There exists historically accurate evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed

"Look what I found: "Virtually all MODERN SCHOLARS agree that Jesus existed".[1] (Wikipedia)" I reject the conclusion for many VALID reasons. 1. The conclusion is founded off of what documents exist WITHOUT looking at the historical accuracy of the documents 2. The majority of Scholars that specialize in this time period are Christians, hence there is a VERY possible bias 3. Psychology shows that since the overwhelming number of Christian Scholars say Jesus existed the minority of non-Christian scholars would tend to agree 4. Overall, not always, the scholars that do NOT believe in a historical Jesus actually make better arguments than those that say he existed. "Look what I found: "Some MODERN SCOLARS agree this is the place Jesus was buried"[2]" 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." Again, a rejection. Your source shows that it is CHRISTIANS, not Scholars that accept it as Jesus' tomb. "Do you still deny it? "the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity." ([1])" Still using Wikipedia? Very reliable. You realize there are Scholars and Historians that also think Jesus did not exist, right? "You know he existed! But you"re not sure yet if he is God." I do not know he existed and think that there exists no histoically accurate evidence for his existence. I also know that if he did exist that he almost certainly is not God. "If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.([1]) -Robin Lane Fox" First, red herring. This is NOT about the pagan personages, this is about the existence of Jesus. Second, I applied the same criteria as is applied to other ancient writings in my second round. The conclusion is that it is NOT historically accurate. If you wish to say otherwise then make a PROPER rebuttal. "All your evidence against my use of most of the books of The New Testament is all rubbish! [3] [4] [5] [6] (be sure to click these links and find out for yourself if the writers were Jesus' disciples)" You need to do some REAL history study. The Gospels were written ANONYMOUSLY, the names were assigned CENTURIES later. __________________________________________________________________________________________ If you notice, my opponent has yet to make a single proper rebuttal. He also has ignored my evidence, and has not even bothered to check out my sources as he is bringing up arguments that my sources also talk about. He has one more round to bring forth evidence and two rounds to attempt to make a PROPER rebuttal. My opponent has not even debated about the topic at hand. The topic is that there is no historically accurate evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, not if Jesus existed or not (though that answer can be concluded from the answer of this debate). My opponent has only insisted on ignoring the popular opinion among scholars about the documents about Jesus of Nazareth while also talking about the popular scholars view on if he existed or not, which does not answer the question of if there exists any historically accurate evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. I hope my opponent can bring forth some good evidence in this next round and attempt to make some proper rebuttals to my evidence in the next 2 rounds.