The Evidence Shows Jesus Historically Existed

Final rebuttals : "99% of all Historians fervently accept Jesus existence" Ad-populum, and also, invented. No source is provided to show who did the research to arrive at this figure, which leads me to the '99.73% of all statistics are made up' response. "Paul never references James the Apostle" Perhaps it was the King James translation that threw Pro off here - let me quote the English Standard Version: 'But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. ' [1]. It could not be more clear that the subject of this sentence is an apostle. Yet he can't be, because we are clearly told in the passage I quoted that there are only two apostles called James, and neither is Jesus's brother [2]. So this is yet another contradiction which makes the very document Pro is basing his arguments on unreliable. "Using such methodology and applying it to all ancient history would devastate our knowledge on the past" Ad-consequentiam. We don't choose our methodology based on adverse effects it may have on our cherished beliefs - or shouldn't. That anyone could attempt to argue that a series of manipulations, each of which introduces more noise, results in a reduction in noise, beggars belief. "Then, he goes on to accuse Tacitus of being fraudulent again, however none of his references are from Roman Historians, all these references he gives have no academic training to accuse Tacitus' reference as being a fraud, none of them are peer-reviewed, and their arguments (such as saying a single one of all of Tacitus manuscripts have a single word possibly messed with) are rejected. " Rejected by whom? Clearly, Pro picks and chooses who he accepts as "credible" authorities based on who agrees with his position, as we saw in the previous round. Fortunately, anyone who doubts the authenticity of this research can check it out, because I've made it available in the references [3]. The "single word possibly messed with" that Pro refers to is the word that changes "good ones" to "Christ" - not an insignificant change, as it fraudulently establishes it as a document referring to Jesus. Note also that I'm not accusing Tacitus of being a fraud, but whomever changed the manuscript, possibly centuries later. [neither] "Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius or Polycarp contain any references to any of the four gospels" (quoting me) "This is ridiculous, Ignatius quotes verses from both Luke and Mark [5] from the 1st century, Polycarp quotes verses from Matthew, Luke, and Mark [6], and Clement of Rome quotes both Matthew and Mark [7]. These are all first century and very early quotations and thus references. " I thank Pro for introducing this, at it shows exactly the hoops through which Christian historians will jump to try and prove "internal consistency" and make associations that aren't there. Firstly (and due to word restriction I"ll only refer to Ignatius and Polycarp, as the site referencing Clement would require different treatment), we have the following admissions: Ignatius does not refer to older Christian writings by name [4], and Polycarp does not refer to older Christian writings by name [5] So what have we got? Lists of words quoted from the source, along with Bible passages from which they supposedly quote. Here is one example: "Keep on praying" for others too, for there is a chance of their being converted and getting to God. Let them, then, learn from you at least from your actions. [6] Which supposedly references "Pray continually" [7] So because Ignatius writes a letter which happens to say "keep praying", and similar words occur in a letter written by someone purporting to be Paul, this is a reference to that letter? Rubbish. And if you go through all of the supposed references, they are all the same - a word or two in common out of a paragraph of maybe 40, and it's a "hit". How unlikely is it that two early Christian writers would happen to independently write letters that say "keep praying"? Not very. "Anyways, my opponent hilariously attempts to quote the ridiculous idea that deities predating Jesus have the same story" Pro's objection to my introduction of Hercules is unfounded. There are varying versions of the story of Hercules, as there are of the story of Jesus. His version (about the "real historical Hercules") comes from an early Christian cult that was started by Eusebius (yes, the same proven fraudster responsible for many dodgy ancient manuscripts). The gist of it is that Eusebius says Clement says Apollodorus says Hercules was a King in Argos - which makes it about as creditable as the information we have about Jesus [8]. Nobody claims that the story of Hercules (or Osiris, or Mithras) is the same in every detail as the story of Jesus (as my opponent tries to make me say), but there are amazing parallels. And they were all actually believed at the time. They weren't considered "myths" with the exception of one. The heroic myth tale was rampant in ancient Greek and Roman times. There is no point going over yet again the evidence regarding of the gospel of Matthew and the Epistles of Paul. I reported earlier that none of the early church fathers quoted any of the gospels (including Matthew), and have shown why Pro's claims to the contrary are false. Paul had no personal knowledge of Jesus, and most of what we know of him comes from Acts, one of the most disputed books of the New Testament. Is there conclusive historical proof that Jesus actually existed? No, and this is why: *There is no hard, physical evidence for Jesus. True, there are enough pieces of wood from the "true cross" to build several arks, there are bleeding statues and the shroud of Turin, and pieces of toast bearing Jesus's image, but not a single verifiable piece of real evidence. *No Greek or Roman author from the first century mentions Jesus, and there is not a single reference to Jesus by anyone of any race or religion who was a contemporary eyewitness, who recorded things he said and did. *The existing copies of biblical documents are copies of copies of copies which have been shown to contain errors, omissions and forgeries. *The gospels and other biblical documents contain numerous errors and flat out contradictions about where and when Jesus was born, what he did, said, and when he died. In short, every aspect of his life. *Notwithstanding the above, three of the four gospels are basically copied from one, with certain bits added or removed. *All of the main features of the story of Jesus as presented by his followers have parallels in other ancient mythical stories, some of which actually have more supporting evidence than the Jesus story, even though they are universally understood to be made up. Is there a possibility that in spite of all this there could be a figure who vaguely resembles the picture painted in the gospels? Yes, it's possible - but to claim it as a fact is a matter of faith rather than hard evidence. Therefore, the only vote which matches the evidence is a vote for CON. References: [1]. http://biblehub.com... [2]Matt 10:2-4 [3]. http://www.textexcavation.com... [4]. http://www.ntcanon.org... [5]. http://www.ntcanon.org... [6](Ignatius) Eph 10:1 [7](Paul, allegedly) 1 Thessalonians 5:17 [8]. https://en.wikipedia.org...