Jesus Christ Existed as a Historical Person and was Not a Myth

Mithras I looked at Con"s source which is paper that discusses what Cumont said, but it doesn"t quote from any Mithraic text. Thus, no parallels again that we can see and compare. When Does Modern Christianity Arrive? Secular writers of the first two centuries also acknowledged the presence and influence of early Christians in their pagan world. For example, Tacitus, a Roman historian born about 55 C. E. , tells of the rumor charging that Nero was the one responsible for burning Rome (64 C. E. ), and then says: "Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices [as the Romans viewed matters], whom the crowd styled Christians. . . . First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts" skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. " (The Annals, XV, XLIV) Suetonius, another Roman historian, born toward the end of the first century C. E. , relates events that occurred during Nero"s reign, saying: "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. ""The Lives of the Caesars (Nero, XVI, 2). Flavius Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities (XVIII, 64 [iii, 3]), mentions certain events in the life of Jesus, adding: "And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day [about 93 C. E. ] not disappeared. " Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in 111 or 112 C. E. , also mentions them in his correspondence with Trajan "The Letters of Pliny, X, XCVI, 3, 5; XCVII, 1. So Christianity was around long before Constantine. The letters of Paul are addressed to churches already established in Corinth (1 Cor 1:1-2), Rome (Rom 1:7), Galatia (Gal 3:1), Ephesus (Eph 1:1), Philippi (Phil 1:1), Colossae (Colossians 1:1-2) and Thessalonica (1 Thess 1:1). We even have evidence of Christians copying Gospels in Egypt in the 2nd century. . http://www.google.com... The first council of Carthage in Africa was before Constantine, and Christianity was already a well organized faith. Was Christianity All Borrowed Con provides no quotes to show any parallels at all between Jesus and pagan gods, so we can reject his claims as unsupported by evidence. Notice also that Con gives a lengthy quote from Josephus, but when asked to give the same for Mithra, he cannot do so, why? The parallels don"t exist. Other Messiah's of the Time Con says "Yeshua: Inner core of followers (we don't know it was 12) Athronges: Inner core of followers. " What does this prove? All leaders of any movement tend to have an inner core of followers. Selassie I had an inner core of followers, does that mean he didn"t exist and was a myth borrowed from previous messiahs of his time? Pro can"t even show Simon had the same number of inner followers of Jesus, so this isn"t a parallel at all. Con claims that "Yeshua: Vandalised buildings of the established powers," where in the Gospels does it say Jesus ever did that? He gives no Scripture for this because it doesn"t exist. Pro is making up stories about Jesus to invent his own parallels to Simon. Yes, both Yeshua and Simon were killed by the Romans, and how does that prove plagiarism? All the thousands of people killed by the Romans, by your own logic, simply didn"t exist and were myths borrowed from pagan religion because you can show they were all killed by the Romans? Con couldn"t even show Simon was killed by crucifixion as Jesus was. This just isn"t a parallel. He says, "Yeshua: Humble beginnings Athronges: Humble beginnings. " So Barrack Obama had humble beginnings. Does that make his life story a myth borrowed from pagan sources? You have to be more specific than that. Huckleberry Finn and Harry Potter both had humble beginnings, but no court of law would charge one author for plagiarizing from the other. Was Athronges born in a manger? Was he born of a virgin? Ws his birth heralded by a star? Now these would have been interesting parallels. The term messiah was applied to all kinds of people who really did exist, such as Alexander the Great and Cyrus, so the fact that others were called messiah in Jesus" day doesn"t prove he didn"t exist and was borrowed from surrounding religions. He was simply another real person, like Cyrus and Alexander, to whom that title was applied. Sharing the same title is too weak to prove he didn"t exist. Obama shares the same title as all the presidents before him, does this show our beliefs about Obama are shaped by those who preceded him? No, we believe based on what he does now, just as Christians who wrote about Jesus documented what they knew to the case. People Who Met the Apostles Con gets the life expectancy of people in the first century from people living today. I get it from people who actually were around in the first and second centuries. The votes will decide for themselves whom they will believe. But even if the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, the fact remains they are much closer to the time of the events than anyone living today, and the authors of these Gospels are thus in a better position to tell us what happened in history then folks coming 2000 years later, trying to reconstruct what happened. The facts about Jesus would not have magically disappears in just 2 or 3 generations. Certainly people just 50 years after Jesus died were not suddenly fooled into thinking that he did exist, and were so convinced without a shred of evidence, that they were willing to die for this belief. Con"s final attempt at discrediting the Gospel"s reliability was to compare Matthew 28:1-7 with John 20:11-16. But no contradiction exists between these passages. Early on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, along with Salome, Joanna, and other women, bring spices to the tomb to treat Jesus" body. En route they say to one another: "Who will roll the stone away from the door of the memorial tomb for us? " But on arriving, they find that an earthquake has occurred and Jehovah"s angel has rolled the stone away. The guards are gone, and the tomb is empty! Matthew 27:57"28:2; Mark 15:42"16:4; Luke 23:50"24:3, 10; John 19:14, 31"20:1; 12:42; Leviticus 23:5-7; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23; Psalm 34:20; Zechariah 12:10. When the women find Jesus" tomb empty, Mary Magdalene runs off to tell Peter and John. However, the other women evidently remain at the tomb. Soon, an angel appears and invites them inside. Here the women see yet another angel, and one of the angels tells them Jesus was raised and sends them off to report to the disciples. By this time, Mary has found Peter and John, and her report brings them running to the tomb. By this time the women have left, so no one is around. Peter and John inspect the tomb, and return home, but Mary, who came back to the tomb with them, remains. In the meantime, the other women are hurrying to tell the disciples that Jesus has been resurrected, as the angels commanded them to do. While they are running along as fast as they can, Jesus meets them. Mary Magdalene, who remains behind at the tomb, is overcome by grief. Where could Jesus be? Stooping forward to look into the tomb, she sees the two angels in white, who have reappeared! After conversing with them, she meets Jesus whom she mistakes for the gardener at first. Upon recognizing Jesus, she goes to tell the apostles. Matthew 28:3-15; Mark 16:5-8; Luke 24:4-12; John 20:2-18. So when properly understood there is no contradiction. Just because John says that Mary went to tomb doesn't mean that ONLY Mary went to the tomb. Its stuff like this that shows how weak my opponent's arguments are. Conclusion 1) Con has not explained with any plausibility how the NT documents could have been forged and gain universal unanimity regarding who the authors in the early church without even a single dissenting voice, or suggestion of other authors 2) He has not shown how the Gospels could have gained wide acceptance in churches across the Roman Empire before Constantine, unless the church knew who had authored them 3) He hasn't refuted the honesty of the writers in documenting stuff that would be embarrassing to Christians, such as Jesus having limited knowledge thought worshiped as God (Mark 13:32; John 20:28; 1:1-3, 14; Heb 1:1-2, 8-10) and all the apostles abandoning Jesus when the Romans came to arrest him, or even women being the first witnesses of the resurrection at a time when the status of women was very low and their testimony wasn't even accepted as credible. 4) He hasn't given us any impressive parallels to anyone (real or imagined) that predates Jesus. 5) He hasn't addressed the fact that Tacitus and Josephus were early enough to know the historical facts about Jesus. I don't need to be alive in the days of President Kennedy to know he existed. Were Josephus and Tacitus duped? These are generally very good historians. Unfortunately, I won't get to rebut any new arguments he makes against the evidence I presented. Please keep this in mind when voting.