The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

#2 Evidence of Jesus Christ

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,888 times Debate No: 30420
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




Rules, this is a formal debate in so much that the evidence presented must meet the described standards"the same rules you read when you signed up in this debating forum.

This is NOT a squabble, it is a debate which means facts rule and philosophies about facts drool.
Semantics, the dictionary is your friend, I don"t care what your Christian religion states about the semantics of a term. If the term has evolved, then it evolves as a case in point, not just as a comfort to protect a disingenuous religious views. If it was written, so let it be done". : )

Evidence MUST be sourced! This means a valid source MUST be provided, and a quote from and that source rendered (example; you can"t just say "well if you read so and so"s book, you will see that I am right.") Electronic sources only, I am NOT buying some crackpots book, just to counter an argument. I say crackpot, because he was and to top it off, the book never stated what was quoted.
Use if you have to. I am not an expert in the use of citations, I am not asking for APA OR MLA styles, just who and where it came from, and a link to the source is fine.

Anecdotal evidence, unless you have a valid source and reason, don"t go there. : )
It's valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes don't actually prove anything to anyone. Your friend may say he met Elvis in the supermarket, but those who haven't had the same experience will require more than your friend's anecdotal evidence to convince them. Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. This is part of the explanation for urban legends; stories which are verifiably false have been known to circulate as anecdotes for years. (Secular web, Mathew) See Chart at the middle of the page.

Academic sources are always a bit of a slippery slope. Mr. Roll-Me-A-Fatty might be an expert in cannabis smoking, but does he have the credentials and motivational mental schema outside of a Kantian philosophy to convince me of his expertise of why medical cannabis should be legalized? Let"s let credentials and accreditations speak for themselves.
Christianity "IS" the default position, and therefore the 2000 year old Christianity bears the burden of proof because their claim is older than I am. If this is not acceptable, then one round (only) will be used JUST to discuss this issue.
IF, you are not going to take the offensive for Christianity because you don"t think you are a Christian"then don"t do Christians the dishonor by trying. I apologize if this seems offensive or abrasive, my first experience here went just like thatand I found a little distasteful, if not dishonest.
This debate is NOT open to deists, so don"t accept if you are or if you plan to use a deist argument. You are either a Christian or you are a spectator on the sidelines. : )

Final round is for closing arguments only; no NEW material that wasn"t previously addressed can be added.

Opening Statement:
I am for the purpose of this debate, an atheist. I don"t practice atheism as there is no such thing in my opinion. It is a loose term with only offers abstracts and conjecture. I am an atheist, I am not a social group".though I have put on weight lately. : )

Postulation, I see no evidence of Jesus Christ. This is the Pro"s position and the argument is NOT that you as a Christian see evidence, but rather to convince me and the Judges there is evidence of Jesus Christ. I am not telling you what to do here if you really feel a need to go there".Be assured that I believe you believe there is evidence or you wouldn"t have taken this debate".I just want to see this evidence and avoid going round and round with someone that claims there is evidence but won"t post or argue for it because they don"t feel it relevant to do so"yes, this happened the last time. : )

Any questions or rule changes or additions you wish to make to the rules, or shall we begin?


You're the one asserting your position, cite your sources that Yeshua did not exist. Or, rather, sources explaining the lack of evidence. If you refuse to argue with evidence, I feel I have the right to argue without evidence as well.

Also, please note that I am arguing that the man "Yeshua" did, in fact, exist. I am not arguing for the existence of "Jesus Christ" or his "miracles."
Debate Round No. 1


You're the one asserting your position, cite your sources that Yeshua did not exist.
Answer: No, I am asserting I see no evidence of this Jesus Christ, you can call him whatever you wish, but that may get confusing.

Or, rather, sources explaining the lack of evidence.

Answer: No, I see no evidence"..if others see sources explaining the lack of evidence as evidence, then it remains irrelevant to my not having seen evidence".as I still don"t see any.

If you refuse to argue with evidence, I feel I have the right to argue without evidence as well.

