The Jesus of History Probably Existed - D

Introduction: I was spot on in my assessment of how my opponent opened his last round. He is wholly incorrect that contemporary historians do not use the Gospels as historical accounts (http://www.amazon.com...). Wikipedia sums it up as follows, "scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion." How could these scholars come to this uniform consensus without relying on the Gospels as historical documents? Since my opponent has shown a habit of avoiding the question, I'll ask it right at the beginning to make sure he does not forget: According to what historical model are you using that allows you to disregard the history in the Gospels and not any other ancient sources that contain inherently less evidence, fewer and younger manuscripts, and rely on secondary sources? "The gospels can not be regarded as historical in the same way as other non-religious documents simply because of their religious nature." Aside from this sentence making no sense, it is very wrong in what I believe to be its intended meaning. According to whom is it not regarded as historical? According to what historical method? Why is this not practiced by contemporary scholars? Moreover, we continue to discover manuscripts to this day – I suppose my opponent also intends to suggest that all these were altered by the Catholic Church? As for Alexander the great, we only have secondary sources, the earliest biography being 400 years after his death... So far as I can tell, my opponent has a very biased and contorted historical lens. Tacitus: It seems my opponents only remaining argument against Tacitus can be phrased thusly, "But some Christian scholars disregard Tacitus as evidence." As this is still a minority opinion, it does not really say much. Moreover, if the criterion used to decide scholars who "disregard" Tacitus as evidence is anything like the William Lane Craig quote, I'm very unimpressed, dumbfounded actually. Saying Tacitus relied on Christian tradition is a long shot from disregarding him as accurate testimony. In fact, even if he DID rely on Christian tradition, there are no good reasons for believing he accepted them uncritically – as shown in my earlier round. Josephus: My opponent's reaming argument now focuses on the "so-called Christ" being a later addition. My opponent gives a source for someone who "analyzed the text." Unfortunately, seeing that it makes many amateurish mistakes as noted here http://www.tektonics.org... I believe it is safe to say that this is not the kind the study I was looking for. The kind of study I'm looking for has already been done (1), and has concluded that the veracity of this second Josephus passage cannot be reasonably questioned on textual grounds. The Bible: My opponent is not aware of archeological facts confirmed by the Bible, let me enlighten him. Of course Ciaphas, Pilate, and John the Baptist were mentioned earlier in my first round. The Hitites were known only through the Bible until they were archeologically discovered. The Jerusalem wall was discovered, known first through the Bible. Biblical Archeological Review, and many scholars maintain the authenticity of the James ossuary (which contains Jesus' name). I am not going to waste my space with the numerous discoveries. As this is a minor point, see the video for more information. http://www.youtube.com... The silence of Philo is nothing but that, an argument from silence. We know that Christianity existed at that time, yet Philo makes no mention of that movement either – maybe because it was not big enough to form a threat or because silence is the biggest insult. John 1:1's adaption of Philo's logos is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with whether or not Philo would have reported either Christ or the Christian movement. Regarding the independence of the Gospels, perhaps I'll supply a source that requires less reading between the lines (overlapping of Q and the conclusion of a two-source hypothesis are examples literary independence FYI). Markan priority is almost unanimously accepted, and Luke and Matthew's use of it is clear. However, Mark and Matthew have there own unique sources, making them independent (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This explains Matthew and Lukes non-Markan material. On Parsimony: "Clearly it requires less assumption to presume the gospels are fiction than to believe they are true. " Either my opponent is being intellectual dishonest, obstinate, or is operating with a complete misunderstanding of parsimony. First, he needs to prove his assertion. Second, the moment he understands why calling Pontius Pilate fictional is not parsimonious is the moment he understands why denying the existence of certain persons or the veracity of certain documents does not count as one assumption. My points stand. Insufficient Time: It is too bad my opponent is not understanding this point, as it is an important one. Consider you have lived in the same neighborhood for 30 years. Imagine someone comes and tells you that a man named Bob Jerky lived just a few blocks down from you and he healed people and manipulated matter, and he often had large followings of people – and he generally always called attention to himself. But there is one slight problem – you, and all your surrounding neighbors, have never heard of this man, indeed, the house he supposedly lived in had been occupied for 35 years. You would rightly disagree with the person telling you this. Similarly, there is no way that this movement could have spread so rapidly during the time that supposed eyewitnesses were still alive – but it did. Paul: Any dates after AD 70 are based on a presuppositional bias – similar to my opponent's presuppositions of antisupernaturalism that cause him to discount the Gospels entirely. Presuppositional biases are a historical no-no. My opponent is also under the estranged conviction that I need to address his citations of Paul. But this is unneeded if I can prove from the text that Paul believed in a physical Jesus. Instead my opponent casually casts them aside – even saying that some of them may have been later additions (another example of presuppositional bias). SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF LATER ADDITION. Moreover, show me the example where individual persons (not plurality brothers in Christ) are referred to as the brother of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org...). 1. It is pretty clear in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:22, that Paul is referring to Christ coming back – insofar as he first died and resurrected and now we wait. 2. You would have to prove that it is not historical before you can maintain it is an allegory. 3. Blessed are those who are sent... Talking about how Christians need to be carriers of the good news. 4. Talking about the mystery of God's grace to the gentiles... 5. The Greek prographo here is writing term and has to do with public exhibition. Christ's death should have been clear enough in their lives as to prevent them from being bewitched (http://net.bible.org...). 6. Ephesians 3:10 is not referring to Christ's crucifixion... 7. Philippians 3:20 seems to align pretty well with traditional eschatology, we await Jesus to come from heaven. 8. Romans 11:26 is citing Isaiah! Israel has a temporary hardening until the full number of gentiles come in. I'm getting suspicious that my opponent has not read any of the related context for any of his listed verses. Source: 1. France, R. T. "The Evidence for Jesus," 1986.