The Jesus of the Bible Probably Existed

** On The Resolution ** My opponent titles the resolution "The Jesus of the Bible Probably Existed." When one looks in the Bible, there are several assertions about this man: 1. Mat 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, WHO IS CALLED CHRIST." 2. Mat 2:23 "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, HE SHALL BE CALLED A NAZARENE." 3. Mat 17:5 "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." Thus, the Jesus of the Bible is Christ, A Nazarene, and the Son of God. My opponent is attempting to argue for the historical Jesus the Nazarene, regardless of that fact that Jesus of the Bible is all three of these identities. ********************************* 4. On Time for a Legend. Paul's lack of mention of Jesus even when quoting the Old Testament is STILL highly suspect. Why would Paul mention the old Testament prophecies without stating that Jesus fulfilled them? It's very strange. My opponent continues to assert that the thirty years between the crucifixion and the authorship of the gospels is far too short to spawn a legend. It seems he has never played the telephone game - oral tradition quickly becomes corrupted (not morally...) over time. Even the ten years between the crucifixion and the authorship of the Epistles is plenty of time for oral tradition to become muddled. And after thirty years, the muddled tradition would have created significant problems in the authorship of the gospels. 5. On Parsimony. It seems to me that the problem in this consideration is that there is no distinction between these people dying for a true belief and dying for what they BELIEVED was a true belief. All that would have been required is for them to have understood the events of Jesus' life as the true. Consider that the two main "endorsements" of Jesus (if you will) were the Baptism (Mat 3) and Transfiguration (Mat 17). None of the Apostles (taken in Mat 4) were present at the baptism, and only Peter, James, and John witnessed the transfiguration. So there are three people that actually witnessed God endorsing Jesus... Has anyone considered if what these people thought they saw, or interpreted was exaggerated a little??? *************************** On Horus and Mythology. I never held that Isis was a virgin - I stated she was a virgin until she conceived via a God, which is true. My opponent seems to have ignored the totality of the comparisons between Horus and other mythological figures. This totality goes to show that the backbone of Jesus' life story is comprised of pre-existing mythological concepts, concepts that Justin Martyr was well aware of. My opponent treats Justin's mention of this issue as Justin holding that Grecco-Roman mythology stole from Jewish tradition without providing any sort of explanation for why on earth Grecco-Roman mythology would be based on Hebrew traditions. It seems far more likely that the traditions evolved independently, as we see the same core themes in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Indian, Sinic, Grecco-Roman, and Hebrew mythologies. On Other Concepts. My opponent falied to address three important concepts I put forth in Round 2: 1. Nobody wrote anything about Jesus during his life. 2. Writers at the time did not mention Jesus. 3. Jesus' name and story are common in Hebrew tradition. ************************************ On Lack of Writing from Jesus. Jesus did not write anything during his lifetime. Presumably Jesus was a decently intelligent and literate man. The reason I assert this is that he worked as a carpenter, requiring proficiency in measuring and some rudimentary math, as well as design. Also, he reads from scrolls in the temple, indicating he could read. This just causes one to ask the question, "Why didn't Jesus WRITE anything?" Did God send a son who could read and not write? Furthermore, none of the Twelve wrote anything down. One of them was almost certainly literate, as he was a former tax collector (Matthew, I believe). It is HIGHLY suspicious to me that none of the Twelve wrote anything about Jesus' life. The non-cannonical Gospels attributed to the Twelve are all collections of their teachings after the Commission of the Twelve. So I ask again, why did none of the people intimately involved in Jesus' life write ANYTHING??? On Mention of Jesus/Jewish Tradition. Philo, who lived from 20 BCE to about 50 CE, wrote specifically about Jewish politics and the conflict between Pilate/Romans and Jews in Judea. He makes no mention at all of Jesus the Christ. He does reference the mocking of a "Jewish King" in 39. Consider these couplets from Philo (before 50) and Matthew (around 70): P: "There was a certain madman named Carabbas..." M: "Then released he Barabbas unto them..." P: "and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium...[dressed him in a leaf crown, door mat, and fake scepter - paraphrased]... the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state. Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa [King Herod of the Jews] was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign; M: "Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! HIGHLY similar. Now consider the fact that almost all of the main events of Jesus' Life are contained in the Old Testament, some in ways that are not considered to be Prophetic. For example, consider the following couplet from the gospel of Matthew and Psalm 107: P: "Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses. He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still." M: "And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish... Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. " Psalm 107 is a song of praise. In fact, none of the Psalms are considered prophetic, yet the Psalms contain details about the temptation of Jesus (91), the cup of suffering (16), and the crucifixion/death (22). This may seem like coincidence, but when one considers that ALL the major stories/themes of Jesus are in the Old Testament, including things like the sermon on the mount (Exo 19), healing of the paralytic (Isa 53, 35), and the commission of the twelve (Jos 4; Mic 7). Coincidence? Or the writers of the gospels tailoring their writings to match prophecy? Odd that men who had not witnessed Jesus doing these things would write that he fulfilled ALL these prophecies... ************************ Conclusion: I have cast reasonable doubt upon the notion that Jesus of [as described by] the Bible probably existed. There may have been a Jesus-like figure at the time, but one can see the ease of which this individual could have been adapted to "fulfill" existing prophecy. Again - consider the lack of writing about Jesus by his contemporaries. HIGHLY suspicious, and more than enough to cast reasonable doubt upon the resolution.