Answer: In my experiences so far and as I see it, your position allows you no other options".but maybe you will surprise me there too as your argument should NOT be judged by the others I"ve had. I hope so; I do so love to learn new things. : )
Also, please note that I am arguing that the man "Yeshua" did, in fact, exist. I am not arguing for the existence of "Jesus Christ" or his "miracles."

Auhh, thank for "accepting this debate and it conditions. Like I said, you can call Jesus Christ whatever you want".at this point, the choice is now yours whether to concede or not.
Con makes an error in his opening statement, I am not arguing "Without Evidence", as the lack of evidence is clearly a part of the default position. In the atheist side of the argument I state clearly that I see no evidence of Jesus Christ having existed.
Con"s opening does NOT offer evidence of Jesus Christ"s existence" so my round two response is limited to what is already known".and that isn"t much. I feel that round one is pro"s as con fails to adhere to both the rules and application of evidence that is clearly stated in the OP.

I will attempt to proceed to round two, as if nothing has failed and give con a chance to make good/catch up.

(*) "Postulation, I see no evidence of Jesus Christ. This is the Pro"s position, and the argument is NOT that you as a Christian see evidence, but rather to convince me and the Judges there is evidence of Jesus Christ.
Pro makes an effort to comply with the spirit of cons demands as I look around myself again; I report AGAIN that I see no evidence of Jesus Christ.
The proof of which(?) okay, the Anecdotal evidence that con request reads as thus, as pro see"s no evidence of Jesus Christ, my evidence is via my perception as it (and I) relate to the reality that surrounds me. I remain incumbent to the void of evidence concerning the existence of a Jesus Christ.
Now if con wishes to counter pro"s position, I invite him to provide evidence that I really saw something.
Con"s next mistake is found in believing I had formed a valid argument, as I have not. My OP is more of a conditional statement than argument. I see no evidence, I therefore don"t believe. I can add the term Jesus Christ into this conditional statement and it still doesn"t change it into a valid argument.

Con believes mistakenly that because I identifying myself as an atheist, this means that I am in opposition to the existence of Jesus Christ. It is not the case, as I have been given no evidence to examine"so I still see no evidence and make no assertion.
Con"s shifting of the burden of proof".okay, let me "for the moment" temporary accept this fallacy and responsibility of the default position in complete contradiction to the conditions of con having accepted this debate in the first place.
Pro"s position would NOW become this, "there is no Jesus Christ (this IS NOW the default position as requested)" "I still see no evidence of a Jesus Christ" "as I have had no evidence of a Jesus Christ having been placed before me, my only counter claim IS the (NOW) default position" "there is no Jesus Christ."

I now invite con to challenge either position, have at it, and have fun"


As Con has seen no evidence, I shall present some to him. But first, I'd like to request, for the sake of preventing confusion, that he include citation marks whenever he quotes me. I'm sure he will understand the necessity of keeping things simple and clean

I'll start with the Roman historian Tacitus. In his book "Annals," (Written in 116 AD) Tacitus sought to cover the history from the reign of Tiberius, to that of Nero (from 14-68 AD). In it, Tacitus makes a brief reference to the execution of Christians, and remarks on Christ himself.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind"


A relatively contemporary historian had, in fact, referenced Jesus. Addressing the problem of why Christ had never appeared in many Roman records during his lifetime, the Empire most likely did not want his infectious ideas spreading and therefore censored or destroyed records written within Christ's own lifetime. Only later would the censor be repealed. However, that is only an inference of mine, and whether or not such a censor existed is still a mystery.
Debate Round No. 2


Con"s (Chases) response: Christus Pro assumes Con meant Christos? And notices this on the web. What were the disciples and followers of the Messiah called after supposed death, burial and resurrection? Were they called Christians, as the Bible translators state in Acts 11:26 "And when he (Barnabas) had found him (the Apostle Paul), he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

Pro"s claim seems to be contrary to the Christian bible, the best I can do is to allow this contradiction Pro placed before me is to let each of them to cancel each other out. I see no evidence (Historical or otherwise) of Jesus Christ in either, since both are NOT contemporary historical accounts and therefore do NOT qualify as being historical evidence by any sense of the term, I make the leap of "faith" and consider this a game of semantics?. OR, is Pro attempting to establish Jesus Christ was Greek?

