The Instigator
adeptdebate
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Christianity was not started by Jesus, but rather by his confused followers...

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
adeptdebate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,082 times Debate No: 61029
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (3)

 

adeptdebate

Pro

Christianity was not started by Jesus, but rather by his confused followers, who failed to understand him clearly; thus said religion is full of false assumptions and lies. For example, Jesus did not come to earth for the purpose of being killed in order to forgive sins; rather, to live and to teach the Truth. John 18.37. Only the knowledge of Truth can set you free. John 8.32.
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Con

Speaking of confusion & knowledge of the truth,
My name wasn't Jesus- I had a Hebrew name, pronounced Yeshua.
I would tend to agree that modern-day,orthodox Christianity does contain SOME confusions, false assumptions & lies,
but I wouldn't say that it contains a LOT of that sort of thing, nor would I agree that my true followers are confused.


My religion was started by my followers?
Nope- I started it!

You might want to study Constantine, the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, etc. , the influnece, manipulation, control of
modern-day, orthodox Christianity by the so-called "Holy Roman Catholic Church" , etc. ,
none of which I'd automatically consider my true followers, at all.
Sorry.
Debate Round No. 1
adeptdebate

Pro

"Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip?" John 14.9. Then many of his disciples, when they heard these things, said, "This is a difficult saying! Who can understand it?" John 6.60. It is clear that even his most highly touted disciples had trouble understanding him. If his disciples had so much difficulty grasping what Jesus was all about, how much more difficulty would the entire world have, especially after he was gone?
You concede that Christianity has "SOME confusions, false assumptions and lies""but what if just ONE such assumptions " a most fundamental one of fundamentalists -- is FALSE, namely; that he came for the purpose of dying in order to forgive sins? Why on earth would the murder of a Son of God erase sins? If anything, it merely compounds them.
The evidence in the Bible reveals that after Jesus died, everyone was waiting for big things to happen; The wrath of God to come down on the Romans, etc. But nothing happened. Then Paul/Saul saw a vision and even though he never met Jesus, he provided an "explanation" of what the life of Jesus had been about. This then was PAUL"S INTERPRETATION of events and teachings of Jesus. And it was by this means that Christianity had its beginnings, and not Jesus forming a formal organization.
Jesus was no longer available for comment, nor to correct interpreters of his words in the event that they MISinterpreted him.
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Con

It's obvious that you have no idea of what you're arguing about!
As I've already stated, my name back then WASN'T JESUS.
(You may call me Vaj. )
Neither I nor anyone else back in Biblical times spoke English.
English didn't even EXIST back then.
You really should check out the references I already gave you
instead of wasting everybody's valuable time arguing against the truth!
As I have already stated, I created My Religion- Christianity.
It's based on my teachings, not on my body of 2000 years ago.
(How could anybody not understand "LOVE ONE ANOTHER. " ? )
Are you claiming that the Fundamentalists, rather than Christ, through his (my) own statements,
decide what Christianity is all about?
Does anybody really believe that a God, or a Son of God, can be Murdered?
Doesn't the Bible ITSELF state that I was walking around perfectly normally a few days AFTER the Crucifixion?
You want to brag about THE OH SO POWERFUL Holy Roman Empire?
You really should consider the difference between MY time,
or what you might call "God's Time" , & normal, human time.
Remember what L. Ron Hubbard asked :
"Who fears now that archeological curiosity called Rome? "
The Roman Empire ceased to exist a Long Time ago!
You really should go back & study what I said & did back then, as described in the Bible.
I didn't set up, or claim I was setting up, a formal organization.
I said that my kingdom is not of this world, & that my church would be built on "the Rock" ,
(apparently a pun on the name), Peter.
I may not have been around for very long back then, but I'm sure back now.
Anybody who's misinterpreting my words, etc. , have problems!




