There is no credible historical proof of the Biblical Jesus.

My opponent brings a very good (and for some Christians, very scary) subject up. Is there a real, historically acurate, Biblical Jesus? I have chosen to debate that there is indeed! I will, as is my way (look up my other debates, I bring God in a lot), bring in my beliefs as well. Belief can come only from the heart, but, history can add credence to belief. As I have a lot of characters to type, I'd like to start off with my beliefs, then some historical backing. Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem of Judea to Joseph and Mary was expected before his birth by prophecy. That he lived a perfect life, taught others the teachings of God so relevant that whole religions (a very important "S") continue to teach them today. That he then died, he died taking on the sin of all mankind that those who would believe in his sacrifice would have their punishment taken away as Jesus had taken it upon himself. Then came back to life, was seen by many, and now resides in heaven speaking to God on our behalf. Some of those statements are pure and total belief. There is no way to prove them. But, what can be proved is the person-hood of Jesus. And that is what I intend to do......now. My opponent used a couple of contemporaries of Jesus to disprove him, although my opponent more disproved the source of the contemporaries than Jesus, please, do not forget that. My opponent has already spoken of Flavius Josephus and how his accounts may or may not have been falsified, but Josephus also speaks of Herod and John the Baptist (http://www.carm.org...) both of whom are spoken of in the Gospels. Why would we trust that John the Baptist had lived, yet deny the existence of Jesus. The Talmud (one of the holy books of Jewish faith) speaks of "Yeshu" being hanged (Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281) the Talmud also speaks of the High Priest Ananias who is mentioned in the Gospels as well as Acts. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus also spoke in his book "Lives of the Twelve Ceasers" about a Chrestus whom certain Jews believed in a rioted against the government because of. There are others, but I think we have a basic understanding of what I'm going with that there are many contemporaries of Jesus who wrote about him, and who are not questioned about their veracity. Next is evidence based on history. In the book "Jesus" by C. Guignebert (https://www.alibris.com...), he decides that, "conclusions which are justified by the documentary evidence [concerning the life of Jesus] may be summed up as follows: Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emporeor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself." We also know more about Jesus, who has only been brought into question in the last hundred years, than we do about Homer and Alexander the Great, yet we never question their existence. My opponent tells a good story using half truths and skeptics that have only popped up in the last 150 years, much like Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code fame (that's unfair, my opponent does a much better job of telling a story than Dan Brown). I have used full truths and skeptics from the very start of time, and they prove a historical Jesus. Let me ask a question back of my opponent now. Why is it that the same people who question Jesus' historical accuracy jump so quick when a coffin that may have been Jesus' is found (http://www.news.com.au...)? Are you more worried about Jesus' historical nature, or more worried about the spiritual nature that his life means on you? For, if that coffin was found to be Jesus Christ's with 100% proof, would you not now be asking how "silly Christians" can believe in a pile of bones? It's the same reason why CE and BCE are creeping up out of nowhere. "Common Era" and "Before Common Era" is a joke, how do we define what is "Common" and "Before Common" by the same birth of Jesus. Just instead of "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" it attempts to take Jesus out of the equation, but he's still there for those who ask questions. My last proof (for this session) will be other religions. I've already shown that Judaism speaks of Jesus. Islam also speaks of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Neither religion centers on Jesus, in fact, it would be in the best interest of both for Jesus to not exist, yet they do. Why? Because, in a time that was mere hundreds of years after Jesus, not thousands, they knew that a Jesus of Nazareth had been born, and simply lived with it instead of trying to hide the fact. I look forward to my opponents next round and wish him good luck on his research against the person-hood Jesus.