The historicity of Jesus Christ

Tacitus This sums up my opponent's case: "The bias which he presents could his judgement on many issues. Adding correct grammar, we get this:The bias which he presents could impair his judgement on many issues. " Taking into consideration context - where I used the same sentence previously - it better makes sense, and means, "the bias which Tacitus presents clouds his judgement". My opponent takes extremely minor points and extrapolates them to absurd conclusions. If Tacitus is an unreliable historian, his history is unreliable. This is not a non-sequitur, but common practice in history: we do not trust unreliable history. If a historian makes things up on the spot, or misrepresents evidence (as my opponent kindly points out Tacitus does: "his presentations of facts . .. contradicted his views"), then we do not trust them on their own as a scholar: we cross-reference it with their contemporaries, like Pliny or Seutonius or similar. Moreover, my opponent again claims that my point on Christians is a non-sequitur. To make it clear: P1 - The source of Tacitus is more likely than not ineducated Christians. P2 - If the source wasineducated Christians, who heard the stories from others, they are near-certainly unreliable. C1 - The source of Tacitus is more likely than not unreliable (and thus weak evidence, if not inconclusive and trivial at that) Also, my opponent brings up the new argument for Pliny the Younger: I won't address this for two reasons: one, it is a new argument in the conclusion, which is terrible conduct, and two is unsubstantiated: historians don't believe this, only Sam Harris, who is ineducated on the field. Moreover, this would be evidence that the evidence is unreliable: it pushes the goalposts back, and makes it more susceptible to my criticism of endless secondary sources leading to unreliability. The "usual disclaimer" is similarly a new argument and unsubstantiated. Moreover, the claim that Tacitus was "one of the most reliable historians ever to live" is laughable: his lack of sourcing, except to general populace (which my opponent dropped the evidence, such as how Tacitus sources material), or how he sources tangental points like this to historians for one-upmanship (which my opponent dropped) is clear evidence against this. So, the evidence says Tacitus is unreliable on his own as a source, moreover his source is very flimsy. Tacitus, then, is a poor source. The Talmud This is just a case of assuming the conclusion: "when it comes to Jesus, the Talmud says the same thing as everything else: He existed". If we're assuming that Jesus existed, then the debate is inexistent! Clearly, I deny other reliable sources claim Jesus existed. So this "evidence" is non-existent. Moreover, my opponent ignored my response to why the Talmud said Jesus existed: because it is easier to mock a man than not. If I were to write a book mocking Islam, one mocks Mohammad. So mohammad needs to show up in the book otherwise it would be silly. Or one could, as has been done, do it in a video. The video itself does not prove anything, as it's aim is to mock. Similarly, the Talmud's aim is but to mock Christ in this section. Moreover, my opponent completely neglects my major criticism: the Tamlud says Jesus: 1) Did not remotely worship anything to do with Abrahamic Gods, but instead Pagan Gods and animals. 2) Had five, not twelve, followers. 3) Was a terrible preacher 4) Committed no miracles This is not Jesus at all. No Christian would say this is the same person. Even if the Talmud accurately says that a guy namd Jesus (again, a popular name) existed, this is not the same person. Also, my opponent ignores my other criticism, which clearly disestablishes this argument, he has done this repeatedly: The Talmud was written in around the 5th century AD, and the other books cited around the 13th. This is such late evidence that it is no evidence at all. Josephus My opponent should be lauded for his knowledge of Greek! However, his Greek needs some polishing. λεγόμενου is the correct Greek for "so-called", while the underlined means "named Christ", or "called Christ". Poor Greem does not make the argument sound. Moreover, my opponent seems to completely ignore my major response and claim I did not make it: that Josephus in actual fact just said what Christians thought, and did not affirm any existence of Jesus as real or similar. What my opponent has done is throw out bits of the quotation after agreeing it is an interpolation, but won't concede the point, even after admitting it is an interpolation, to save just enough of it to make it an argument. There is no justification for the smaller quote. Moreover, the quotation itself does not affirm Christ's existence, only the ideas of peple at the time. Lucian Was Passing of Perigruis satirical was the entire debate here. I didn't think one needed to provide source, since among ancient history it is so well known it is like debating whether The Republiccontains philosophy, or if Aenid was fictional. However, to indulge my opponent, I shall take some quotes from a series of non-partisan sources onPassing: "The Passing of Peregrinusis a satire by Greek writer Lucian"[1] "In hissatire,The Death of Peregrinus, Lucian portrays. .. "[2] "Lucian, a Greeksatirist, wrote a fiction,The Death of Peregrinus"[3] "The Passing of Peregrinus. Asatire"[4] "The Passing of PeregrinusAsatire"[5] "Lucian also wrote a satire called The Passing of Peregrinus"[6] My opponents argument rests on Lucian's document not being a fictional satire. There is no claims in any of the articles that Lucian was factual (the pro-Christian article number 3 says explicitly that it was fictional), and assuming factuality of a satire is like assuming magic is real from reading Harry Potter, or that there is a wild Onix outside my house after watching pok"mon. There is nothing to say he thinks highly of writing history correctly: however, he was not writing history. He was writing parody: fiction. Scientific Historical Argument My opponent managed to completely miss the point of the argument. My point was made very clear:"either a primary source needs to be given, or reason why secondary sources are as valuable", otherwise my opponent does not affirm his burden of proof. He manages not to do so. Moreover, "secondary sources. .. are of little importance" was stated explicitly. All of my opponent's arguments are secondary sources, and thus are of little importance. As the burden of proof is on my opponent, the complete lack of refutation of this point must mean it is considered fact. As such, all of the secondary sources of my opponent must be considered of little gravity. Thus, my opponent's evidence is simply not. As I stated clearly, secondary sources are not good sources of evidence. As this is what my opponent relies on, his argument cannot be considered convincing. Moreover, the claim that I am saying "history began only a few hundred years ago" is blatantly false. Primary sources exist for any historically reliable event: all of Caesar's life can be reduced to primary sources from his works, people who met and talked and saw the events, the busts, the pictures, the sculptures, thre are masses of sources we can use. Secondary sources, though, are weak. Either they take the primary source and mix it with their interpretation and bias, making it less reliable, or they use a sceondary source, making it less reliable still. Primary sources are best. Further, the rebuttal to lack of evidence for the many miracles and events of Jesus' life is telling. If I said Hitler existed, but he was a French aristocrat living in the 17th century colony of St. Kitts in the Americas, you'd say "that's not Hitler". The same stands here. If I said Jesus existed, but he was an ordinary bloke who couldn't preach to save his life and was brought up by his two parents, you'd say rightly so that this is not Jesus. So why make a U-turn on this issue?