Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure

This is a debate on whether Jesus actually existed as a historical figure, not if he was God or not. As con I will show that there does not exist the evidence for Jesus' existence. You, as pro, must show evidence for the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. Before we begin we must remember one thing, it is impossible to know with absolute certainty what happened in the past, especially the distant or ill-preserved past. This includes whether or not Jesus even existed. We cannot prove with absolute certainty that he did not exist, just as you cannot prove with absolute certainty that he did. This means that we have to evaluate the evidence and make a conclusion. If, while evaluating the evidence, we find that it is historically unreliable then we cannot use that piece of evidence. This debate is debating a positive and a negative, but, as logic says, you cannot prove a negative. Luckily, proving is not what we are trying to do since we cannot know for sure what happened in the past. This means that what we must do is evaluate the evidence that Jesus existed and determine if the evidence is reliable or not. If we cannot find reliable evidence that Jesus existed then we can safely say that Jesus probably did not exist. Remember, this is a debate about if Jesus was a real person or not. Neither you nor I cannot use any supernatural aspects of Jesus to prove that he existed or not. So, how do we test if a document is historically reliable? I will be using the Historical-Critical Method, also called Higher Criticism. The Historical-Critical Method is a branch of literary analysis that investigates the origins of a text. When using this analysis method we must ask 3 questions: Were the authors there personally or have good access to people that were there? If they did have access, did they offer reliable testimony? If they did write reliable testimony, has their testimony survived to the present substantially unaltered and intact? If the answer to any of these three questions is "No", then that document is not historically reliable and cannot be used as evidence. As a note, the three questions do not refer just to the document as a whole. If a section of the document that would go through this process would have a "No" as an answer to any of the three questions then that section of the document is not historically reliable and cannot be used for evidence. Another thing we must do when analyzing the documents is to see if we can determine what they are actually saying. We should take the following steps to determine the meaning of the document: If words in the document have multiple meanings where a specific interpretation, we must determine what the different meanings could be. We must determine if there is support in the document (that is relevant to the actual part that we are analyzing) for a specific interpretation of the words. If there is a specific interpretation, and it passes the test from Higher Criticism, then we can use it as evidence. If there is not a specific interpretation, even if it passes the test from Higher Criticism, then we cannot us it as evidence. We must now look at what years Jesus is said to have lived, and afterwards determine the latest year that reliable information could possibly be provided. It is speculated that Jesus would have been born ~4 B.C.E. and died ~33 C.E. This means that he died at ~37 years old. Life expectancy in the Roman Empire during the time Jesus would have lived was 35 years of age. We can use as the life expectancy during the early 1st century through the 2nd century. We can now attempt to find out at what point we can stop relying on documents for evidence for the existence of Jesus. This is possible because of the first question of Higher Criticism. There will be a time where we can expect that the authors could not have been there personally and did not have access to people that were there. Since it is speculated that Jesus died in ~33 C.E. we can try and find out when the eye-witnesses could have been dead, and then when the last people who had access to eye-witnesses could have died. Studies show that long term memory starts in a baby at 17-21 months of age. I have yet to meet someone that remembers anything from that young of an age, but let"s just say that people can. This means that anyone that could be considered an eye-witness would have to be at least 1.5 years old. Jesus" death at ~33 C.E. would mean that people born in the latter half of ~31 C.E. would be able to be considered the youngest eye-witnesses. With a life expectancy at 35 years of age, the expected time that all eye-witnesses died at is 66-67 C.E., which means that all the best evidence that Jesus did exist must come from between ~4 B.C.E. and 67 C.E. We now need to look at the documents that could have been written by people that had access to eye-witnesses. Assuming that learning stories happens at the same time that long term memory develops, the latest someone born that could have been told by an eye-witness is the latter half of 65 C.E. With life expectancy at 35 years of age that means that the last of these people would be expected to have died at about 100 C.E. 100 C.E. is the latest reliable evidence that Jesus existed could have been written, but only if the eye-witnesses and those that had access to eye-witnesses could remember this stuff from when they were 17-21 months old and actually remember it accurately. This is not reasonable, especially since the American Psychological Association says that memories from earlier than about 3.5 years of age is, for most of people, a blank slate. When we calculate for 3.5 years of age, which is the more reasonable age to use, we get the expected time that people with reliable information died in 96 C.E. This means that any document written after 96 C.E. cannot be reliable for evidence of Jesus" existence. This means that the documents written from ~4 B.C.E. to 96 C.E. would be the absolute most reliable. Documents written from 97 C.E. to, let"s say (since I cannot find what old age was), 120 C.E. have a possibility at being outlier documents, but they still would not be considered that reliable unless you can provide evidence that the author was alive before the latter half of 63 C.E. Not all evidence is equal. Contemporary evidence, written during the time of the events, is the most reliable. Next, do we have many sources saying the same thing, and are they independent? This is called corroboration without collaboration. Are the sources internally consistent? Are the sources externally consistent? Finally, are the sources unbiased? Now that I have listed how to find out if the documents are historically reliable or not, we need to list the documents that need to be addressed. From the reliable years (~4 B.C.E.-96 C.E.): 1. The New Testament (The Gospels, Pauline Epistles, and the other Epistles) 2. Josephus 3. Tacitus 4. Pliny the Younger 5. Thallus (only for an event mentioned in the Bible) 6. Mara Bar Serapion From the questionably reliable years (97-120 C.E.): 1. Suetonius From a mix of both: 1. Babylonian Talmud From after the questionably reliable years (121 C.E-present): 1. Lucian 2. Celsus 3. Mishnah 4. Phlegon of Tralles Now, we need to see if these accounts are historically reliable or not. We shall start with the New Testament. Were the authors there personally or have good access to people that were there? If they did have access, did they offer reliable testimony? If they did write reliable testimony, has their testimony survived to the present substantially unaltered and intact? Round 1: Acceptence Rounds 2-4: New arguments Rounds 3-5: Rebuttals Round 5: Conclusion Sources: http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com...... http://www.apa.org...... http://news.harvard.edu......