The Jesus of the Bible Probably Existed

It seems what we will be quibbling about is the understanding of the resolution: "This presumably means the conjunction 'Jesus of Nazareth AND Jesus the Christ existed. ' That is the resolution I shall be arguing against. " My opponent assumes something that the resolution does not say and my arguments make quite clear that I am not arguing for. I am arguing for the Jesus OF the Bible, not according to or as stated by. This means that I am not arguing for the actions, miracles or titles ascribed in the Bible, but rather for the historical existence of the one they were ascribed to. There is no indication in either the resolution or my arguments to think otherwise. My opponent has wrongly suggested that I have a burden to prove the title of "Christ. " Such a disingenuous and egregious misrepresentation of the resolution is to be disregarded. This was no misunderstanding of the resolution but rather a sly trick of semantics – a failed trick it seems. . ;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? My opponent admits the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and has therefore conceded the debate. If he wishes to retract his forfeiture via concession, than he will have to change his answers to my first 3 points. 4. My opponent suggests that there was plenty of time for there to be a legendary adaptation. He believes that thirty years should suffice. The problem is that the time between the events themselves and the authorship of the gospels is too short for the MEMORY OF WHAT ORIGINALLY HAPPENED (or had not happened) to be erased. My opponent is also forgetting that the gospels are most probably based on oral tradition, as they draw upon the supposed gospel Q – a much earlier tradition. Paul's letter to the Galatians was written sometime in the 40's – approximately ten years after Jesus' death (1). 5. My opponent must show that stating Jesus of Nazareth did not exist is a more parsimonious explanation for the numerous writings that state the contrary. He did no such thing. It is most probable to believe that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, and therefore I fulfill the resolution. He insists that the spread of Christianity was by people who never saw Jesus. The spread of Christianity happened through his disciples. Indeed, my opponent must suggest that all of Jesus' disciples, and numerous others including Paul, were willing to be persecuted, tortured, and put to death in heinous ways for something they knew very well to be false (except John was never martyred, only exiled). What is more probable? My opponent makes a lame attempt to insist that parsimony suggests that the Bible is fairy tale. We are talking about historicity and he comparison of contemporaneous and corroborating accounts. Just like ANY OTHER historical documents, we should assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable. . ;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? "However, the only evidence I can find for the exclusion of Massey is that he is self-taught. " I don't pull my arguments from Dr. Dino's website because I know Hovind is unreliable. Unless you wish to do the virtual equivalent, I suggest you stay away from the research done by people who MAKE THINGS UP! You may very well use what you like. But what you must do is show the original Egyptian literature to back up your claims. You have done no such thing thus far. "Born of a Virgin and a God" This is false. What ACTUALLY happened was Isis was married to Osiris (the assumption is that they consummated the marriage) and then Osiris got hacked into 13 pieces and scattered all around the world. So Isis went out and got all the pieces except the penis (it was eaten by a huge fish monster). So instead she fashioned a substitute penis, reanimated Osiris, and humped him to get Horus (2). "Of Royal Descent" This proves nothing and is thoroughly unconvincing. "Birth "Announced" by a Star" Well first of all, Orion is not a star, it is a constellation, so this already fails. Secondly, show me the extant Egyptian manuscripts that say it announced Horus' birth. There is no evidence for this, just a fanciful concoction by Massey (who was quoted by Acharya) (3). "Had Murder Plots" So did Abraham Lincoln. He therefore did not exist? It was his jelous brother set that wanted to kill him by the way. "both preformed miracles" "Miracle stories abound, even among religious groups that could not possibly have influenced one another, such as Latin American groups (e. g. Aztecs) and Roman MR's, so this 'similarity' carries no force. (4)" "both can control the weather" Can you give me the Egyptian literature? He was considered a sky god, but it was his brother Set who could control the weather. It has been said that Isis priestesses controlled the weather (5). "Jesus walked on water" Yes? And Horus didn't. "Horus had a collection of devout followers" Not 20. Many of them were semi-gods too. This means nothing. "It is easy to see that only minor adaptation would yield a story consistent with Christianity. " False. My opponent then must explain how this myth was promulgated in light of the fact that Christianity was a rapidly growing movement so quickly after Jesus' death, with eyewitnesses still alive. "these parallels were acknowledged by early Christian writers like St. Justin and St. Ireneaus. " Irrelevant even if true. Can you give and source the precise quotes? . ;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? Conclusion: My opponent has already conceded the debate. He has not answered my first three points (indeeds he concedes them). He has not shown Jesus' non-existence to be more parsimonious, nor has he given any substantive evidence for us to believe that Jesus was a mere mythological construct. My opponent is not giving us the Egyptian literature and is sourcing virtual-hovinds. I am under no obligation to prove the validity of the titles ascribed to Jesus, but merely the historical existence of the person they were ascribed to. Thank You, InquireTruth . ;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? .;'^? Sources: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. "Ancient Egypt", page 137 in chapter 10 by Dr. Robert K. Ritner. Oxford University Press, 1997. 3. . http://www.notyourmamasreligion.com... 4. . http://www.tektonics.org... 5. . http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk...