The Instigator
Jifpop09
Pro (for)
Tied
5 Points
The Contender
demonlord343
Con (against)
Tied
5 Points

Did a man named Jesus of Nazareth once Exist - Team Debate

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 683 times Debate No: 48391
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Jifpop09

Pro

This is apart of the team debate over the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I will be arguing that he did indeed exist. This debate is not about whether he was god, so I encourage open minded voters who will not vote for their belief.

Rules
----------
- Makeing a argument that Jesus was or was not god is a loss of conduct.

- All new evidence must be backed up by sources or a loss of conduct.

- Any developments outside the debate are void.

demonlord343

Con

Okay, to start out with acceptance, let me set something straight. The only reason why I would use the fact that he was or wasn't God is to disprove the New Testament as a valid record of his existence. I am not starting out with this argument. Just making a statement. "All new evidence must be backed up by sources or a loss of conduct." I don't plan on using a lot of info other than the Bible(s) it(them)selves. "Any developments outside of the debate are void." What if I was using someone else's well sourced information, and I cited it? Doesn't that contradict your second rule? For the future, please elaborate on your rules seeing as there are indeed specific circumstances that arise. And last but not least, "...so, I encourage open-minded voters who will not vote for their belief." One could almost take that as an insult.. Especially seeing from your comments on what your views on "open-mindedness" are. This isn't an attack on the debater. I mean no disrespect. My point is that open-mindedness is a judgement. An opinion. So, let us begin.


(I am not sure if this round is acceptance or not, so I will let you start)


Debate Round No. 1
Jifpop09

Pro

Do not accept a debate just to disagree with the rules, but I will address your concerns anyways.

- There is absolutely no reason to turn this into a god exists debate. This debate is simply if a man named Jesus of Nazareth once preached throughout the Roman Empire.

- I do expect sources, because I am going to put a lot of records of his existence on the table, so any counter-arguments need sources proving my records are false.

- I meant that any arguments in the comments or elsewhere should not be factored into the vote.

One could almost take that as an insult.. Especially seeing from your comments on what your views on "open-mindedness" are. This isn't an attack on the debater. I mean no disrespect. My point is that open-mindedness is a judgement. An opinion. So, let us begin.

I think I said that wrong. It's just that a lot of voters seem to side with their religion no matter what, unless the other side was really stupid.




Evidence that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed
-------------------------------------------------------


Josephus



- Josephus was a Jewish scholar, and did not believe Jesus was the son of god. In his book, "The antiquity of the Jews", he gives a summary of Jesus's trial with Pilate, and confirms his existence.

Sources:

http://www.tektonics.org...

http://beginningandend.com...




Tacticus

-
Tacticus was a roman historian, who wrote on the existence of Jesus. He was not christian, so he is a good source. He gives a testimony on christians at the time in "The Annals". He refers to a man named "Christus" (Roman for Messiah), who leads the jews, and gives an account of the execution, overseen by Pontitus Pilate.

Sources:

http://law2.umkc.edu...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...

http://www.4truth.net...

http://www.bede.org.uk...

http://www.livius.org...




Lucian

- Lucian is another secular source, who too spoke about Jesus's existence. He was Syrian, and his writings are generally accepted.

- Lucian was very critical about Jesus, despite confirming his existence. His passage was wrote after Jesus's death, but he still backs up the fact on his existence in the satire "The death of Peregrinus"

Sources:

http://lucianofsamosata.info...

http://www.probe.org...


http://www.neverthirsty.org...




Julius Africanus

- Julius Africanus was a Christian Historian and Preacher. While he himself was non-secular, he quotes secular Thallus, in "The chronicles"

“An eclipse of the sun’unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died.”

Sources:

http://community.allhiphop.com...

http://www.britannica.com...





Pliny the Younger

- Perhaps the most famous of the people who confirmed Jesus's existence. His writings are believed to be untampered, and he was also not religious.

- He wrote a letter to the emperor confirming Christ's existence, and is another respected writer who provides ample evidence that a man named Jesus of Nazareth once existed

Sources:

http://www.pbs.org...

http://www.tektonics.org...



Suetonis

- Suetonis was a historical biographer and antiqual writer. He was a high ranking noble and law scholar.

- Suetonis used this quote in one of his writings

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

- Also this quote

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

- Now the common objection is that he spells christ wrong, but the way he spells it is actually suitable in greek. Jesus was not even commonly called "Christ" until later into the dark ages.

Sources:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...


http://www.tektonics.org...

http://www.discoveringjesuschrist.com...



Conclusion:
Here I have listed people who have no affiliation with Christianity, and are well respected. Next round I willl reference Christian records to Jesus existences, and disputed writings to his existence, such as the Talmud.