Pro uses (or attempts to) Tacitus.

Con looks up Tacitus as a Roman historian and finds this, "Tacitus is most famously known for the Annals, which covers the Roman Empire from 14-68 C.E. and includes information about the reign of Nero. He records Nero"s probable arson of Rome in order to implement his own architectural designs and how he passed the blame to Christians as a ready scapegoat. As a result of this blame, Nero heatedly persecuted Christians and Tacitus wrote the following about this, "But neither human effort nor the emperor"s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts, whom the crowd called "Chrestians." The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate."[xiii]

Indeed, emperor Nero used Christians as a scapegoat to explain the fire, which broke out in Rome (64 A.D.). Tacitus mentions that the Christians were likely not the cause of the fire, but used the fire as an excuse to persecute Christians. The Annals do not prove that Jesus Christ existed but merely that Christians existed in the First Century A.D., which no scholar has ever disputed. Since Tacitus recorded The Annals one hundred years after Jesus" proposed existence, this lacks historical reliability(Con NOTES that this is a depiction of a non-contemporary account). It is important to remember that the negative evidence cited above is not "absence of evidence," but rather "evidence of absence." In science, negative evidence is often as important as positive evidence.


(Pro offers this next, and I quote) A relatively contemporary historian had, in fact, referenced Jesus.
Con respond to Pro: A relatively contemporary account? So a non-historical account confirms what historically?
Con considers Pros, statement further". A "relative/almost contemporary historical rendering"".here is a definition of the term "Historical" and its source.

his"tor"i"cal [hi-stawr-i-kuhl, -stor-] Adjective of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: historical records; historical research.
Having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian's study of the historical Jesus.
Pro seems to have missed the mark"..

(Pro offers this next, and I quote) Addressing the problem of why Christ had never appeared in many Roman records during his lifetime, the Empire most likely did not want his infectious ideas spreading and therefore censored or destroyed records written within Christ's own lifetime. Only later would the censor be repealed. However, that is only an inference of mine, and whether or not such a censor existed is still a mystery.

Pro offers Con a popular Christian apology for the lack of historical evidence of Jesus in a non-historical rendition based in unsupported anecdotal evidence and abstract conjecture? I see no evidence of Jesus Christ in Pro"s confession there is a lack of evidence". Dose Pro wish to try again(?), because admitting there is a lack of evidence does not further Pro"s claim "that there is evidence."

Con rests".. : )


Simple answer. After the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Lance of Longinus, we found out that Adam, a Seed of Life created by the First Ancestral Race, arrived on Earth several billion years ago. However, when Mother Lilith crash landed here, Adam was forced to incapitate himself with his own Lance of Longinus.

And thus, Lilith birthed life as we know it. And several billion years passed, and humans eventually evolved. However, occasionally Adam genes corrupted human DNA, and this brought about Christ. He was able to use his AT-Field to manipulate the world around him, and thus his "miracle" stories were formed.

I don't see how you can doubt the existence of Christ and Souls after Second Impact. For god's sake, half the world's population was killed. And their Souls were clearly visible!


(Seriously, I thought I'd try to see things from a Christian's point of view, and it's damn hard. Everything in their damn religion is logic-less)
Debate Round No. 3


Here are some good web sites Pro may like

Then a Christian site that assumes there is a Jesus but raises and addresses its own questions, if you read through this site then definitely go to the next one I list" won"t believe the answers it gives. The whole Christian argument hits the floor and play dead after you read the archeological and historical findings. a Christian site kind of boring and then go and read a summery present at it"s a good read which will knock your socks off" : )


Thank you good sir. I also recommend you check out the show I linked to in my "sources." It's quite interesting and thought-provoking...and also confusing. Very, very confusing. Still, one of my all-time favorite shows.

