Jesus Existed as a Historical Person who Started the Christian Movement

Thank you daley for this challenge. It should be an interesting debate and I hope we are both enlightened by it. The term "Christian" was not known in Tacitus' time (55-117 BC) when the religion was just new-born. They were a sect of Judaism at this point and so were swept up in the attacks on Jews which followed the Great Fire of Rome in 64 BC for which they were spuriously blamed. The passage was not quoted for centuries by Christian scribes before its appearance almost word-for word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus in the early 5th century, at which point the Emperor Constantine had decreed Christianity the state religion a century before. Severus was known for his antique manner of writing, using it to write fantastical stories involving miraculous events. The Jamesian reference in Book 20, the Antiquities of the Jews is made in passing, during a discussion of machinations over the high priesthood. In some versions, the "so-called" Christ is used instead. It continues in the same paragraph: "... Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest." Here we have Josephus describing Albinus, the Roman prefect, being angered by the Sandhedrin ordering James put to death without approval from him. He threatens Ananus with punishment, which he receives by being removed as high priest. Then "Jesus son of Damneus," a previous high priest, is appointed to the post. Given this context, it seems clear that James is brother of this Jesus, not the other and reference to Christ was likely put in later by a Christian editor. Not one of the famous Christian writers before the 4th century, neither Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, ever quote the Josephus passage that confirmed the entire belief system. Origen for instance debated with the pagan Celsus for an incredible span, citing many proofs and witnesses in his case, including quoting Josephus at length. Yet no where does the golden proof from Josephus paragraph appear. The paragraph is not found in early editions of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, among them Origen's own 3rd Century edition which he quotes from. Moreover, for a writer who seemingly confirms the belief in Jesus as divine, not merely his existence, Josephus remained an Orthodox Jew, i.e. rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, let alone god, which he would have viewed as blasphemy. Furthermore, if for some reason this belief was truly held by Josephus, it seems odd he would confine it to just one paragraph in his writings, a reference in Pilate's story at that. Josephus actually wrote far more about John the Baptist than Jesus, along with other self-described messiahs and their doings. Around 53 BC Josephus investigated Jewish sects. Acts 9:31 claims this as a time of an explosion in Christian faith throughout Judea, and Acts 15:12 cites it as the period in which the famous Council of Jerusalem was held, where Paul supposedly recalled miracles in support of their belief. Josephus knew none of these events, despite being alive and writing about Jewish affairs then. The Gospels are "claimed" to present eyewitness and contemporary testimony of those who knew the eyewitnesses. That claim is under debate. If the claims were so convincing, indeed well-known, seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses, one would think far more of the Jews would be converted. Yet the Christian accounts say the opposite. The early Christians were persecuted by Jews as heretics for years, with the majority never accepting Christ, despite hundreds supposedly seeing the miracles. 1) The historical "fact" that no Christian broke and confessed it was a lie, while hard to show, is not a good argument. First of all, if they did not witness the events, there was no knowledge to confess. Second, if assumes conspiracy had to occur. I contend the Christians in those days did not believe the resurrection happened physically on earth, so again nothing to confess. In any case, believers of all faiths have died rather than "confess their lies." It's not a lie to you in such cases. 2) One would expect to find far more accounts, not only of Jesus resurrection but the rising of corpses (Gospel of Matthew) by both believers and skeptics. Josephus, who is cited as proof of the historical Jesus, makes no mention of them, nor do any other contemporary accounts. The difficulty in fabrication suggests they were not then fabricated at all. If they were true, it would be known by hundreds if not thousands at the time as I said. Yet this is not the case. 3) Which Gospel is cited here? Each of them offers different witnesses of the resurrection, along with other events. If this event were so known, including 500 witnesses supposedly witnessing Jesus resurrected in Jesus, it seems far more accounts would be available. 4) Using the New Testament to prove itself is not a good argument, especially when it disagrees with itself, as shown above in my examples. The question has to be asked of how the people cited (many living hundreds of years later) knew who wrote the Gospels either. The fact that the same names were placed on the Gospels consistently does not in any way prove their accounts by itself. Furthermore, we have the numerous apocryphal and Gnostic Gospels. Within themselves, the Gospels do not identify the authors by name. The names were possibly added on later, then copied as such. We do not know. In any case, they have been dated to generations after Jesus. The miraculous events claimed would seem likely to inspire far more eyewitness accounts at the time they occurred. The minimum amount of proof is difficult. A person living two thousand years ago let alone in one small corner of the world is hard to prove, especially compared to say Roman Emperors. Even Pontius Pilate is well accounted for. In addition, we are not just seeking to prove that a man called Jesus existed, who founded Christianity but also many supernatural claims of him. I do not claim we can be certain no man named Jesus who started a sect that grew into Christianity never existed. Instead, the claim is that reasonable doubt exists, certainly of supernatural claims about him. For all the reasons cited, I claim there is such doubt.