The historicity of Jesus Christ

Next round I will address my opponent’s proposition of a 'scientific history.' But this round let us examine the ocean of mistakes given by Con.1. Tacitus.1.1 Invective and rhetoric methods of documentation do not discredit facts. My opponent brought up again his already debunked argument: it is obvious Tacitus just wanted to insult Christians instead of report facts. But this time he was being sneaky. Instead of proving that the Annals 15:44 was actually all just insults at Christians, he asserted that Tacitus usually did that in his writings, and thus did it here. Here we go again with Con's logic: If y seems true, then x is true. Please note that there is no bias in Annals 15:44 that could possibly distort or alter what facts there are. "...to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome," [1] Contrary to what Con says, no rhetoric is evident there with the exception of that which I have already addressed in my previous post. I would also note that like many critics of Tacitus, Kraus and Woodman for example, Con attacks Tacitus and says that discredits him, yet fails to address the passage pertaining to Jesus. There is no indication that Tacitus' bias had any effect on the Jesus passage.1.2 Tacitus is a reliable scholar.Benario about Tacitus states: "The information that Tacitus presents is almost invariably accurate, having been confirmed by archaeology, epigraphical evidence, and other authors."[2] To see whether or not Con is correct I usually like to look at what his sources have to say against him. In this case, Con's source 3 states: "...a closer study of the factual evidence given by Tacitus illustrates a totally different emperor.“Source 3 concedes that Tacitus' presentation of the facts contradicts his opinions, yet Tacitus states them anyways, being an honest historian. We see this elsewhere too. Grant states: "the actual facts which he records are generally accurate - so accurate that they involuntarily contradict his sinister innuendoes." [3] Con goes on to quote: "Tacitus exercised the [privilege] claimed by Greek and Roman writers to rewrite speeches rather than reproduce the original." I do not know where he is quoting from, so this makes refuting hard. Con says that this quote, (wherever it came from) is "illustrated by Claudius' speech on the introduction of the Gaul’s into the Roman Senate, where we can compare Tacitus' version[4] with the record of the actual speech which Tacitus would certainly have access." Con provides the annals, but not the speech. I would ask Con to source his work as rebuttals is made hard without information. Furthermore, we have gone off topic as to Con attempting to discredit Tacitus as a person rather than the evidence which I had provided. Any evidence that does not discredit Annals 15:44 is irrelevant to this debate.1.3 Validity of sources.Talking about reliable sources, notice in C1 the subtle attempt by Con to assert that Tacitus had a bias so strong he deliberately misinterpreted the facts. Right before he says that, he says: "Others point out" This shifts the BoP off him, and although no one realises it, it doesn't constitute as valid material. Why? Because Con's source 2 is actually the opinion of some random guy off the internet who didn't source his work. Nice try Con.Moving on, we see more of Con's non-sequitur fallacies where he uses x seems true hence y is true. This time he states "Tacitus only referred to the naming as Christians by the people, not the rest of the information. However, Tacitus is well documented as justifying swathes of evidence on rumour and second sources." The day Con learns to attack the stuff that matters is probably the day pigs will fly.I would also ask Con to address my point that looks in favour of Tacitus' sources, since Con seems to want to attack that. In his book, shattering the Christ myth, James Patrick Holding says: "In the Histories there are sixty-eight instances in which Tacitus indicates either a recorded statement or a belief on someone's part with regard to something which he himself is unwilling to assert as a fact; in other words, he cites divergent authority for some fact or motive" [Mende.Tac, 208]. These instances "would seem to indicate a writer who had not only read what was written by historians...but had also talked with eye witnesses and considered with some care the probable truth where doubt or uncertainty existed." [4] I had brought up this argument before with different wording and sources if Con wants to try his luck. As it stands, all 3 sub contentions of Con's case against Tacitus are effectively refuted.2. The Talmud2.1 Conflicting beliefs do not discredit facts.The authors of the Talmud believe Jesus had 5 apostles, however, Con correctly notes that they were very biased against Christ and Christianity. Which begs the question, since the Talmud was written a time after the life of Jesus, why didn't its prejudiced authors instead claim that Jesus never lived? It’s because, despite their wishes, they must not lie.3. Josephus3.1 Cons case against the passages by Josephus has been reduced to him hiding behind Well's claim that due to the similarity of a single phrase in Josephus' writing, the entre document must have been forged, or influenced by Christians.Numerous scholars responded to this claim however, so much so to the point that G.Well himself admitted he was wrong. [5] France EvJ states: "...Josephus' usage should be determined from Josephus, not from Matthew. The complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus translates legomenos as 'so-called' or 'alleged', and refers as an example to Josephus, Contra Apionen II 34, where he speaks of Alexandria as Apion's 'not birthplace, but alleged (birthplace)'. Even if legomenos does not necessarily carry this dismissive tone in our passage, it is hardly conceivable that a Christian interpolator could have been content with so non-committal a phrase."Furthermore, it is actually my opponent who is guilty of ad hominem fallacies, constantly attacking the historian’s persons and not what they said.3.2 The other passage I proposed has not been touched by Con.4. Lucian4.1 Frankly I was disappointed with my opponents attempt at a rebuttal against Lucian. He completely ignored my pre-emptive rebuttal. But never-the-less I will address what he had to say.Since I do not have enough characters, pretend I have restated my previous post that was not addressed by Con.Now add what J.P Holding has to say: There is good reason to believe that he would not acknowledge the existence of Jesus if there were any doubt in his mind that Jesus actually existed. He would certainly have satirized Christian belief in a fictional or historically doubtful personage mercilessly, if any such arguments existed at the time. He goes on to say: he was in a good position to have known of such issues, being that he moved in the most educated of circles and very likely corresponded and consulted with leading figures of his day. In short, Lucian was a person who was "in a position to know" whether or not Jesus had genuine historical roots, and was exactly the sort who would raise any relevant doubts in order to enhance the impact of his satire.The fact that he was writing satire didn't change his facts. To prove that, I will conclude my post with this quote by Lucian: “The historian’s first task is to tell the thing as it happened, he may nurse some private dislikes, but he will attach more importance to the public good, and will set the truth high above his hate..." [6]Sources in Comments.