Debate: WAS JESUS CHRIST A REAL PERSON?
Side: yes

Hello Constant,I. Define Terms:1. History: By its most common definition, the word history now means "the past of mankind." Compare the German word for history -- Geschichte, which is derived from geschehen, meaning to happen. Geschichte is that which has happened (Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, 41).2. Historical Method: The process of critically examining and analyzing the records and survivals of the past is here called historical method. The imaginative reconstruction of the past from the data derived by that process is called historiography (the writing of history). By means of historical method and historiography (both of which are frequently grouped together simply as historical method) the historian endeavors to reconstruct as much of the past of mankind as he can (Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, 48-49).3. Scientific Method: ...related to measurement of phenomena and experimentation or repeated observation (McDowell, More Than A Carpenter, 33)II. Your Points:1. "Was there some guy named "Jesus"? Perhaps.  a. "There were probably many. There may have even been a number of  miraculous "saviors" during that time"1a. "Was the "Jesus" from the Bible a real person? Almost certainly not". a. "The Bible's writers and compilers probably took a large number of stories  about a number of people and shoved them together into one person". b. "Not only do the Bible's accounts of what Jesus was and did contradictory  at times, but there are large gaps spread throughout the text".   c. "Non-Biblical sources mention people named "Jesus" from the area, but do  not back up any of the Bible's claims of who Jesus was and did." d. "Alot of myths centered on a single person are usually condensed versions  of deeds, hearsay, myths, and legends spread throughout communities  and folklore". 1. "The pagan cultures did this constantly: the Greek gods (such as  Zeus, Hera, or Athena) had many contradictory tales told about  them, and it has been found that many are the combination of many  gods and goddesses. In some cases this was a result of conquest  (assimilating local populations into the empire's religion), and in  others it was just a way to keep religion under control, concise, and  understandable. 2. "The Bible's god "Yahwey" is actually an amalgamation of many ancient Hebrew gods from the various tribes. This is, of course, true of almost all current popular gods from Islam's Allah to Buddha and Vishnu".III. Introduction:First of all, I want to say that I appreciate how you pointed out some factors that must be considered which really are part of the historical method. These are some of the factors that you alluded to: 1. Non-Biblical sources that would corroborate with the New Testament Documents.2. The development of myths, legends and folklore.3. Credibility of the eyewitness account (truthfulness)4. Looking for contradictions of the documents.Since we are dealing with the question concerning Jesus' historical existence, "we must apply the same standard whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious" (McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, 33). That is, let's not apply one standard for the secular and a different one for the Bible. Otherwise, that would be considered being "irrational bias". III. Rebuttal:1.By your own admission, there are possibilities of said name (Jesus) and being "...a number of miraculous "saviors" during that time". 1a. Rebuttal: "Was the "Jesus" from the Bible a real person? Almost certainly not” a. "The Bible's writers and compilers probably took a large number of stories  about a number of people and shoved them together into one person".a. Craig A. Evans, a Paizant distinguished professor of New Testament and director of the graduate program at Acadia Divinity College made this statement, "No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria. Though this may be common knowledge among scholars, the public may well not be aware of this" (Craig A. Evans, N.T. Wright, Jesus, the Final Days, 3). With that being said, it is important to understand what the genre, that is, what type of literature are the Gospels. It is narrative/biography. The writers focused mainly on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. They were eyewitnesses themselves of the life and teaching of Jesus or who related the account of the eyewitnesses of the actual events or teachings. Louis Gottschalk, former professor of history at the University of Chicago, made this statement in regards to the value of eyewitness, “A primary source is the testimony of an eyewitness, or of a witness by any other of the senses, or of a mechanical device like the dictaphone -- that is, of one who or that which was present at the events of which he or it tells (hereafter called simply eyewitness)” (Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, 53). b. "Not only do the Bible's accounts of what Jesus was and did contradictory at times, but there are large gaps spread throughout the text". b. As previously mentioned, it is important to understand what genre or type of literature are the Gospels. It is narrative/biographical. It was pointed out that the writers’ main focus was on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. They were not intending to record every detail of Jesus’ life. It is equally important (in understanding the genre) that if you were going to do a comparative study of all four Gospels, “the Gospels falls naturally into two groups, the first three on one side, and the fourth Gospel by itself on the other “ (Bruce, The New Testament Documents, 27). Yet, “whatever difficulties some scholars have felt, most readers of the Gospels in all ages have been unaware of any fundamental discrepancy between the Christ who speaks and acts in the fourth Gospel and Him who speaks and acts in the Synoptics” (Bruce, The New Testament Documents, 59). Notice the word fundamental. That is, all four Gospels agree that Jesus died, buried, and resurrected; concerning His dual nature (deity and humanity), etc. Would it be possible to give examples concerning any “discrepancies” in what Jesus said and did as you allegedly claim? c. "Non-Biblical sources mention people named "Jesus" from the area, but do not back up any of the Bible's claims of who Jesus was and did."c. By your own admission, you stated, “"Non-Biblical sources mention people named "Jesus" from the area…”. However, the other part, “but do not back up any of the Bible's claims of who Jesus was and did” needs to cross-examined. There are early Rabbinical writings and others that confirm that it was not just any man named Jesus, but the same Jesus of the Bible: Early Jewish Source 1. The Mishnah: A collection of oral Jewish commentaries and traditions that forms the basic part of Talmud, compiled ca. A.D. 200 (Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents, 228).