Jesus Christ was a Historical Person

Similar topics are an auto loss/dive but without clear definitions or rules I left myself an out. I’m convinced Pro lost most significantly due to dropping all arguments especially those related to nature of the debate. He stuck to a script without engaging at all. The historicity crowd wins on a technicality (that was my point) and Pro simply assumed this was what the debate was about. This debate was in no way about the existence of Jesus from my view. Pro did not challenge this. “Historical Figure” I explained to Pro what I meant here. Any voters are free to decide but Pro did not contest that there should be a historical record to qualify. I went on to say that we have a fictional legendary account making it quite clear that he was not a historical figure. He was free to contest this but he didn’t. He never even explained why he thought this was a debate about the existence of a rabbi named Jesus that; was the entire crux of his argument. He allowed me to frame the resolution as I saw fit without any protest. TL;DR dropped argument summary: Second hand testimony: Pro’s entire argument was based on this but… Pro dropped this argument. First hand accounts are always tricky. I pointed out that we have first hand accounts of alien abduction and they are in no way reliable. The few ancient references to Jesus that we do have are second hand. Pro pointed out that there are a few records of people years after Jesus’ supposed existence that said something like, “these people claim to have followed a guy named Jesus.” That’s not a confirmation of existence (which is not relevant to this debate) and it certainly doesn’t establish any historical record for the life of Jesus. Historical vs existence Pro dropped this argument. I argued that Jesus is better described as a legendary figure. Existence isn’t an issue. We don’t have a historical record about the life of Jesus. We can’t verify the nature of his teaching, where he grew up or anything relevant about his life. The common definition for legendary, that I mentioned, specifically mentions that legendary stories are associated with a body of work that can’t be verified as accurate. They may be true, but, if so, we have no way to verify that the stories about Jesus were accurate. The gospels (only record of Jesus) are based on hearsay Con eventually responded here but simply asserted that the gospels are historical documents. He sites the Wikipedia page for the New Testament. The page in no way indicates that the gospels are historically accurate. Problem of miracles Pro dropped this argument. I pointed out that not only do we not have a historical record of the life of Jesus but we have a record that defies all scientific laws. We have never observed anyone who has risen from the dead and this defies our most basic understanding of reality. The same goes for multiplying fish and bread or healing the blind and the deaf. I was ready to look up a few case studies where this has been researched but the argument was not challenged and I would suggest that this is common knowledge not worth sourcing. No contemporary historical documents even mention Jesus Broken record: Pro dropped this argument This builds on my objection that any reference to Jesus is second hand without an account from historians at the time. Pro asserted that the gospels were the accurate historical account that we have on hand. You can reference the biblical references I posted in this section. There were 40 available historians who documented history in the exact location where Jesus existed. If he was a teacher of thousands, fish/bread multiplying zombies raised at his death, resurrected messiah you would expect one to at least mention him. An absence of an account here is incriminating and without it we can’t establish that Jesus was a historical figure. The accounts of Jesus life are wildly different Pro dropped This just builds on my point that we have deceptive legendary accounts of the supposed life of Jesus. This points to the conclusion that he is more accurately described as a legendary figure vs historical. Rebuttals: Atheist historians assert that Jesus was a historical figure. First, Pro references blogs and one commercial website to justify this point. Again, Pro did not challenge how I explained the basis of the resolution and these sites do not challenge it either. These websites simply defend the idea that there was likely a rabbi named Jesus in the first century. They do not present a historical account of his life. Nothing to the Contrary? Pro asserts that there was anti-Christian writing in the Talmud and that they accused them of stealing Jesus body from a tomb without any sourcing. Neither have anything to do with an accurate historical record and there is no way to verify if this is true without a source. Early Christians were dying for Christ like flies. Why? For what? No source so I can’t verify this. People who are different get murdered all the time for no other reason. Read the Old Testament for genocide references. The creed of I Corinthians 15:3-5 is dated to within 18 months of Jesus' crucifixion. No sourcing and I could find you a date for the entire book of Mormon, the Quran etc. This doesn’t relate to the resolution. Secular history coincides with Biblical history. I’m guessing you have heard of other legends taking place in history, historical fiction or the marvel universe. Just because you have a couple facts right does not mean the third is true. This does not add to the argument. The New Testament even got the method of crucifixion right. I need a third hand to help me face palm right now. The writers would obviously know how crucifixion worked. A discovery at Givat HaMivtar, Jerusalem in 1968 showed a man crucified in the manner Christ was depicted in the NT. The source here is an innately biased bible blog. The date is 1968, a couple thousand years after the legend began. What are the odds? One in a trillion. At this point… it’s difficult to know if Pro believes this himself or is just having a laugh. That the bible ‘predicted’ it would be popular and people would dislike or abuse them for being different is completely mundane. More important, it does not establish a historical record for Jesus to in any way support the resolution. Sourcing I use Wikipedia for broad widely established ideas. Pro used this site excessively along with blogs and religious sites. I think it’s fair to say that his sourcing was not adequate for several points. - Pro dropped virtually every argument I presented while I responded to the minutia of his assertions. I clarified and explained the resolution and Pro did not object in any way. He argued repeatedly simply for existence without explaining how this had anything to do with the debate. Even still, he was not able to counter my argument that second hand testimonies are not enough to establish existence.