Key questions raised by Celsus are quoted by Origen as including “What credible witness beheld this appearance? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?" In response, Origen says Josephus bore witness to John, but omits to say Josephus bore witness to Jesus, which would be a far more pertinent and logical rejoinder if it were true. Origen speaks of “a manifest proof that these things are done by His power”, ignoring the supposedly manifest evidence that a credible independent historian mentioned Him.

Thanks for the debate, ApostateAbe.

== John the Baptist was the ascetic apocalyptic, not Jesus ==

I said I would remind my opponent of all the arguments he dropped in the last round. Here we go.

Dropped:

1) John's beliefs are the EXACT same as a real tribe, the Essenes, whose beliefs are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Essenes believed in BAPTISM to wipe away sin, asceticism (fasting), AND that the world would soon come to an end. If John the Baptist and Jesus are based on real people, it seems obvious that John must have gotten his beliefs about baptism and fasting from somewhere. Obviously, the Essenes are the perfect candidates. So if John completely mimicked their first two beliefs, why wouldn't he mimic their apocalyptic beliefs as well. Thus, why should we not believe that John was the apocalyptic and not Jesus? It fits with his other beliefs.

2) Jesus' followers completely differed from those of John. In Mark 2:18, John's followers are fasting and Jesus' are not. We can clearly see whose followers were following in the footsteps of the Essenes.

3) According to one of the Gnostic gospels, the Gospel of Philip, Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers. Since Jesus did not deny himself the pleasures of the flesh, he clearly differed in beliefs from John and his ascetic apocalyptic followers.

4) People often confused Jesus with John according to Mark 8:27-28. "On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist."" When the gospel authors took random quotes from quote books (like "Q"), they obviously made the same mistake. Or else the gospel authors borrowed from oral tradition, which would also be corrupted by people confusing Jesus with John. The concession of this point is HUGE. The gospels themselves prove that people confused Jesus with John.

5) Robert W. Funk and most Biblical scholars (two thirds of them) believe that Jesus was not predicting apocalypse when he predicted the coming of the "Kingdom of God." Instead, they believe he meant this in the Gnostic sense: that people would achieve paradise here on Earth through salvation of the soul by righteous practices. Two thirds of Jesus scholars believe that: the historical Jesus was merely a holy man and John the Baptist was the apocalyptic.

This takes out all but one of my opponent's quotes.

6) The concession of #5 only leaves my opponent one apocalyptic passage in Mark 8:34. I showed that in this passage, Jesus refers to himself and the Messiah as different people (so the true speaker probably wasn't Jesus, but John). My opponent answers this with a "Jesus scholar" who claims that Jesus did not consider himself the Messiah. We only have to go back 4 lines to see this isn't true: "Peter answered, "You are the Messiah."Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him."" Lastly, Mark 8:34 begins with an exhortation to the audience to "deny themselves." This is yet more evidence that the doomsday predictions in the New Testament are false attributions of quotes from John the Baptist (or another ascetic apocalyptic preacher), since we saw that Jesus did not ask his followers to fast or deny themselves (Mark 2:18).

ALL of the above arguments were dropped.

[pro] thus doesn't defend his original apocalyptic claims from the New Testament. As such, [pro] HAS NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE LEFT AT THE END OF THE ROUND PROVING A DIRECT QUOTE FROM JESUS THAT WAS APOCALYTPIC. He thus clearly fails to meet the burden of proof, especially with all his complaining that everything has to be proven by primary sources.

== Jesus as another Sun God ==

Ultimately, my opponent seems to be defending here the historical accuracy of the virgin birth and the resurrection, which is indefensible. He never answers the analysis that if the gospel authors are willing to lie (about the genealogies) and borrow heavily from pagan mythology, how are we to trust ANYTHING they say?

Okay, back into the Horus claim. Honestly, my opponent should lose the conduct vote for this. It's ridiculous that he DEMAND that I read three ancient books, in full, to prove my claims. He's clearly just trying to waste my time. This site sources all of the claims I have made, using the ancient texts. [4] The crucifixion of Horis is depicted in a drawing in the Pyramid Texts, provided here. [4] Horus had 12 apostles (The Book of Gates: Chapter 3); Horus began to teach (preach) at age 12, same as Jesus (The Second Story of Khamuas); Horus' death and resurrection after 3 days is found in Pyramid Texts Utterance 667. [4]

In fairness, my opponent said "Win this challenge, and win the debate." I guess he wants you all to vote for me right now.

