Jesus Christ Existed

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther"There sits a vast difference between historical figures and Jesus. There occurs either artifacts, writings, or eyewitness accounts for historical people, whereas, for Jesus we have nothing." - Jim Walker (author's emphasis)I'd like to thank my opponent for what I think has been a good debate. It has highlighted many of the weaknesses in the theist position. Moreover, it has shown that even to the end, the theist is unable to respond to 13 out of the 15 arguments (87% !) that I raised in round one. Here are the arguments that were so good my opponent could not respond to them:1) gospels based on hearsay2) gospels written more than 150 years after Jesus3) gospels midrashic4) gospels modified over time5) other writers wrote based on same fragments that made up gospels6) epistles made up by own admission7) other writers heavily edited8) epistles and other references are 2nd century9) future tense in some epistles10)several cited writings don't mention Jesus11)other gospels based on same fragments that made up gospels12)other gospels usually marcionist or docetist13)other gospels offer nothing originalIn round two, he did rebut contradictions and historical inaccuracy. However, my answer to the historical inaccuracy of the bible in round two was so good that my opponent dropped the point in round three. The only argument he continues to rebut is the argument from biblical contradictions. Even if I were to drop this argument, I should still win this debate because my opponent refuses to engage with my points.Contradictions1) My opponent claims this is non-topical. Last round I explained why it's topical - because contradictions internally, across and between texts make a text less likely to be true. My opponent does not respond other than to say he doesn't believe there are contradictions. Good thing that back in round one, I provided three strong examples.2) Next my opponent claims that this logic also works for Caesar, Buddha and Plato. You show me one single primary source that claims Caesar did not conquer Gaul, beat Pompeius Magnus and get stabbed in the senate by Brutus and Cassius. There are none known. Add this to the numerous temples Caesar built, the busts and statues that were made of him, and the first-hand accounts he wrote. None contradict each other. My opponent offers neither evidence nor a source to back up his claim, because the claim simply does not hold true. I make an exception for Homer, who it seems we both agree there is no evidence for. There is as much evidence for Homer as there is for Jesus.Other texts1) My opponent asserts the New Testament was written before the end of the first century. This is false, as I have shown way back in round one. I even provided my source for this - Prof. Steve Mason, York University. Then my opponent says I ignore this! Clearly he did not read my argument.2) He then claims all four gospel writers knew Jesus. First, Mark and Luke themselves admit they did not - Luke claims to be reporting what Paul told him, Mark (according to Iraeneus) reported what Peter told him. There are reasons to doubt even this, which I have explained above and given sources for - for instance, the fact Luke plagiarizes Mark extensively and the research conducted by Randel McCraw Helms. He then claims Matthew and John were Jesus' apostles. The word "apostle" means "preacher." Anyone can be an apostle, even today. If they did know Jesus, even if they were 10 years old when Jesus preached, they would be shattering world records by writing the gospels at an age of over 110, at a time when the average life expectancy in Judea was 29 and in the Roman Empire was 24. Added to this the fact that Matthew also borrows liberally from Mark, that both borrow from earlier fragments (why would they need to if they knew Jesus?) and that there is no ancient source even suggesting that they knew Jesus. On top of all this, my opponent's evidence for each text assumes the texts have never been modified, which I have proven to be false. I think that pretty much destroys my opponent's assertion.3) He rebuts my argument on source quality by saying it's not about quality, but about accuracy. I agree. A higher quality source (ie primary as opposed to secondary) is more likely to be accurate.4) Caesar vs Jesus. My opponent claims Jesus is as good as Caesar because Jesus has churches (but none say "This Temple Was Built By JESUS CHRIST"), Jesus has art made about him (but none made of him during his lifetime, so we don't know what he looked like - meaning the guy in your artwork is just some random dude), and early church writings would otherwise make no sense (err, yes they would. Early church writings are completely consistent with the idea that Jesus was a hoax). Sorry, but Caesar wins.5) My opponent's logic - if Christian monasteries think that one text is more important than another, that text must be more trustworthy. Again wrong. Importance has nothing to do with trustworthiness.42-authors1) applies to everyone. Oh wait, you've made that argument already.2) What is the motive for such a hoax? There are many possibilities, however, anything I suggest is just speculation. I am here to debate known historical fact. That it was a hoax is pointed to by historical fact. Why it was set up is unclear. Some possibilities include that they weren't really martyred, because this story on appears in the writings of Church fathers writing generations later. Maybe they really believed in their own "divine revelations." Whatever the truth, all I need to show is that alternative possibilities exist, because the motivation cannot be known.3) No, Santa did not once exist. St Nicholas probably existed, but St Nicholas is very far removed from Santa.Finally my opponent steals an argument made by TheFreeThinker in the comments section: "Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger are among the most reliable historians known. I don't know how you can ignore those."To rebut this, let me steal my response: "You clearly did not read my argument. Josephus (at least in the Testimonium) is a later addition to his work. Pliny mentions Christ (see point 6), Tactitus mentions the good man, and the sources for both are the same as for the gospels (see point 1)."ConclusionBecause my opponent has not put forward any convincing evidence, because the evidence that he has put forward is factually inaccurate in any event, because there really is more evidence for Caesar than for Jesus, because my opponent didn't engage with the vast majority of my analysis, and because where my opponent did engage his arguments have been demolished, I am proud to oppose.Please vote con."My present opinion is that, in the case of Jesus, we simply do not know for certain anything about his biography, not even that he existed." - George Walsh