The historicity of Jesus Christ

This round I will refute my opponent’s attacks on the 3 arguments currently in play in this debate, and introduce another one. Tacitus my opponents employs the following arguments against Tacitus: His aim was literary insult, not historical truth.His source is wildly inaccurate and inconsistent.He doesn't check his sources.He says his source is the common people. 1. If Con thinks he can divine the thoughts and intents of Tacitus as he wrote his Annals, then I have nothing to say. But let's entertain the notion that his records were indeed just insults, and not the truth. Is that possible? No. Tacitus was a renowned historian for a reason. He didn't record history to insult people, nor did he allow his opinions to interfere with facts. As seen in his Annals, any opinion he had co-existed harmonically with the facts. So what was Con claiming? According to him, this account cannot be reliable due to: a) Tacitus' use of the phrase 'squelch the rumor.' My opponent says that this phrase implies that Nero was faultless. However, depending on what translation you use, this phrase does not appear. In my opponent’s source 4, which can be found in the comments, the Annals state: ‘consequently, to get rid of the report...' So my opponent has interpreted one of the many translations as an implication of x seems true, therefore y is true. Non-sequitur fallacy. b) Tacitus' use of the phrase '...for their abominable crimes.' Again, let us refer to our opponent’s source for clarity. Annals 15.44 on this matter states: 'Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.' Tacitus is merely stating that Christians were hated for their abominations. This is a report, not an opinion. 2. My opponents claim that Tacitus' source is 'wildly inaccurate and inconsistent' holds little substance as an attack on Tacitus. Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information. [1] I feel Con may be making things up for material. Scholars still agree that Tacitus is completely authentic when examined, yet one cannot simply attack a source that is unknown to us. Nor can we deduce it, due to the nature of my opponent’s arguments attempting to be 'scientific.' Like point 1, this argument by Con does not constitute as evidence against the resolution. 3. The claim that Tacitus did not verify his sources is unfounded and wrong, as demonstrated in his Annals Fifty-Five: C. Plinii Secundi, Naturalis Histori. Nearly 70 times we see Tacitus distinguish between hearsay and confirmed accounts. We also see that he was in the habit of putting a disclaimer on any of his documents that were unverified, saying that it was unverified. No such disclaimer is on his report that Jesus was crucified. 4. Con's 4th contention directly contradicts his source. By using his preferred translation of Annals book 15:44; we see that Con's entire claim is wrong. Con argues that Tacitus used Christians as his source, in his words: 'we are told that the knowledge of the Christians is from "the common people."' Wrong, observe please, what Tacitus said: '...called Christians by the populace.' [2] Tacitus did not get his knowledge of Christianity from the populace; he only mentioned that the populace called the followers of Jesus Christians. To assert any more than that would be an unfounded claim. The Talmud Con's case against the Talmud relies heavily on his assumption that: 1. Contradictions are unexplainable. Con did not source these 'contradictions with Christianity.' So how does he expect me to address them? Assuming that the Talmud does not agree with what Christianity agrees, that does not discredit either; we just look for facts, not controversial numbers. 2. There were many Yeshu's. There was only one Yeshu from Nazareth, and only one Yeshu who was hanged: Firenze II.1.8–9: on Sabbath even and the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus (Yeshu) the Nazarene. Karlsruhe 2: on the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus (Yeshu) the Nazarene. Herzog 1: on the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus (Yeshu) the Nazarene. Josephus the overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider the reference in Book 20 Chapter 9.1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" to be authentic and to have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity. [3,4,5,6,7,8] Let 2 things be known here: 1. The first document appears to have Christian interpolation in it. However, my opponent faces a dilemma if he thinks this is the case: a) these 'interpolations' are found in every surviving manuscript. There is no textual evidence to claim otherwise. [9] b) Josephus mentions several other biblical characters, which are not disputed, so there is no reason to dispute Jesus. c) Assume for a moment that Christians had got their hands on his work and had made Jesus look good. Take out all the bits that seem Christian interpolated. We get this: And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvellous deeds, a teacher of men who received the truth with pleasure. He led away many Jews, and also Greeks. He was the Christ. and when Pilate had condemned him to the cross by his impeachment by the chief men among us, those who had loved him at first did not cease, for he appeared to them alive on the first day again, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of other wonderful things about him: and even then, the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out. It is established that this text, when all the 'interpolation' is removed, does not look favourably at Jesus, yet still confirms his existence. 2. The author of the book which Con relies on for his case against Josephus has abandoned his claims that Jesus did not exist. [10] I am led to believe that in spite of all G. A. Wells' arguments being shattered by J. P. Holding, Con remains uninformed. Contrary to what Con would have us believe, there is no good argument against these 3 sources. My next argument: Lucian Lucian was a fanatical enemy of Christianity; he used whatever opportunities available to criticise and degrades the religion. In his book, the Passing of Peregrinus he writes: 'The Christians, as you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.' [11] So now that we have established that Lucian provides textual information about Jesus, can we count it as historically valid? By examining his other writings, yes, we can refute the standard case against him, that his account is based on hearsay. Lucian was very concerned about historical accuracy and reliability when documenting. From Fowl.LucSam, 126, 128: History...abhors the intrusion of any least scruple of falsehood; it is like the windpipe, which the doctors tell us will not tolerate a morsel of stray food. The historian's one task is to tell the thing as it happened. (The historian) must sacrifice to no God but Truth; he must neglect all else; his sole rule and unerring guide is this - to think not of those who are listening to him now, but of the yet unborn who shall seek his converse. Lucian was also known to mock those who did not practice complete honesty. [12] So he is a very valuable historian that confirms that resolution: Jesus Probably Existed. Sources in comments.