Jesus Christ Existed As A Historical Figure

Strawmen? "My attack of the credibility of Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts is that they were based on UNKNOWN and UNVERIFIABLE and UNSPECIFIED external sources. " How reliable does a source be to claim that a man was crucified? In your third argument, please try to make an argument against the existence of Jesus that can't be used against these historical figures; Alexander the Great, Socrates, Muhammad, Buddha (the earliest biographies of Buddha come over 800 years after his death), and Abe Lincoln (There are contradictions in the biographies of Abe Lincoln after all, and if you're as skeptical about a man being crucified, apply this skepticism to a man being shot. ) 2. Josephus "Firstly, contrary to what my opponent says, Josephus DID make references to the sect's claims of miracles. He mentions Christ's "wonderful works" and his "resurrection on the third day". The "resurrection on the third day" part of the Testimonium was added on or altered by a Christian scribe, however the following phrase is in agreement with the Josephean linguistic style, (Josephus, Jewish War 3.354,7.327). "As it turns out, Josephus' account of Christ is VERY MUCH CONSISTENT with having been obtained from early Christians. It mentions resurrection and "wonderful works" which are unquestionably Christian doctrines. They are outside the scope of historical account of facts and are in the realm of the mythical/supernatural. Any claim of supernatural events must, for obvious reasons, be investigated with the utmost scepticism. " Claiming that a man lived and was crucified is NOT a supernatural phenomenon. As for mentions of the resurrection, I've already pointed out that the part of the Testimonium mentioning the resurrection is an interpolation, while referring to something as "wonderful works" isn't uncommon in the writings of Josephus. "And there's no evidence that early Christians (those pre-dating Josephus) referred to Jesus as "Christ Jesus". In fact, there's no evidence what term they used at all. Even the New Testament (which was written AFTER Josephus) does not use the phrase "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus Christ"). " Actually they do, see: Ignatius: Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, to Polycarp, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and the Epistle to Diognetius. I'd list hundreds more but I don't have room for that. As for the New Testament being written after Josephus,Pauls letters are written in the AD 50's, while the Book of Acts fails to mention information post- 62 AD, placing its date before 62 AD. (See: Robinson, Redating the New Testament). Please read the New Testament, it's easy it is to falsify the argument that the NT never refers to Jesus as Christ Jesus or Jesus Christp; 1 Cor 1:1: From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by God's Will"" "Secondly, the style-related argument in my opponent's first round discusses the ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the work and therefore doesn't even qualify for any type of analysis. Linguistic analysis must be conducted in the original language of the works, if it is to be of any benefit at all. " If in the English translation of Josephus, a certain word is mentioned twice, it's probably the same word in the original Hebrew translation mentioned twice. "Firstly, linguistic analysis is a field of expertise and I don't believe my opponent is qualified to make such judgments himself. I certainly am not. This leaves us having to trust scholars. And scholars are in hot debate about the authenticity of Josephus' accounts" I have every single thing Josephus wrote on my bookshelf, I'm not "trusting" scholars, I've checked everything they've said about the linguistic style of Josephus, and I've quoted the passages to boot. Your lack of knowledge on the subject doesn't disqualify my research. Claiming that something is "hotly debated" doesn't disqualify my conclusions, please tell me the last time a debate between scholars occurred on the writings of Josephus, and what parts of Josephus are in question, if there was no mention of Jesus you would have no problem accepting Josephus as genuine. "This means that whatever sources Tacitus used HAVE BEEN KNOWN to be inaccurate which puts into issue his ability to select RELIABLE SOURCES when conducting second-hand work in the Annals. " Please cite me where Tacitus says that Annals are based on unreliable information. "What exactly does Tacitus say about his sources where it comes to accounts of Jesus? " I listed where Tacitus gets his sources from, Tacitus hated Christianity, do you really think he got his information from Christians? Tacitus doesn't list where he gets information for every specific event he mentions, I seriously doubt you question every event Tacitus mentions that he doesn't cite specifically? "My opponent then claims that if Josephus was citing Jesus as a legend, he wouldn't have knowledge about the death of James because this event was not contained in the Bible. But let's remember that the New Testament wasn't written until later. Let's also remember that the canons selected FOUR gospels out of some TWENTY candidates" Can you please list me the other 20 candidates? The other Gospels (there weren't 20) were written hundreds of years after the death of Christ, the canonical Gospels were written decades after. Manuscripts of Mark have been discovered dating to 50 AD, numerous factors point to the book of Acts written before 62 AD (. http://www.bethinking.org...) , Josephus' Antiquities was written around 90 AD. "a) Josephus mentions resurrection as if it is a fact. I would venture, however, that he did not believe in Christ's resurrection. This clearly indicates that Josephus in fact omits to mention that his account is a legend, although he must believe that it is a legend. Unless it was a forgery in the first place. " No, Josephus does not claim the resurrection of Jesus as a fact, the earliest manuscripts of the Testimonium don't contain the part mentioning the resurrection but do mention Jesus and his death. This doesn't indicate a legend, it indicates that Josephus was tampered with, and you never even bothered to respond to the second reference to Jesus made my Josephus. Allow me to explain the difference between a forgery and interpolation, a forgery is when something is invented out of thin air, an interpolation is when a passage is added on to. "b) Tacitus. As mentioned above, Tacitus is known to rely (in The Annals) on inaccurate and questionable sources and to get things wrong. This is consistent with him lacking judgment (in The Annals) about whether a sources is to be accepted or rejected. " You listed one event in history that Tacitus got wrong, and it was a confusion of 2 people. If you're going to throw out hundreds of pages of history because of 1 error, you might as well re-write every argument you've made so far, afterall there were errors in your arguments: 1. You incorrectly dated the Gospels as being written after Josephus 2. You claimed that the New Testament never refers to Jesus as "Christ Jesus" 3. You claimed that early Christians never refer to Jesus as "Christ Jesus" 4. You claimed that Tacitus doesn't list his sources 5. You claimed that "wondrous works" is a Christian doctrine. This isn't to say that my arguments are infallible, though if we toss out history by rhese standards almost nothing about the past can be known. Thank you for the debate. -Matt