There is no credible historical proof of the Biblical Jesus.

As we have let our hair down (whew! I was getting a headache!), I will not debate a whole lot in this round. It was my understanding (maybe I misread) that this debate was about a historically accurate Jesus. We were not debating on whether or not: he was the son of God, turned water into wine, walked on water, etc; but on whether or not he actually existed. If the point was existence and not Godhood, I feel I won the debate, as my opponent even conceded (though slightly) with "Jesus the rabble-rousing single man who roamed around preaching – if I stretch my imagination – MAYBE" 3rd paragraph. If, I was supposed to prove Jesus' Godhood, I think I did an admiral job of trying, but it would be impossible to, and I concede defeat. That having been said, I'd like to speak on faith a little more. Faith cannot have proof. To give proof destroys faith. To those in this world that need absolute proof before they believe in something, faith is the most ridiculous lie ever conceived by man. A mostly logical (enough to make Spock start blubbering about his daddy) person looks on those with faith as easily duped idiots. Our purely logical friend understands that people need/want something to believe in, but only because they have not yet reached the intelligence to get over the need for a bedtime story and a kiss from mommy to make them feel protected enough to sleep. A purely logical person continually asks "why" and will not rest until they get their answer. For those with whom faith is the only way to live, they look at everything with a child-like wonder. They are the ones who are easily taken in by fads and will follow anyone with an idea, because it could be true! These people find the highly logical person to be "harshing their buzz" and a stick in the mud that can't just live. The highly faithful see the highly logical as people that cannot live outside of bounds and will never have a fulfilled life until the numbers add up. The highly faithful person will ask "why not" and then stumble around with a glazed look in their eyes. I believe that it is the person who uses both of these ways of viewing the world that will have a fulfilled life. I hope I have shown myself to be intelligent, articulate, capable of showing and understanding facts and figures (I feel my opponent may have found a new respect for the thinking faithful) while still having a worldview whose very base is faith. If the facts and figures truly add up, they will add up; no matter what base they are based on, 2 + 2 will always equal 4 whether you use college ruled paper or construction paper. I believe Galileo had a lot to say on this topic (http://thinkexist.com...). There are true gems in his thinking that still astound me every time I read them! Albert Einstein too had many thoughts about the harmony of God/man logic/faith (http://rescomp.stanford.edu...). Faith is the evidence of things unseen. Faith has only the evidence of its self. Did Jesus exist, I think I have shown yes. Did Jesus turn water to wine and walk on water? I believe so, and in believing display not gullibility, but courage. The courage to look at a world with logical eyes, understanding that there is no reason to believe what I do, no proof, no record, but to do so anyway and to live my life under the guidance of what my faith has to say. To echo my opponent, neither of us has been swayed, to expect otherwise would have shown the difference between faith and gullibility ;). I hope that, as I always do, our readers will not vote-bomb either side, in fact I would forfeit (were that possible) if I win by votes that were not explained, and I expect my opponent would as well. I would also like to add, be respectful in the comments section. I have seen too many ridiculous posts by ridiculous people in comment sections. This debate has been a challenging delight. As has my opponent. Best of luck in this and future debates, and I'm sure we'll have debates in the future. Happy voting!