Debate Round No. 2
adeptdebate

Pro

It is exceedingly arrogant, egotistical and unethical of you to PRESUME yourself to be Jesus! And to act as though you are he. Even for the sake of debate. It is also extremely unfair of you to PRESUME that I have not studied or read those sources you listed. During my lifetime I have read hundreds of works relevant to religion, philosophy, God, Truth and Christianity.
Your responses are not those of a polished, mature debater, but are only knee-jerk reactions to issues you clearly have never considered before. Maybe you should get off your high horse and deal with my statements like an adult, and use rationality instead of presuming me wrong right-off-the-bat.
You have not established HOW or in WHICH WAYS "it is obvious" I don"t know what I"m talking about. Stating that someone doesn"t know what they are talking about without backing your claim with evidence and reasons makes one"s claim empty and void.
So far, the only one wasting everyone"s time is YOU. For you have failed miserably to provide any convincing reasons and/or evidence of why my claims are not true. You have only arrogantly laid claims to having the truth, and denied my claim without the least effort of showing why or how.
No, I am stating that St Paul and Emperor Constantine in 317 AD had the primary hands in defining the basic precepts of the Christian doctrine and belief system. ORIGINAL Christian doctrine was suppressed and attacked by Saul of Tarsus, and the Roman government, etc. Then on the Road to Damascus Saul had an attack of conscience, where he heard Jesus ask why he was persecuting him. Saul made an extreme reversal and went from attacker to supporter of the new religion.
These two individuals in particular chose specific ways to INTERPRET Jesus" words, whereas contemporary schools of thought at the time such as the Gnostics and Essenes were suppressed. Their interpretations did not meet with the approval of the new Roman Church as decided by Constantine. Hence, their views on how Jesus should properly be interpreted were excluded and forbidden to have any say in the new religion.
No one was able to make sense of why Jesus died and then nothing happened. Paul provided a seemingly valid explanation. No one ever questioned his basic assumptions.
Granted, some of the things Jesus said are self-evident truth, like "Love your neighbor as yourself." Other things he said, like some of his parables, were unclear even to his disciples. And they complained about it. The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" Matt 13.10.
If all that is really necessary for salvation is to "believe on him", then why all the parables and metaphysical teachings he spoke of?
Now are you going to join this debate as a proper contributor and stop playing your little game of being Jesus incarnated?, or just keep making claims to truth and that my points are untrue, without backing your arguments with any historic or rational evidence?
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Con

Like so many of the "debaters" you're obviously insane & you're lying your head off.
All you're doing is wasting everybody's valuable time.
The FACTS that I've given you can very easily be proved, historically, etc.
such as the FACT that Christ's name couldn't have been Jesus,
the FACT that English didn't exist in Biblical times so we couldn't have conversed in English, etc.
Anybody's who's actually read the Bible knows that you're lying.
Your statement that my words & teachings aren't in the Bible is utterly ridiculous.
The Bible may say that Saul heard the voice of who you LYINGLY refer to as Jesus, but it wasn't me- it was "Yahweh" .
You've already lost the debate, & you're losing much more.

The Bible states : "THOU SHALT NOT LIE !"
It is said that telling a lie is a sin, & that the soul that sins shall DIE !
Goodbye !
Debate Round No. 3
adeptdebate

Pro

Go out on the street and ask anyone to read our two arguments, and just as soon as anyone sees that you are claiming to be Jesus incarnated, it is YOU, not me, who will be deemed mentally imbalanced at the very least and possibly insane if you truly believe you are Jesus.

You say the Bible states : "THOU SHALT NOT LIE !"" Most fascinating is the fact that you proclaim I am lying, when it is an undeniable fact that you are lying about being Jesus! I am sincere when I suggest you go seek psychiatric help.

Why are you hung-up on the name of Jesus? I never disagreed with that issue. Yet you keep harping on it. That"s just more evidence of your mental instability.

Since I"m sure you don"t like feeling attacked by others, why would you so quickly attack me? Please be aware that just because you might see conflict in your environment does not mean you personally are being attacked. ONE ALWAYS HAS THE FINAL SAY ON WHAT"S INSIDE THEM: PEACE OR WAR. Jesus was no anarchrist.

You have gone so far as to tell me I"m a liar. Again, what EVIDENCE do you have that I have LIED, per se? Just because I disagree with some of the basic assumptions and beliefs of your orthobox Christianinanity does not make me a liar. It merely means that my beliefs differ from your own, which is my prerogative. Did I tell you that you are a LIAR just because you interpret the Bible differently from me? You have the right to disagree with me; you do not have the right to call me a liar. And please don"t waste our time claiming that yours is the only correct one just because most Christians believe the same way you do. What"s preventing millions of Christians from being wrong without realizing it?!

