The Jesus of History Probably Existed - D

Tacitus and Josephus. I want to get on to some more interesting points so I won't dwell on this for too long. The fact is that these are the only two shreds of potential evidence for historical accounts of Jesus over which there is any debate at all, all others having been proved as either false beyond any doubt or entirely irrelevant as historical evidence. 1. Tacitus Richard Carrier's opinion is not particularly relevant and the two quotes effectively contradict each other as he is attacking the reliability of this kind of source while making assumptions based on it. Pilate's role was definitely as a prefect and it is suggested on his Wiki page that other sources identifying him as procurator took the lead from Tacitus. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent has provided a Jesus skeptic to support one detail of the Tacitus extract but ignores the fact that many Christian scholars completely disregard Tacitus as evidence. "(Tacitus') independent knowledge is unverifiable. As R. T. France concludes, while the evidence from Tacitus corroborates the New Testament accounts of the death of Jesus,'by itself it cannot prove that events happened as Tacitus had been informed', or even the existence of Jesus." - Robert E. Van Voorst. http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net... What we are in fact left with is: (1) There are missing portions of the annals. (2) The manuscripts contain errors and have been altered or tampered with. (3) Even if 100% genuine, this extract provides no real evidence of Jesus existing. 2. Josephus I believe I have given reasons why the "who was called Christ" phrase in this extract is likely (plausible) to be a later addition. The other Josephus extract is and as the earliest manuscript is dated to the 11th century the fact that all extant copies include it proves nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org... In response to my claim that the sentence makes more grammatical and contextual sense with the suspect phrase removed, my opponent says: "Who cares?" I would think that anyone with a passing interest in learning the truth of this matter. The passage about Jesus son of Damneus receiving the priesthood as atonement for the wrongdoing makes no sense unless this is the same Jesus that is brother to this James. It is not "historically false" to translate Messiah/Christ as 'anointed', my opponent's own link in attempt to refute this [ http://www.ucg.org... ] says: "it was not only kings who were anointed in Scripture. Israel's high priests were anointed". _____ 3.Reliability of Gospels My opponent seems to be accepting the lack of any real historical evidence for Jesus as we move on to discussing the Bible. He lists five reasons why Jesus' life (as depicted in the gospels) would have been unlikely to merit historical record. In response I will provide some reasons why his life (as depicted in the gospels) would have been extremely worthy of note. 1. His (alleged) birth was accompanied by a new star in the sky pointing at him and a visit by notable Eastern mystics. 2. He (allegedly) survived a nationwide massacre of infants and would have been the only male in his age group. 3. John the Baptist and others (allegedly) proclaimed him as God's only son. 4. He (allegedly) performed numerous miracles including healings, resurrections and spontaneous generation of food. 5. He was (allegedly) publicly executed during Passover festival which would have been unthinkable for Jewish custom. 6. His (alleged) death was accompanied by an earthquake and solar eclipse. 7. He was believed to have been born to a virgin and to come back to life when killed. My opponent says: "the four accounts of Jesus' life are written by three eye witnesses and one who was well acquainted with eye witnesses." There is much disagreement on this issue and this statement should not be presented as fact. None of the gospels are signed and only one, John (incidentally the one written last and with the most obvious differences from the others) even makes any claim in the text to be the account of a witness. Mark was supposedly written by Peter's interpreter, so not a direct eye witness, this first gospel is now generally agreed to have been written after the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and some scholars date it to the 2nd century, which would rule out any possibility of gospels being written by witnesses. http://en.wikipedia.org... The writer of Luke identifies himself as a follower of Paul, so is not an eye witness even by association, Paul's belief being based on revelation rather than observation. I am a little confused by the link my opponent provided to supposedly prove the "independence" of the synoptic gospels. http://bible.org... Although I haven't read all of this very lengthy article it is clearly arguing for the literary inTERdependence of these books which was my point here. To quote: "It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other...There are four crucial arguments which virtually prove literary interdependence." It seems my opponent would benefit from reading more carefully. Plausibility =/= possibility. Independence =/= Interdependence. _____ 4. Paul The letters attributed to Paul and in particular those generally agreed to be written by him are the earliest documents that refer to Jesus, predating the gospels by decades. http://en.wikipedia.org... Paul never claimed to have witnessed a physical incarnation of Jesus, he instead spoke at length about his spiritual revelation of Christ. Moreover he confirms none of the history presented in the gospels and much of what he writes makes little sense unless he is referring to Jesus as a purely spiritual entity. There are a very few paragraphs (or verses) that seem to refer vaguely to some of the supposed events of Jesus' life so it's important to examine these. A list can be found in this link along with the usual weak historical arguments. http://www.bede.org.uk... A few have certainly been added by a later source as they do not appear in all manuscripts, don't sit well in context and are historically inaccurate. The most obvious example of these later Christian alterations is in 1 Thessalonians 2. http://www.jstor.org... At least one is a mistranslation/misinterpretation, 1 Cor. 2:8 s "rulers of this age" is paraphrased by bede.org as "earthly rulers" whereas the original word "Archon" is generally used to refer to heavenly authorities elsewhere in the Bible as confirmed by Origen. http://rationalrevolution.net... Most of these simply make much more sense in the context of a purely spiritual Christ and a symbolic heavenly crucifixion as do Paul's letters on the whole. This is not an argument of silence, I am concerned with what Paul DID say. I am almost out of space in this round but will briefly list some of the points and passages I wish to discuss further in round 3: 1) Paul speaks often of Christ COMING to Earth, not RETURNING to Earth. 2) The 'story' of the crucifixion is an allegory of the sacrificial lamb at Passover. 3) Romans 10:14-17 "how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?....faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word about Christ." 4) Ephesians 3:3-5 "the mystery was made known to me by revelation....as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" 5) Galatians 3:1 "Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly PORTRAYED as crucified" And many more. Thanks.