Jesus Christ Existed

I thank my opponent for this debate, and I will now go on and show why it is illogical to believe Jesus Christ never existed. Contradictions My opponent tells us he isn't here to answer the contradictions. I agree entirely. What I claim is that the existence of contradictions points to a story being mythical rather than factual. Well first of all I don’t think that there are any contradictions in the Bible whatsoever, but that is an entirely DIFFERENT debate. This argument is non-topical and should be thrown out. However, let’s look at my opponent’s logic. If any two documents contradict in any way then nothing else can be true about those documents. If this was true, let’s look at the following group of people who we shouldn’t say existed either: Homer, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Hammurabi, Plato, Sophocles, etc. The list could go on forever. Other texts 1) If this debate isn't about contradictions, then it DEFINITELY IS NOT ABOUT THE HISTORICITY OF ANYONE ELSE. There are many, for instance, who really do deny that Homer existed - it is not as though that is a set in stone fact. That’s very different, Homer lived much earlier than Jesus and there was no documentation on his life at all. 2) Just because the manuscripts of the New Testament are well-preserved doesn't make them any more accurate. Even if they were wrong in 150AD, that doesn't make them any better now. All of the New Testament was written before the first century was completed. A fact that my opponent blatantly ignores. 3) Looking at the writings of Caesar or Shakespeare is not a fair comparison because: We know who the authors were - cf the New Testament, where we have not a clue who wrote it or why, other than their own claim that they had it "divinely revealed" to them. Actually Matthew and John were apostles of Jesus, Mark was a scribe of Peter (another apostle), and then Luke was a historian. So, three of the four gospel writers knew Jesus. The quality of the sources is much higher - for instance, the sources for Plato are ALL primary sources. I’m just talking about historical accuracy. Many of the ancients on your list are identified as historical by non-literary sources. Caesar is largely identified as being real because there are hundreds of temples with his name on it, thousands of coins (I own a few) bearing his portrait, a few dozen sculptures, and the fact that without Caesar the narrative of Augustus would make no sense (meaning all the sources for Augustus apply to Caesar as well). Now try telling me Jesus' life is anywhere even close to being that well recorded. Let me apply my opponent’s logic in the case of Jesus. Jesus is largely identified as being real because there are millions of churches with his name on it, thousands of stained glass windows and paintings (I own a few) bearing his portrait, a few million sculptures, and the fact that without Jesus the writings of the early church members would make no sense (meaning all the sources for the early church members apply to Jesus as well). If my opponent applied his logic to everything he would find no doubt in his mind that Jesus existed. 4) Much of the copying of ancient texts was done in Christian monasteries. Why I am not at all surprised they took more care copying, and copied more, what they considered to be the holy word of God, compared with pagans like Aristotle? That doesn't support the claim for Jesus' existence at all. No, however it supports that that these accounts can be trusted. 42-authors 1) This whole argument is an evasion of my analysis last round. Every single one of my points last round refutes this claim because I have systematically discredited all 42 of the authors. If we apply my opponent’s logic to every ancient person, then we will end up with the conclusion that no one before out time ever existed and that any history that was ever written down cannot be trusted. 2) The vast majority of these authors were clearly relying on each other and not independent as my opponent claims. For instance, without Mark, we would not have Luke. Don't believe me? Read Mark, and then Luke, and look for plagiarism. You'll find an abundance. These 42 authors were writing decades apart. Is it not possible 41 people repeat, innocently, the lies of but one man? Of course it is possible. I do not claim that this is what happened (I think it was a much smaller group called "the apostles"), I am simply refuting your claim that "all 42 authors must have gotten together to fake all of this" (which is impossible anyway). The problem here is the motive, there is no reason for any of the apostles to make up such an elaborate hoax. This would later cost them their lives, because 11 of the 12 apostles were tortured and then killed due to their claims about Jesus Christ. Not a single one of them took back their claims, so who is willing to be boiled alive, crucified, or bleed to death for something you know is a lie. 3) Just because a lot of people say a lie does not make it more true. Lots of people believe in Santa, but that does not make Santa any more real. Yes, but Santa actually existed. He’s not a magical fat dude living in the North Pole, but he did at one point exist. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My opponent’s arguments are illogical, because he claims that Caesar lived but yet denies that Jesus lived due to the lack of evidence, reliability, etc. However I have shown much more evidence to show how Christ existed. The New Testament Gospels are the most well documented sources and closest written to the original date than any other document in the world. Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger are among the most reliable historians known. I don't know how you can ignore those.