There exists historically accurate evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed

Tacitus: Was he in a position to offer reliable, primary-source testimony? You weren't there. You do not know. Did he, in fact, offer a historically-reliable account? That's what we're debating on. Did their testimonies survive to the present substantially unaltered and intact? It seems so. If it isn't, it was just changed to be more understandable. We only have the present. When you're in the present, you don't have the past to use, only what exists in the present. So if we look at what exist today and it fits what happened in the past, that event is historically reliable. For Jesus, we have the bible, and all the other documents, like this part from Tacitus's: "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (The misspelling of Christ as "Christus" was a common error made by pagan writers). He said that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Since when could that mean something else? They couldn't have changed that part! Now, "virtually all MODERN SCHOLARS agree that Jesus existed": "1. The conclusion is founded off of what documents exist WITHOUT looking at the historical accuracy of the documents" I'll bet you they did! You don't know they didn't! "2. The majority of Scholars that specialize in this time period are Christians, hence there is a VERY possible bias" Yes, it is certain that they have a bias. But it is also certain that the atheists you got your info from have biases! Everyone does. "3. Psychology shows that since the overwhelming number of Christian Scholars say Jesus existed the minority of non-Christian scholars would tend to agree" Show the resource. That's impossible, because Christians are Christians because they believe Jesus existed and is God! So "Christian Scholars" that you say are really "Atheist Scholars", by definition. "4. Overall, not always, the scholars that do NOT believe in a historical Jesus actually make better arguments than those that say he existed." Show the resource. How could you say that they make "better arguments?" "From your source: 1. "has subsequently been considered by some Christians to be the site of the burial and resurrection of Jesus." NOT Scholars 2. "several nineteenth century scholars had rejected the traditional site's validity." Scholars rejecting that claim 3. "Due to the archaeological issues the Garden Tomb site raises, several scholars have rejected its claim to be Jesus' tomb."" 1. No, it says "some scholars". 2. Probably atheists. Biased atheists. 3. Could have been someone else's tomb, but again, they could've been biased atheists.