There is no credible historical proof of the Biblical Jesus.

I must say, it is nice to hear from an atheist that believes more in atheism than doesn't/refuses to believe in God. I also appreciate the fact that my opponent keeps this debate at the professional level, and this has not come down to: P: Jesus isn't real, you're an idiot! C: Jesus is real, you suck! P: You suck times infinity! etc. On to the show My opponent continues to bring up Josephus, though I have already agreed that tampered writings are about as good as a screen door on a submarine (http://www.urbandictionary.com...) as it means only that the document was not very well looked after. And as far as Gaius Tranquillas is concerned only retorts that Chrestus was a common name. Common name, yes, common death, somewhat, common enough to be spoken of 160 years later? Certainly not! The CRIPS co-founder who died in 2005 of gassing in California, what is his name. Stanley (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Fairly common name, gas death, fairly common for hardcore criminals (which, let's be honest, Jesus was to the Jews of his day. Calling God HIS father, the shear blasphemy of which we cannot fathom today!) But will Stanley "Tookie" Williams III be remembered 160 years from now? Will he be written about 500 years from now? I'd be willing to bet that no, he will not. How many CRIPS even know Stanley's name? All that to say, it's not 100% proof at all for a historical biblical Jesus, yet it does reveal that he made an impact. Even if you don't believe Jesus was God, this would put Jesus in the ranks of Johnny Appleseed, Paul Bunyon, and John Henry. All characters that have been based off of real people. Proof of Alexander the Great can all be explained away by a true unbeliever. One could easily point out that my opponents "proofs" of Alexander had been faked. The note that was written in seizure of Chios was not written in Alexander's hand it could have been simply used by a herald, the "myth" of Alexander the Great spread so far that they put a likeness on money and said it was Alexander's (like someone would put God's name on money! What a crock!). The elephant medallions certainly don't contain DNA of Alexander the Great, what do they have to do with his proof? The topic being "Credible proof" has been been answered, the proof is there. The best retort my opponent could come up with was to beat the same dead horse of Josephus and say only that Gaius lived 130 years after Jesus and that Jesus was a common name. With these same "proofs" one could prove Abraham Lincoln never lived as there are forgeries about him and Abraham was a common name. My opponent then denies the Quran and Talmud as proof because they are nothing more than "story books", though they have no need to mention Jesus, since they are not about him at all, yet still do anyway. The Quran yes, needed Jesus to gain gain legitimacy, the Talmud however, is not the Old Testament, but a book of teachings by later teachers of the law. They have no need to mention Jesus, I go so far as to say again, it would be better to not mention him, but in so doing continue to give a historical Jesus proof. As I said in my first round, belief is not proof of the thing believed. In fact, given proof, the need for belief would be nullified. However, what belief after so much time does do is give credence to the life of Jesus. Where are the worshipers of Ba'al? Why have worshipers of ancient religions become all but extinct? Because they were based on lies told by generations that had no evidence. Yet, now, today believers in a true historical Christ are still all over the globe. And their numbers are rising, not falling (http://www.religionfacts.com...)! So again, I have provided reasonable evidence to show a historically accurate Jesus. I will be out of town till Sunday night, I hope my next round doesn't end before I get back, it shouldn't! I'm excited to see what my opponent has in store for me when I get back!