Jesus Christ Existed

If any one ... refuses to acknowledge that He [Jesus] was made in all things like us, apart from sin, let him be excommunicated. - Gregory Thaumaturgus, "Twelve Topics on the Faith" (3rd century)How much we and our family have profited by the legend of Christ, is sufficiently evident to all ages. - Pope Leo X (emphasis mine), cited in the Catholic EncyclopediaI would like to thank my opponent for his responses. In this round I will again examine what my opponent has given us. He offers a specific response on contradictions and depressions. He then refutes the remaining dozen or so points that I brought up by criticizing my lack of sources (a rather weak response, considering how many and detailed my other points all were). Finally, he offers two new arguments - one that appeals to the historicity of other texts, and the 42-authors argument.ContradictionsMy opponent tells us he isn't here to answer the contradictions. I agree entirely. What I claim is that the existence of contradictions points to a story being mythical rather than factual. If two ancient authors say different things about the same event, then that makes BOTH sources more unreliable. I'm not asking you to answer specific contradictions. I agree this debate isn't about inerrancy, and I'm prepared to accept that some writers made some honest mistakes. However the more of these contradictions there are, the less reliable the text becomes. Therefore, again, the existence of contradictions strengthens the case that Jesus never existed.I think Pope Leo XIII said it best in Providentissimus Deus - "Truth can never contradict truth."DepressionsWhen Luke says Nazareth was on a mountain, that's not a metaphor for economics or politics. The FACT is that Nazareth is at the bottom of a massive depression in the ground. You can check on a map for yourself if you don't believe me. Therefore Luke 4:29 runs counter to known historical fact. There are also other examples of the same thing. An example might the date of John the Baptist's death (according to Josephus' record and Roman records, John the Baptist was executed in 36AD), or that the census of Quirinius took place a decade after Herod died. The point, again, is not to ask you to refute individual lies, but to ask you to show how these deviations from known historical reality do not make the gospels more unreliable as a source.SourcesAllow me to prefix this list of sources by saying that the vast majority of my argument comes direct from the Bible. You can't criticize me for not giving my sources when I have not only clearly indicated that an argument comes directly from the text of the bible itself, but even gone to all the bother of writing book and chapter references. For instance (point taken at random, representative only) my comments on Mark in my 5th point on Gospels came direct out of the bible, and this was readily apparent. Most bibles preface Mark 16 with a message like (this one is taken from my old Zondervan NIV): "The oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not have Mark 16." The fact that Mark only references portents of doom is my own observation. How, then, have I failed to disclose all the relevant sources I have used?Nonetheless, here are some complementary sources I have referred to in constructing my case against your evidence: Various gnostic gospels (wikisource) Suetonius, "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars" (penguin translation) Tacitus, "Annals" (penguin translation) Livy, "History of Rome" (penguin translation) Michael Martin, "The case against Christianity" Karen Armstrong, "The History of God" http://rationalrevolution.net... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.i4m.com... http://nobeliefs.com... I also have several other sources - In-text citations for these have been provided at the place where they are relevant. While we're at it evaluating sources, my opponent didn't offer any sources last round either.Other texts1) If this debate isn't about contradictions, then it DEFINITELY IS NOT ABOUT THE HISTORICITY OF ANYONE ELSE. There are many, for instance, who really do deny that Homer existed - it is not as though that is a set in stone fact.2) Just because the manuscripts of the New Testament are well-preserved doesn't make them any more accurate. Even if they were wrong in 150AD, that doesn't make them any better now.3) Looking at the writings of Caesar or Shakespeare is not a fair comparison because: we know who the authors were - cf the New Testament, where we have not a clue who wrote it or why, other than their own claim that they had it "divinely revealed" to them. the quality of the sources is much higher - for instance, the sources for Plato are ALL primary sources. many of the ancients on your list are identified as historical by non-literary sources. Caesar is largely identified as being real because there are hundreds of temples with his name on it, thousands of coins (I own a few) bearing his portrait, a few dozen sculptures, and the fact that without Caesar the narrative of Augustus would make no sense (meaning all the sources for Augustus apply to Caesar as well). Now try tell me Jesus' life is anywhere even close to being that well recorded. 4) Much of the copying of ancient texts was done in Christian monasteries. Why I am not at all surprised they took more care copying, and copied more, what they considered to be the holy word of God, compared with pagans like Aristotle? That doesn't support the claim for Jesus' existence at all.42-authors1) This whole argument is an evasion of my analysis last round. Every single one of my points last round refutes this claim because I have systematically discredited all 42 of the authors.2) The vast majority of these authors were clearly relying on each other and not independent as my opponent claims. For instance, without Mark, we would not have Luke. Don't believe me? Read Mark, and then Luke, and look for plagiarism. You'll find an abundance. These 42 authors were writing decades apart. Is it not possible 41 people repeat, innocently, the lies of but one man? Of course it is possible. I do not claim that this is what happened (I think it was a much smaller group called "the apostles"), I am simply refuting your claim that "all 42 authors must have gotten together to fake all of this" (which is impossible anyway).3) Just because a lot of people say a lie does not make it more true. Lots of people believe in Santa, but that does not make Santa any more real.I wish my opponent luck for the next round.Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all - "Why I am Not a Christian", Bertrand Russell