“Jesus of Nazareth was a transgressor in Israel, who practiced magic, scorned the words of the wise, led the people astray, and said he had not come to destroy the law but to add to it. He was hanged on Passover Eve for heresy and misleading the people. His disciples, of whom five are named, healed the sick in his name” (Bruce, The New Testament Documents, 103). The Mishnah confirms the reliability of the writers of the Gospels eyewitness account concerning Jesus of Nazareth:a. The identity of Jesus of Nazareth.b. Accused as a transgressor.c. In a negative way acknowledged the miracles, healings, etc. d. Jesus’ statement of fulfilling the law and the prophet.e. His confrontations with the religious leaders.g. His crucifixion.f. Five of Jesus’ disciples were named.Keep in mind that in the Gospel account, the religious leaders were also (hostile) eyewitnesses and they both heard and seen Him. Gottschalk argues, that, “conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts is often the decisive test of evidence, whether of one or more witnesses” (Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, 168). d. "Alot of myths centered on a single person are usually condensed versions  of deeds, hearsay, myths, and legends spread throughout communities  and folklore"  1. "The pagan cultures did this constantly: the Greek gods (such as  Zeus, Hera, or Athena) had many contradictory tales told about  them, and it has been found that many are the combination of many  gods and goddesses. In some cases this was a result of conquest  (assimilating local populations into the empire's religion), and in  others it was just a way to keep religion under control, concise, and  understandable" 2. "The Bible's god "Yahwey" is actually an amalgamation of many ancient  Hebrew gods from the various tribes. This is, of course, true of almost all  current popular gods from Islam's Allah to Buddha and Vishnu".  d 1) Martin Hengel, a German New Testament scholar and Emeritus Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism at the University of Tübingen, argues that, "The heart of the Christian message, which Paul described as 'word of the cross', ran counter not only to the Roman political thinking, but to the whole ethos of religion in ancient times..." (Hengel, Crucifixion: In the ancient world and the folly of the cross, 5). That is, pagan religions in ancient times would not even associate their heroes, sons of god, and definitely no saviors died in the cross. So to compare pagan religions and their myths with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is completely ignoring the differences in religious beliefs and culture. d 2) "The Bible's god "Yahwey" is actually an amalgamation of many ancient Hebrew gods from the various tribes. This is, of course, true of almost all current popular gods from Islam's Allah to Buddha and Vishnu". d2) YHWH (Yahweh): (Exodus 3:14) Basically means "He who is," or "I am who I  am," and declares the divine self-existence" (Unger's Bible Dictionary 409).  "The Jewish Encyclopedia (ed., Isidore Singer, Funk and Wagnalls, Vol. 1, 1904) indicates that the translation of YHWH by the word "Lord" can be traced to the Septuagint." About the pronounciation of the Shem ha Metorash, 'the distictive name' YHWH, there is no authentic information." Beginning from the Hellenestic period, the name was reserved for us in the Temple" (McDowell, Evidence That Demand A Verdict, 99). That would be completely inaccurate against Judaism and Jewish history. Granted that they have in their history turned from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for other gods, but those gods were from their neighboring countries and not their own invention. There is no evidence for such an alleged statement.Secondly, as far as favorable credibility for the eyewitness account of the Gospels, Gottschalk argues that there are five, "certain conditions especially favorable to truthfulness, and students of evidence easily recognize them" (Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, 161). Here are the five:A. Conditions Favorable to Credibility: 1. When the purport of a statement is a matter of indifference to the witness,  he is likely to be unbiased.   2. More dependably, when a statement is prejudicial to a witness, his dear  ones, or his causes, it is likely to be truthful.  3. Often, too, facts are so well-known, so much matters of common  knowledge, that the witness would be unlikely to be mistaken or to lie about them. 4. Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of  statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or  falsehood seems unlikely. 5. When the thought patterns and preconceptions of a witness are known and  yet he states something out of keeping with them -- in other words, if  statements are contrary to the witness's expectations or anticipations, they  have a high degree of credibility. So far, the eyewitness account of the Gospels meets points 2-3, and 5 which is very excellent. Here are the following evidences for the eyewitness accounts credibility (truthfulness):2nd: Favorable Condition: Martyrdom of the Eyewitnesses (12 Apostles). "Eleven of those men died martyrs' death because they stood solid for two  truths: Christ's deity and His resurrection. These men were tortured and  flogged, and they finally suffered death by some of the cruelest methods then  known": 1. Peter, originally called Simon, was crucified. 