Here's a wiki link:
Debate Round No. 4


The End of Evangelion and Evangelion: 2.22 You Can [Not] Advance are available on Netflix, so I will give them a try"..


Don't watch End of Eva until after you watch the series! 2.22 is in a separate continuity, so you can watch that one whenever.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by troyamonga 3 years ago
Exactly. It was similar with me. I found things that didn't make sense, and various contradictions. In the end, there's simply remarkably little non-biblical evidence to any of the more "fantastic" aspects of Christianity. That, and it's nearly impossible to make the little evidence you have look formidable against the whopping amount of thought and time that goes into many scientific studies.
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
I have tried it, LOL, I was a Christian using all of these illogical arguments myself once"it was pitiful. : )
When I took a speech class in college, we had to debate in front of the class in groups and I always ended up on the opposite side of what I believed, and you are right, it accelerated the learning curve. I found things I was wrong about, and at the same time strengthen things that I was right about.
Posted by troyamonga 3 years ago
Nah, I just gave up and posted the plot of a Japanese TV show. It was interesting taking the "Christian" side of the argument for a change. I still don't see how they can live in constant aggravation at the lack of evidence in their religion.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm an atheist that decided to take a viewpoint I didn't believe in. I wanted to see things from a Christian's perspective. What I've learned is that it's damn near impossible to argue for anything Christian using logic. I recommend you try it sometime though. It does help you understand how they think more. A word of advice for your future arguments, you're speech gives off the vibe that you're looking down at the your fellow debater. It'd be easier to convice a person that feels that they're on equal grounds with you.
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
troyamonga, was your last post a miss post from another debate? : ) If it was you could post what you intended in the comments section (here) and I will make note of it (so others will know to read it here) when I respond in the next round".
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
troyamonga I apologize, I was in another debate and reversed the pro and cons position"I know this is confusing and I will confess my sins in the next round. : (
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
LOL ..... : P

I should have just said, "yes dear."
Posted by 17bohtal 3 years ago
You guys argue like your married.
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
I guess this is why they call it a debate".. I wished you found out sooner and saved yourself the trouble.
Posted by jp1999 3 years ago
Nope, you are by no means a decent person. Intent on winning every single thing you argue about.

Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
I am truly surprised you did post a rebuttal to this, as I thought you had the decency to just let it go.

Answer: I am truly surprised, if you really didn"t believe everything about the bible then why would any more distress you. Like I said, if you don"t want to hear opposition, then you have two choices, find a gated community forum that only agrees with your point of view, or stop professing the same learn dishonesty over and over again ifd you don"t want to be called on it. It"s not that you want to drop it, you just want the last word and you want that word to sound good"and the more you respond, the less confident you sound".Truthfully it isn"t your fault, if I were completely wrong, and Jesus Christ appeared before botrh of us, he would sound just a foolish for expecting anyone to have believed in him".the whole story is just that bad, and the TOTAL lack of evidence is that condemning.

I was wrong. In your eyes, everything I say is wrong and everything you say is right.

Answer: Like I said, I am here to learn, if I am too stupid to learn, then this is my fault, if I am not so stupid, then by what matter shall I learn if not through debate.

Thats all that you care about. Its such a shame that people cannot just agree to disagree on things anymore, although I see your point on the difference of Atheism and Theism, althoughI am sure you know what I meant, I hope. But I still hoped that you would just have left it now, knowing this is a fight neither of us will win.

Answer: I see, so 60 million people are murdered because even good people will do bad things when they believe in an evil book and god, I am flawed for not wanting to let history repeat itself"

Oh and by the way, I haven't 'lost' to devient.genie. He had the decency to call it quits.

Answer: I see, so what debate was this? It was a tie then?
Just to clarify also, this little statistic here: "and 60 million people being murdered FOR this Christian god." What do you mea
No votes have been placed for this debate.