What you are calling a FACT is only a fact from an historical standpoint. Whether these facts are correctly recorded, or properly interpreted, is another KIND of factually, which in the instance of the Holy Bible HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED AS FACT.

My main quote, Matt 13.11-117, remains as a primary piece of evidence that the whole truth of which Jesus was aware SIMPLY IS NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE.. You have not been able to counter this premise of mine, and so you have resorted to name-calling and various other childish attacks unbecoming a legitimate debater.

It is exceedingly arrogant, egotistical and unethical of you to PRESUME yourself to be Jesus! And to act as though you are he. Even for the sake of debate.

Your responses are not those of a polished, mature debater, but are only knee-jerk reactions to issues you clearly have never considered before. Maybe you should get off your high horse and deal with my statements like an adult, and use rationality instead of presuming me wrong right-off-the-bat.

Show me the EVIDENCE that I have lost the debate, that I have lied. Stick to the "facts" "if any can be found or established. Truth must be more important than one"s personal beliefs. I am ready" CONVINCE ME, Vajrasattva-LeRoy.
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Con

You state that you never disagreed with the statement that
Christ's name wasn't Jesus, but you keep calling Christ Jesus.

I don't disagree with your statement that not all of my teachings are found in the Bible.

Modern-day, official, orthodox "Christianity" ISN'T my religion, at all.

Just because some of my disciples didn't understand everything that I taught doesn't mean that they were confused.

You've lost this debate.

I have every right to call you a liar (Ist Amendment Constitutional Right) .

You ARE a liar.

Goodbye !
Debate Round No. 4
adeptdebate

Pro

You keep making this outlandish claim that I am a liar and have lost the debate. The burden of PROOF of these contentions rests on YOU. It is you who must SHOW how and in what ways I have told a falsehood, or have lost the argument. You must learn to back up your claims with sound and solid EVIDENCE... not just make blank statements.
Calling someone a liar is not very mature, or professional. It makes your own position weak.
I have presented biblical "facts" and clear reasoning to back up my arguments. What exactly have you shared or offered to back up your claims? NOTHING that I or anybody else can see. You are all talk and no show.
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Con

I'm not surprised that you claim that the body that you insist on calling Jesus had no human father.
Rots of ruck with that nonsense!

You're a Liar & a Nutcase.
You've Lost this debate,
& a lot more besides.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
I'm not surprised that you continue to refer to the body I had back then as "Jesus" .
As I've already pointed out over & over & over again, my name wasn't Jesus back then.

My proof is the Bible itself.
I'd tell you to study it if I thought that you could read.

Your statement that Christ had Secret, presumably Important, information that many people, maybe even Christ's own Disciples, couldn't understand, appears to show that Christ had to have been, the founder of Christianity.
Your premise has been disproved.

