jesus of Nazareth once preached throughout the Roman Empire. - I do expect sources, because I am going to put a lot of records of his existence on the table, so any counter-arguments need sources proving my records are false. - I meant that any arguments in the comments or elsewhere should not be factored into the vote. These are the rules revised in Round two. My opponent claims that I broke one of these rules. I have not. He did not merely understand the point I was trying to make. If Christianity, the famous Jesus of Nazareth is centered around, is false and not true, then how can Jesus be true? He can not. Thus, any christian sources that I find, they cannot be counted due to their bias to the debate. Overall Conclusion -No facts that my opponent has represented for his existence are legit and credible -Christian sources are indeed biased, and thus, cannot be used in an argument for Jesus -None of my opponent's sources were even alive at the time of this man's existence. -My opponet compared to unrelated topics to each other. Multiple times. (Julius Caesar, global warming) -I have violated none of my opponent's rules. He is introducing new rules even though I have clearly violated none. -The claims I see that I have provided no sources are actually me following one of his rules. "- All new evidence must be backed up by sources or a loss of conduct." Seeing how the sources are providing evidence, I see no reason as to why it should account against me, especially on how they do not provide any new evidence.