Jesus of Nazareth never existed

"Is history then a matter of democracy?" No. However, claiming that something is fact when it is really a justifiable opinion is wrong. "Mark is dated around 70CE because of his mention of the destruction of the Temple..." Why around 70CE? Maybe he predicted the destruction 30 years prior, and didn't really know the year it would be destroyed. And then, of course, there's the fact that it's a prophecy. All in all, it could just have easily been 40CE. "John was written definitively anywhere in between 90CE and 140CE..." From (http://ecole.evansville.edu...): "John died c. 99 or 100. He was the last of the apostles to die and the only one to have died a natural death. Some legends say he did not die but ascended like Elijah. St. Augustine notes a tradition that when John was buried, the ground heaved as if the apostle were still breathing." "I cannot possibly go over the minute differences between the documents in their language that suggest a difference in setting, but the source does." Then I cannot possibly counter them. "A list of twelve inconsistencies, including that one, between John and the Synoptic Gospels is available at (3) for your enjoyment." Well, if you didn't have the time or characters to list them, then obviously, I have neither the time nor the characters to counter them. "I apologize, it was cut off. No worries, I found a better source." HTTP 404 Not Found. This webpage cannot be found. Brilliant. Your source doesn't exist. "We are trying to reach a level of certainty that is akin to the raising or erasure of doubt from consideration..." Courts of law are much stricter than debates should rightfully be. "Firstly, what would be the motivation of these alleged 'anti-Jesus radicals'? Protecting the institutions of the Jewish leaders?" In removing most traces of Jesus' existence, it would cause less people to convert from Judaism to Christianity. "Wouldn't they in that sense be reactionary conservatives to destroy a radical Jesus?" True, although their conservative actions would be radical. "And as I said, the scriptural evidence for Jesus' wide fame make it extremely doubtful... that any one man or group could single-handedly succeed in erasing first-hand accounts of Jesus Christ. This effort would have to censor both Jewish and Roman texts." And, of course, they almost succeeded. Apart from the Bible, you have Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Philo, Josephus, and others, that this group obviously did not find. Scriptural evidence did not say that all of these people immediately wrote what they saw down, and even if they did, how many people would keep this document safe from harm? Only the above listed. (http://www.newadvent.org...) "Instead of apologizing for this extreme lack of evidence by making up excuses, conspiracy theories, and uncorroborated claims about secret societies that destroy documents and records, isn't it just more rational to say these documents never existed in the first place because there was no Jesus?" Only if you are too lazy to look at things from every angle. "Probably because there was no Christ and there were no followers to give an account for." Probably because Christ never came to his neighborhood while he was there. "Virtually all claims about Jesus from outside Christian writings come from authors who born after the alleged life of Jesus..." And yet, we have Christian writings. "Consequently, even if these accounts of Jesus emerged from his pen, these accounts could only serve as hearsay." Or, of course, they were research-say. So, you don't like the primary sources you are given, and you dismiss all secondary sources as unreliable. Does anything please you? "We should not have to apologize and make excuses for a lack of evidence." You don't. Nor do I. Of course, I have to come up with a reason why there isn't as much evidence as my opponent would like. "Instead, we should immediately dismiss any claim supposedly supported by the evidence which is clearly absent, as is the case here." It's not that I'm supporting my claim with the destroyed evidence. It's that you're claiming that the evidence could never have existed. It's your claims, and my counters. "For any belief, we reserve the right to ask 'why' a person believes this." Then why didn't you? We also reserve the right to not answer. "In this case, there is no reason, especially considering the documents with unknown authors and complete lack of eyewitness accounts." The authors are not unknown. They are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You have made little argument against Luke, and he happens to be an incredibly accurate historian, so I don't see why you can dismiss him. Furthermore, there is a plethora of eyewitness accounts. http://www.biblegateway.com... "Then John gave this testimony: 'I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him...'" http://www.biblegateway.com... "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near." There are many, many more. http://www.biblegateway.com... Thank you for this great debate. I truly enjoyed it. Vote CON. We have eyewitness accounts, and additional Jewish and other documents in favor of existence of Jesus of Nazareth. My opponent claims to have "critical textural research," but never truly reveals it. Again, vote CON. Good night. Thank you for reading.