I Quite agree with you that 5 (or 3) Votes can't really prove or disprove either side of our Debate.
So, naturally, the results of the voting have to be set aside.
I won.
Posted by adeptdebate 2 years ago
adeptdebate
YOU NEVER CITED VERSES YOU BELIEVE COUNTER MINE. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT DISPROVES MY INTERPRETATION OF MATT 13:11-17.
Vajrasattva-LeRoy, perhaps you might care to explain how winning or losing a debate could be based on a mere 5 votes alone? I honestly don't believe that either one of us won or lost this debate. It"s most likely a draw, or tie.
Posted by adeptdebate 2 years ago
adeptdebate
Let"s say, just for the sake of debate, that you decided to start a new religion, and you named it "The Church of the Lying Crazy Nutcase Vajrasattva-LeRoy." So you began preaching in a mountainous area south of Florida. Your congregation grew rapidly, and since your teaching was so new, some of your followers took notes.
Each day you would walk the paths and talk the talk, practicing at teaching and preaching as you skipped along merrily. But sadly one day you lost your footing and fell off a cliff. Everyone was quite devastated and grieved.
And then one day, several years after the tragic event, your followers began to compare notes. They debated and even argued among themselves not only about what you said, but what you meant by what you said.
Now tell me, please, how could you hope to expect that what you INTENDED to be the basis of your beliefs, was actually accurately CONVEYED to your would-be followers? And since you were no longer there to redirect or correct them when they went off course, how could you expect that they would be properly informed? How could you expect that any writings of these followers would be dependable? To be entirely free of errors, misinterpretations or mistakes?
Do you sincerely believe that resorting to name-calling of your opponent is either adult, professional or a sound basis for debate?
How does a claim to have secret knowledge prove that the claimant is a founder of a religion? The idea that others started my religion, Christianity, doesn't make sense.
If you are Jesus re"incarnated then you must have left your regard for the laws in your prior life because you don"t even properly apply the fundamental rules of logic!
Can you answer my Qs, or will you rely forever on faulty methods such as changing the subject?
All of your proofs are weak. Nothing you state is backed by factual references. What you claim is "obvious" isn"t necessarily obvious to others.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
I find it interesting that that Lying Crazy Nutcase adeptdebate assumes that One source,
that erroneously refers to me as "Jesus" & refers to us as "ordinary people" back then
PROVES that "Jesus" had to have been ordinary.
I don't believe that I've ever claimed that what the Gnostics, Essenes,
taught was wrong, or that we, & I, put out contradictory ideas.
The idea that others started my religion, Christianity, doesn't make sense.
The evidence shows quite plainly that I did, in fact do the things
necessary to start a new religion.
However, I did point out that I came, not to do away with the laws,
but to fulfill the laws.
I also stated that my kingdom was not of this world.
I believe that the statement that I had secret knowledge that I didn't
share with people in general proves that I was, in fact, the founder of Christianity.
It's obvious, as I stated before, that I won this Debate.
Posted by adeptdebate 2 years ago
adeptdebate
vgrandja, Matt 13.11-17 has EVERYTHING to do with this debate, and is indeed the CORE EVIDENCE suggesting that Jesus had a secret knowledge which he did not share with the public-at-large. It is curious how such an OBVIOUS piece of information can be so universally overlooked and not seen by the vast minions of Christians world-wide. People see what they want to see, and disregard the rest.
Posted by vgrandja 3 years ago
vgrandja
@ Adeptdebate: the verse has nothing to do with this debate. I'm sticking to historical data I mentioned about Christianity.
Posted by adeptdebate 3 years ago
adeptdebate
I already provided the evidence. So how do YOU interpret Matthew 13:11-17 ? Clearly, knowing the secrets of the kingdom of heaven is necessary for salvation or he wouldn't have brought it up. And in order to do this, one must understand the meaning of the parables. Everything in the teaching of Jesus is packed with meaning. Those who are unwilling to do the work of discerning that meaning and who prefer a simplistic "accept Jesus as your savior" are not worthy of finding the answers to life's mysteries and that Way which is narrow and found by very few if any.
Posted by vgrandja 3 years ago
vgrandja
@adeptdebate.

Where is your evidence? Please provide me with a reference that was out there at least 2000 years ago.

Look up Deuteronomy 12:4 re: reference to pagan worship.
Posted by adeptdebate 3 years ago
adeptdebate
vgrandja,
When an indiviudal FOUNDS a religion, s/he gives discussion, attracts followers, sets up articles of belief, rules of behavior, pays taxes to the ruling government, applies for various permits, provides a means of obtaining pay for services rendered, makes his INTENTIONS of starting religion X clear. Jesus did not do this. THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT JESUS WAS NOT EVEN INTERESTED IN FOUNDING YET ANOTHER RELIGION!

The time-line you referenced makes a false assumption, "Founded by Jesus Christ over 2,000 years ago," Jesus did not found Christianity. His followers did. How can a dead person found a religion? He didn't have time to do that, as his life was cut short.

Why can't you just accept the FACTS, and stop squirming and trying to deny the truth?
Posted by vgrandja 3 years ago
vgrandja
you only checked out one source, not all 3?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
FaustianJustice
adeptdebateVajrasattva-LeRoyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I consider myself informed by the Instigator's insight. I don't believe con actually brought anything to the table aside from vague references.
Vote Placed by CountCheechula 3 years ago
CountCheechula
adeptdebateVajrasattva-LeRoyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should of been sniped, but Con acted like he/she was Jesus. Also Adeptdebate I would love to debate you sometime on any similar topics.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
adeptdebateVajrasattva-LeRoyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was nonsense and as such I'm nulling it.