Jesus Christ Existed

It is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic -Robert M. PriceMany deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist...Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. -2 John 1Again I would like to thank my opponent for having this discussion. It is very rare that a Christian would even debate the issue. In this round I will assess the evidence my opponent has brought up.Gospels1) These are not reliable sources because they are based on hearsay. Matthew and Luke, for instance, wrote primarily from Mark, who Randel McCraw Helms proved (in "Who Wrote the Gospels?") was writing "at the fourth remove from Jesus." Luke tells us he interviews eyewitnesses, but according to psychological scholarship, these are the least reliable.2) The gospels were not written "within 150 years" as you say. Prof. Steve Mason, an expert from York University (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36), showed that the gospels appeared about the mid-second century, compiled from earlier "fragments." These only begin appearing 35-65 years after the fact. That would be, at best, as if we wrote the FIRST fragments about the Watergate scandal today, and didn't build any narrative for another 150 years or so.3) The gospels are an unreliable source because they are rife with contradictions - BOTH internally (ie Matthew 1:17 and Matthew 1:2), across texts (ie 2 Timothy 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 7:12) and between texts (ie Acts 20:35 referencing a non-existent passage)4) None of the biblical works is scholarly, and Mark in particular is written in a very midrashic fashion. Scholarly works had a very set form - for instance, see how the forms of Livy, Tacitus and Josephus are all the same.5) The gospels are inaccurate because they have been heavily modified and edited over time. Mark, for instance, did not originally have the resurrection ending. This would be consistent with the fact that every Old Testament verse quoted by Mark is a portent of doom and destruction.6) The gospels defy known historical fact - for instance, the placement of Nazareth on a mountain (Luke 4.29 - Nazareth is in a depression, as it was even in ancient times)."The fragmentary writers"This is my group-name for all those writers who mentioned elements of the Jesus narrative in passing - including the epistles, early christian writers and secular sources. One element of all of their writing is that rather than go around investigating, these writers wrote about some of the fragments.1) These are the same fragments used to build the gospels, which are themselves of dubious historical value. This is because almost none of the writers you mention had even been born in 30AD.2) Others, such as Paul in Galatians 1, are even less reliable because they are made up (or "divinely revealed") by their own admission. Interestingly, Galatians 2 states that Peter did exactly the same thing.3) Like the gospels, these works have been heavily edited, and critical sections (especially for the early christian writers) have been lost. By the 4th century, for example, there were 3 different versions of Romans floating around. The Josephus text is a known fraud - Origen proves it! The "Testimony of Thallus and Phlegon" is likewise almost certainly fraudulent.4) The earliest external references to these texts does not appear until the 2nd century, and the earliest manuscripts for any of the texts (a small collection of Paul's letters) dates to the 3rd century.5) Writings chronologically written before the gospels (for instance, the authentic works of Paul) write about Jesus in the future tense, as if Jesus is about to come and do his ministry. There is no mention that this has already taken place, or that Jesus is returning, but rather it is indicated that Jesus is coming for the first time in several passages.Romans 11: "all Israel will be saved"Philippians 3: "we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ"6) Several of the writings you quote say absolutely nothing about Jesus. Some mention "Christ" or variations upon that name. "Christ" means anointed, a term usually used for a king who would be anointed at their inauguration. The number of kings around aside, even if they did all refer to Christians, the existence of Christians is not evidence for the existance of Jesus. Suetonius and Tacitus do not mention Christ but Chrestianos, a grammatically similar Greek word meaning "the good [person].""I have read the chronology of Justus of Tiberias ... he makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." – Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 9th CenturyOther gospels1) Once again, these are based on those good old unreliable fragmentary sayings. There is no known alternative gospel that predates Mark.2) These actually provide evidence of a non-bodily existence of Jesus. The vast majority are either marcionist or docetist.3) None provides any significant details about his life other than his resurrection except for the gospels of Thomas and Judas. Those gospels deviate so strongly from the teaching of Jesus in the gospels that one wonders if they are speaking about the same Jesus. The resurrection narrative is clearly borrowed from Paul.I look forward to hearing what other evidence my opponent might have.