2. Andrew was crucified. 3. James, son of Zebedee, was killed by the sword. 4. John, son of Zebedee, died a natural death. 5. Philip was crucified. 6. Bartholomew was crucified. 7. Thomas was killed by a spear. 8. Matthew was killed by the sword. 9. James, son of Alphaeus, was crucified. 10. Thaddaeus was killed by arrows. 11. Simon, the zealot, was crucified. (McDowell, More Than a Carpenter , 57)3rd. Favorable Condition: Common Knowledge of the Death, Burial, and  Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. "The New Testament accounts of Christ were being circulated within the  lifetimes of His contemporaries. These people whose lives overlapped His could certainly confirm or deny the accuracy of the accounts. In advocating their case for the Gospel, the apostles had appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning Jesus"  (McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, 49-50). Here are some of the examples of that: a. Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested  by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did  through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know" b. Acts 26:24-26 "Now as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud  voice, “Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you  mad!”But he said, “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the  words of truth and reason. For the king, before whom I also speak  freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these  things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a  corner. c. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to  you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also  you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you— unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that  which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the  Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the  third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by  Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five  hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the  present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by  James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me  also, as by one born out of due time" So, if what they were saying about Jesus' death, burial and resurrection including His teachings and actions were inaccurate in details (if there was no common knowledge or agreement), there would have been a correction from both their hostile eyewitnesses and the disciples. Josh McDowell quotes Lawrence J. McGinley of Saint Peter's College on his "comments on the value of hostile witnesses in relationship to recorded events", in his book, More Than a Carpenter: "First of all, eyewitnesses of the events in question were still alive when the tradition had been completely formed; and among those eyewitnesses were bitter enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to narrate a series of well-known deeds publicly taught doctrines at a time when false statements could, and would, be challenged" (McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, 51).5th Favorable Condition: Statements are contrary to the witness's expectations  or anticipations.The twelve apostles were Jewish men who had expectations and anticipations that were typical of the Jews in the first century concerning the Messiah among other important things. Here are some evidences:1. Crucifixion among the Jews Hengel writes, "...the cross never became the symbol of Jewish suffering; the influence of Deutoronomy 21:23 made that impossible. So a crucified messiah could not be accepted either" (Hengel, Crucifixion: In the ancient world and the folly of the cross, 84).  a. Peter Rebuking Jesus' Prediction: Mark 8:31-33 "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many  things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be  killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke this word openly. Then  Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But when He had turned  around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind  Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men"  Peter spoke in behalf of the disciples which clearly demonstrates that it was not expected. Evans explains what the apostles expected, "What then did they expect? They expected to sit at Jesus' right and left, that is, to form Israel's new government (Matt. 19:28; Mark 10:35-40; Luke 22:28- 2. The Resurrection among the Jews. N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, explains the Jewish belief in the resurrection, "The Jewish world...did hold out the possibility of resurrection, which can be observed in some of later Old Testament writings, especially in a passage like Daniel 12" and "Jews who believed in resurrection believed that it would occur on the last day when God made the new heavens and new earth. It would happen altogether. Nobody ever imagined that this final event would be anticipated in the case of one person in the present. No first-century Jew, prior to Easter, expected it to be anything other than that large scale, last minute, all people event. That is why when Jesus tells the disciples not to tell anyone about the transfiguration until the Son of Man is raised from the dead (Mark 9:9), they are very puzzled, because for them "this rising from the dead" (9:10) was not something that was going to happen to one person..."the resurrection" as far as they were concerned, ought to have been something happening to everybody, at the end" (Craig A. Evans, N.T. Wright, Jesus, the Final Days, 90). An example of that would be Martha's response to Jesus' statement about raising Lazarus from the dead, "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day" (John 11:24).IV. ConclusionJesus of Nazareth was indeed a real person and His death, burial, and resurrection are historical events that meet the criteria and therefore its a historical fact.