Christianity is Logically a Circular Reasoning Fallacy?
Debate Rounds (3)
My argument is that Christianity is logically a Circular Reasoning Fallacy?
Because there is no evidence for any of Jesus's teachings, nor any of the miracles of Jesus or even any evidence that Jesus was Resurrected.
Thus, nothing exists to demonstrate the Divinity of Jesus, nor the teachings and doctrines of the Bible, outside of the Bible.
Here is how it goes, I've created a Straw man Christian (an honest one at that), that is answering my Questions as only a honest Christian could.
Because to answer those questions any other way would be dishonest.
Question to a (straw man) Christian: Why are you a Christian?
Christian: Because I believe in the teachings and Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Question: How do you know of the Teachings of Jesus Christ?
Christian: The Gospels in the Bible describe the life, teachings, crucifixion and how Jesus Christ died for our sins, and was resurrected to become our Lord in Heaven.
Question: Where is the Evidence for the miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Christian: It is written in The Bible.
Question: Is there any evidence for the miracles of Jesus Christ and his Resurrection outside the Bible?
Christian: There were reports of and mentioning of Jesus Christ by Historians, such as Josephus Flavius and Tacitus.
Question: Did they mention or witness the miracles or the Resurrection?
Question: Since there is no evidence for the miracles or the resurrection outside of the Gospels, how come you believe so strongly that Jesus died for your sins and is your God?
Christian: Because it says so in The Bible!
Thus signifying that the Beliefs all stem from The Bible and the only evidence for those beliefs exists In The Bible.
Thus I have demonstrated that Christianity is a Circular Reasoning Fallacy.
Since The source of the Premise is also the Conclusion, there is no outside information relevant to the Conclusion.
Anybody taking the Con position will need to prove my Straw man Christian is Wrong!
As my straw man Christian is demonstrating my debate title is truthful.
Burden of Proof is mine, of course!
Good luck to anybody who takes up the challenge!
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.
Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D. But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.
For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!
But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!
Thank you PandaBatman for taking part in this debate!
Hopefully I will force you to need items from your Utility Belt, as I wonder how you manage to open it with your panda paws. :-D~
As for Josephus Flavius, the Testimonium Flavius reference to Jesus Christ has been deemed a Fraudulent. It has been interpolated by later Christians trying to increase the evidence for Jesus.
For evidence of Jesus, Flavius is not a good source.
Factually there is no eye witness evidence for Jesus Christ's miracles nor resurrection outside the Bible that can Verify any of the events even happened.
For instance, the feeding of 5000 people from some bread and a few fish.
If there were 5000 people present, surely somebody was literate enough to write a thank you note or told their literate children or grand children who would likely want to write it down for posterity.
Same goes for those witnessing the Resurrection, yet we have no contemporary eye-witness accounts of any of the deeds of Jesus Christ.
A point Bart Ehrman "a highly regarded New Testament Scholar" makes clearly in this part of his debate concerning the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The issue is not that Jesus Existed, as I am absolutely certain Jesus existed as a preacher teaching Buddhist philosophy to the Jews.
Buddhist philosophy such as turn the other cheek is foreign to Judaism so his teachings would be new and exciting to them.
As I see the Christian beginning as a fusion of Eastern and Western Cultures and thus religions.
But, there is no evidence that the Legendary Jesus of the Bible is the same story as the Living Jesus.
The most probable account for the missing tomb, is that there never was one and if we find the bones of James and do a DNA sample, very likely we will find a sibling match among the bones found in the mass graves where they dumped those executed as criminals.
So there currently exists no evidence for the Legendary Jesus of the Bible.
The statements by Josephus that were not interpolated later and those of Tacitus only demonstrate that he lived, not that he was resurrected.
Yes, I agree with all those sources: Jesus did live.
But only as an ordinary preacher with a set of teachings that blended Judaism, Buddhism and likely Confucianism. Christianity is a blend of Faiths.
So Thanks for your argument Con.
Over to you.
PandaBatman forfeited this round.
Extend My Argument.
Hopefully my opponent will have something to rebut my argument by then??
I may have made the response time a little short.
PandaBatman forfeited this round.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.