This House believes that Jesus Christ was a historical figure

Sourcing I agree with my opponent: you should quote as few words as possible for conciseness. However, this still means tohave quotes. His source agrees to quote when citing. Otherwise, we have to guess where one another got their evidence from. To answer a query, sources one and two are 6-page papers on the issue, quotes being on the second page of both, while the quotations In Defence of History are on p4: http://tinyurl.com... Presumption of History Firstly let me cover natural fluctuations. They are quite easy to show existing, mostly because they are obvious when we see them. If we flip a coin & get 3 heads in a row is this foul play? The chance of this is 0.125, which is greater than our p-value of 5%. We'd say no, this is simply luck. The technical term is natural fluctuation, as it is simple probability. If we get 12 heads in a row, the chance of this is less than our 5%, and as such we should assume foul play. Now, is there foul play in history? Firstly, let me take a general history example, the most infamous: The Hitler Diaries, first thought authentic, but then recognised as a "crude forgery.""[1] These fakes are why we don't rely on a single source. Regarding the resurrection, we have the most obvious foul play of Josephus' works[3]. This is natural fluctuation. This evidence does not prove or disprove anything: it can easily be ascribed to something which just occurs from people wanting to find evidence. Moreover, a single piece of evidence can be ascribed to natural fluctuation, and as such a single source is not perfect evidence. So am I really being unfair? Is saying that if something comes from a dubious source, then it is unjustified to dogmatically support it, “radical scepticism”? Of course not – it’s being critical. We shouldn’t embrace something because one source says so – that’s foolishly gullible. In a field dominated by dogmatists we should be even more sceptical of cases. Authority Though I could list Wells, Hoffmann, Doherty, Zindler, Ellegård, Price, Brodie, Thompson, Murdock, Akenson, White etc. etc. etc.[4][8], then demand literally a hundred scholars for Christ for every scholar against to get anywhere near the evolution mark, but as I’ve said, this is pointless listing. In a bias field (by its very nature), it relies heavily on consensus rather than evidence. However, I do demand that my opponent show how his list of 700 creationists making up 0.016% counts as controversy, and the postmodern controversy which is “an extreme minority opinion”, as my opponent rightly says, yet there is controversy in postmodernism and not in evolution. The truth is, numbers don’t matter, it’s the argument posed. 50 years ago, no-one espoused postmodernism and 500 years ago no-one espoused democracy. Moreover, he is yet to establish how this group of clearly bias authorities is a strong source. Historical Figures Imagine I am claiming Jesus was a historical figure. I make five claims: 1) Jesus is French 2) Jesus led the French nation against the Germans in the Second World War 3) Jesus became President of France 4) Jesus led a right-wing ideological tradition in France which dominates to this day. Someone with knowledge of French History will be able to say this is De Gaulle, not Jesus. To show Jesus existed, we need to show that the defining characteristics of this person, whether events or traits, are true. For Jesus, the most obvious are: 1) Jesus was born in the Judaean region 2) Jesus as a child was thought of as “King of Kings” to the extent Herod tried to have him killed 3) Jesus was an extremely talented orator and prophet, committing miracles around the area. 4) Jesus was killed on the cross, and resurrected 3 days later 5) Jesus promoted the Christian religion, or at the least a New Judaism This isn’t unreasonable; these are the facts that all Christians adhere to. If we argued Jesus was an American revolutionary leading the USA to its formation, signing the American Declaration, we would deny his existence. Similarly, we cannot claim Jesus was real if he had none of these characteristics. This is a different person, not Jesus Christ. And if we are to again point to the 25% who deny the fourth fact, which includes the Empty Tomb, are we truly to say that Christ was real? Are we truly to say that Jesus Christ’s resurrection is irrelevant when it comes to defining him? No: his resurrection define Christ: it invariably leads to “the truth of Christian theology”[4a], “This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.”[4b] Explanatory Power There are numerous reasons why the fictitious nature of Jesus is a better explanation of the factual one. 1) It is simpler: parsimony dictates immutable laws of nature are simpler than ones that break repeatedly. Miracles are by their very nature so extraordinry that for us to believe them we need overwhelming evidence, to disprove chances of fake sources. 2) It makes sense with the time: a figure claiming divinity and perfection so common to Judaea that Christ is unsurprising. Supposed existence of divine figures is also commonplace. A rallying symbol of Christ simply makes sense. His entire character makes sense, in fact: a great man, an allegory of Israel, beaten down by the Romans, tricked by others, yet rising like a phoenix from the ashes to become such a great person, as long as we hold true to the faith. It is poetically useful as nationalistic writing, but not history. The false claims of historicity by Luke also make sense, when we notice this fact: he is trying to create hope, and claiming reality is better than acknowledging lies. 3) It makes sense of the strange words of Christ. For example, Jesus’ proclamation that a woman divorcing her husband is adultery makes no sense culturally, as in Palestine only men could get divorces. This was for Gentiles, the non-Palestinians: “the evangelist [writer] put into Jesus' mouth in order to give [his view] authority”[5]. 4) It makes sense of the lack of biblical events, like the census or Jesus' astounding oration, being properly documented or even referred to by contemporaries. Paul “[Paul's] Jesus is nothing more than the thinnest hearsay, a legendary creature which was crucified as a sacrifice, a creature almost totally lacking a biography.”[5]. The letters never refer to a place of birth, his virgin birth, or parents. They don’t indicate the time or place of his earthly existence. They don’t refer to his trial, nor to his execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas. They do not mention his miracles, which define Christ. Finally, they do not mention even that he taught: it is devoid of ethical teaching, instead imposing its own ethic. In short, his Christ is Voldemort, or Aslan: A symbol to make a larger point, not real in its own right. That is why the crucifixion helps, not hinders, the faith: it is powerful symbol. This implies fiction, not fact. The Gospels My opponent claims gospels are reliable, as they are independent of Paul. That doesn’t stop them being cross-plagiarisms, of which we cannot find any reason to believe their truth outside of themselves. James He was a spiritual brother. “Not James the brother of John, an apostle, but James, the brother of the Lord”. “Some have been of opinion [of] a third James”. “He is called here the brother of the Lord, to distinguish him from James, the son of Zebedee”[7]. Analysers of the Bible point out how this is a spiritual brother – meaning nothing of history, but that James was Christian. I don’t deny people were Christian, I deny that there was Christ. 1 - http://tinyurl.com... 2 - http://tinyurl.com... 3 – "20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations; 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation" http://tinyurl.com... 4 – http://tinyurl.com.... (a) is a quote from Habermas, (b) is paraphrasing Ehrman. 5 - George A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p13 6 – Ibid, p22 7 - http://tinyurl.com... 8 - tinyurl.com/2w2yucw