Again, my opponent just nitpicks one of my claims, but doesn't answer all the similarities to other pagan Sun god religions. I proved that Bethlehem is not a real place, but is an ancient reference to the constellation Virgo (The Virgin), from whence the Sun is "born" on Dec 25th. This makes sense, since no scholar has been able to locate Bethlehem (or even find mention of it anywhere else). Horus also raised Lazarus from the dead and walked on water (referred to in the Pyramid Texts as "Lake Strider"). [4]

Lastly, here's the most important (dropped) argument: major events of the New Testament, such as King Herod killing all the babies in Bethlehem to try to find Jesus, are not recorded in any early historical texts, even though they would have been MAJOR events. My opponent agreed in round 1 that if I prove that the New Testament is a fabrication, then I win. Guess I win, since my opponent doesn't really contest anything except the claim that Horus was crucified.

== Jesus as an amalgamation ==

This argument has been dropped the entire round. Many Talmudic scholars, like Hayyim ben Yehoshua, believe Jesus was based on a number of false messiahs who were all crucified, such as Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin. Christians have many responses to this argument (and deny that any of these people were Jesus), but my opponent never ventures any. Yeishu ben Pandeira, who was branded a sorcerer by the Jews, according to Talmudic writings, had two of Jesus's disciples: Matthew and Thaddeus. If you add in enough other false messiahs, you can get all 12 disciples' names.

== Historical silence ==

The first problem with the Tacitus passage is that he specifically calls the Christian belief that the Romans killed their Messiah "a most mischievous superstition." The syntax of the sentence is strange – because it's a translation – but Tacitus has clear contempt for the Christians, based on the passage. He is merely mentioning what the Christians believe and then says he believes it to be a "superstition." The second problem is that "Christus" just means "the anointed one" or "messiah," but as I mentioned above, the Romans crucified MANY false messiahs (who are mentioned in ancient Jewish texts). [This raises another question: if the Jews hated Jesus so much that (according to the New Testament), a crowd of them forced Pontius to crucify him, why don't they joyfully record this "false" messiah's death, along with the many others that *are* recorded?] Regardless, if Tacitus wanted Jesus' identity recorded for antiquity, he would have referred to him as "Jesus of Nazareth" not "the Christian messiah" (Christus). The fact he didn't use Jesus' proper name is further proof that Tacitus didn't believe the claim to be true. You know, besides him calling it a "mischievous superstition."

== Gnostics ==

My opponent never contests that the true followers of Jesus were Gnostics, not doomsdayers. The most prolific writings about Jesus appear in the NUMEROUS Gnostic gospels.

== Conclusion ==

I have proven in this debate that the gospel authors were willing to lie, borrow, and cheat to gain followers for Christianity. My opponent never disproves the Jewish claims about Jesus being a combination of false messiahs. Even if you believe the gospels, I have provided copious textual evidence that John the Baptist, not Jesus, was the apocalyptic ascetic (and two-thirds of Jesus scholars agree with my interpretation). And during this time period, asceticism and apocalypticism were completely intertwined (as seen by the Essenes). If Jesus was not an ascetic, he was not apocalyptic, and I've clearly won that he was not ascetic. For all these reasons, I urge a Con vote.

[1] http://bible.cc...
[2] http://bible.cc...
[3] http://www.sonofman.org...
[4] http://forum.davidicke.com...

Interesting, so you have John as the earliest, with a later revision. This reminds me, have you read Jordan Day/ReligionFreeDeist's hypothesis on John? Here's the link for those who haven't- facebook.com/note.php?note_id=101503944 ... 4401416107

αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου,
ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι
ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευίτας ἵνα
ἐρωτήσωσιν αὐτὸν· σὺ τίς εἶ; καὶ
ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, καὶ
ὡμολόγησεν ὅτι ἐγὼ ούκ εἰμὶ ὁ χριστός.

"This is the testimony of John..."

Unless we are already very familiar with the story it is not until we read all the way down to verses 25 and 26 that it becomes clear that this "John" is actually "John the Baptist". I am suggesting that this inquiring individual read no further than the first few lines before his initial question "What is this?" was answered..."this is the testimony of John". He likely believed this first line was a title and summarized the entire work. His brief mission was accomplished and he briskly rolled up the scroll and slapped a tag on it which read "Η ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ". Over time the titles of the gospels were assimilated and "Η ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ" was replaced with "TO ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ" and the genitive was replaced with KATA + the accusative. It was only later that the "John" in the title was assumed to be both the author and "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and later came to be understood as John Zebedee...a character that is a complete alien to the gospel.