Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure.

I will address the Acts issue, Pro stated: "2) The events in Acts detail what happened immediately after Jesus was crucified. One valuable example is in Acts 2. On Pentecost, the disciples were waiting in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit. This was just 2 months after Jesus was crucified, and just a week and a half after Jesus ascended into heaven (though not before appearing to several hundred people). Peter simply could not make anything up to lie to this audience in Jerusalem; many of those present were probably witnesses to the crucifixion, or at least had heard the news. People didn't travel a lot, and again, this is only two months after the crucifixion." Claims of this "supernatural" event isn't evidence and there isn't any evidence to suggest such a phenomenon even happened. No contemporary information is available to suggest that people began speaking foreign language out of thin air that weren't familiar with the language. Stating that Peter could not lie about this is an emotional plea to authority, there is still no evidence for Jesus and citing scriptures regarding him isn't valid either. I don't want to waste our time going through why gospel writers were unknown, gospels being contradictory, and are unreliable sources to consider. The book of Acts is of no exception. (http://www.infidels.org...) For Peter to make mention of a Jesus, claiming that he was crucified, was buried, and raised from the dead is not foundation for evidence to the claim. I've been following a renowne scholar by the name of Richard Carrier who, among others, who have been putting out work regarding this very subject. Most of the information that I'm presenting stems from some of the books that he's published. I would invite my opponent to consider the following video in where he lectures regarding this very subject to basically give my opponent something to consider. http://www.youtube.com... To answer regarding historical myths that are similar to the same story attributed to Jesus, this is still being investigated by scholars, and I will agree with my opponent that there are several similarities and some that aren't. I've brought that point up to provide my opponent this simple fact, Jesus wasn't the first myth to be used by a culture to personify a savior of their community. Every culture has a savior myth, as I've already pointed out thoroughly, and I wish not to repeat myself. The information is readily available online for anyone, including to my opponent, to consider and to read further into. So far my opponent has done the same argument from any apologists, that is to cite the bible as being authoritative, and reliable, when in fact (this debate won't permit) there is a wealth of information showing that the gospels alone are contradictory, not to mention the rest of the bible, so I'm not to sure as to why it's being used to provide as a source of dependable evidence. The following cite is one out of many that has a plethora of information concerning the bible being filled with contradictions, laughable scientific claims, out right evils things, etc. So how can anyone consider the bible as a good piece of evidence? (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...) I will admit that currently there are scholars who are agree that Jesus was a historical person and there are other scholars that believe the contrary. Richard Carrier is one who doesn't and provides a wealth of information, sources, etc. that people can consider to show that Jesus highly likely did not exist but was likely a fabricated story. I don't want to show that he is the only dependable resource to consider, again a simple search will help anyone discover others, like in the case of Robert M. Price who wrote the book "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" which I highly recommend reading. My opponent hasn't provided any credible evidence, outside the bible, where Jesus is shown to be a historical figure. The ancient historians that I've cited weren't in fact dependable seeing that they even mention mythical figures like Hercules, so it places into question the sources that those historians used. Again I must reiterate, ancient historians techniques were poor at best in documenting factual ancient history (i.e. Josephus: http://www.godlessgeeks.com...) this is why scholars dig deep into what they write to determine if in fact the events mentioned did happen or were fabricated or simply were hearsay. The mentioning of Jesus by these historians do not provide evidence that Jesus existed, seeing that they wrote about him years passed his supposed life, and we have philosophers (i.e. Philo) who was around the time these supposed events occurred. One such occurrence, which I will now mention, is that of the great massacre that was supposedly ordered by King Herod after hearing the news from the magi that a king was born. (Matt. 2: 16-18) No mention of that incident is found anywhere, and logically if such an occurrence did in fact happen, someone would have mentioned it, even Philo. This simple fact shows how the gospels are unreliable and can not be used as evidence to support Jesus being a historical figure. Look forward to my opponents sources that provide evidence for Jesus that are outside the bible and answer why philosophers like Philo, never heard of Jesus, and why no historians mentions the "great massacre" that King Herod supposedly did if we are to believe the gospels are dependable.