Note on sources:

Some of you might criticize me for using some christian sources, but to counter this, I also included non biased sources. Any religious sources were checked for considerable logic, so as I am not bashed on for including ramblings. Please do not accuse me of this, as I have explained myself.
demonlord343

Con

demonlord343 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jifpop09

Pro

Extend all Arguments
demonlord343

Con

I must sincerely apologize for me "forfeiting" the round. I got a little busy over the weekend and did not have time to post my argument. I am sorry. I hope I can do my best to come through with the other two rounds. Thank you for your patience.


Starting with your sources, Josephus according to your second source for him was alive at approximately 37 AD. However, Jesus was to be born at around scholars estimate from 7 to 2 B.C.E. The average life expectancy for a male in this time was about 35 years of age. So, even if Josephus was alive barely at the time of his crucifixion, a reliable account of Jesus existence is not the case with this man. He is too old. He would barely have access to any of the supposed witnesses of his murder. And even if he did have sufficient access, by all definitions, Christianity is a cult. And, If they wanted to build a story of Jesus, they well could have. Thus, he can not be depended upon for reliability. He was not an eyewitness.


This is also the same case for your next source, Tacticus. He is born at around 55 C.E. (A.D. C.E. is a Christian translation of the time A.D.) and thus, he can not be accounted for a witness to the trial. (also, his birth was from the first listed source for him from Pro's argument with Tacticus, a .edu domain..)


Lucian lived at around 120-180 A.D. according to my opponent's third source for Lucian. There is not a chance that he had an account of Jesus.


Your next argument is not any better with Julius. He is even older than the other two. According to my opponent's encyclopedia source (Britannica), he was born at around 180 A.D. There is not any chance or way he had access to any reliable account of Jesus.


Pliny the Younger was a person that wrote a letter at about 112 A.D. according to my opponent's PBS source for him. So, if he lived at this time, there is no way he had access to any of the witnesses to Jesus or Jesus himself.


Suetonis started to write according to my opponent's second source (tektonics.org) at 120 A.D. This still proves that he is too old to have any actual testimony to Jesus Christ himself.


So, we have determined that none of my opponent's sources could have actually witnessed Jesus himself. The only one that could barely have been true was Josephus, and even on those grounds it is shaky, because the only time, according to my opponent's third source for Suetonis, that he could have possibly even witnessed his trial was when he was three years old (According to the source, Jesus was on trial at 40 A.D., and since Josephus was born at 37 A.D. , I think the math is right...)

I await the next round for the biased sources (Christian sources of course wish to spread the religion, but I shall disprove them irregardless) and the Talmud.


I will repaste all the sources that I mentioned in Chronological order as I have used them that were from my opponent :

http://beginningandend.com...

http://law2.umkc.edu...

http://www.neverthirsty.org...

http://www.britannica.com...

http://www.pbs.org...

http://www.tektonics.org...


These are my sources for the info on the life expectancy of Jesus and the average life expectancy of the average person:


http://didyouknow.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...


(Yes, I know, Wikipedia. Post a comment on how it is unreliable. Sure, people can change it, but they do fix the error almost immidiately)


My opponent also likes to use pictures... Really... Big... Pictures.. If he could please not do that, that would be greatly appreciated. Personally, I found it annoying when the picture was bigger than his points. That is just my opinion. He can if he feels it is necessary. I am just asking politely. (Why am I asking him via the debate and not message? So the audience knows in case if they are wondering why the pictures {rum (Pirates of the Caribbean reference)} is gone.


Since I am done disproving my opponent's sources as false, I next shall disprove the religion that is based around Jesus, called Christianity, where it's beliefs can contradict themselves. How this helps my argument? It points out that the story behind Jesus himself is false. I will be using the Bible and its direct verse contradictions, and I will also use common belief structure of the religion and its many contradictions.

To begin, we must understand a few things.

Judgement is upheld to God, and to God alone.

God unconditionally loves all of his creations.

God knows every single thought or action you will ever do or think.

These are the three main principles of God. The universality of God amongst the religions.

(Those that do not believe Judgement is upheld by God, you contradict yourself. The Bible says that he judges you numerous times. If you wish me to pull quotes, please comment because I am running out of room. If you do, It will be in the next round)

Now, from these principles, we can point out a couple things.

Sin is a lie.

Hell is nonexistent.

Some of you may be wondering how that is possible, but let me explain how.

God loves all of his creatures. Why would he punish us if he loves all of his creations?

Common response: Because we have free will and we do evil.

But he knows every single action or thought you will ever do. So, thus why would he punish you for something that he knows that you will do?

Common response: Because he is God and we will never understand him. (This doesn't make sense. We don't need to understand God to understand his work. Otherwise, how is there knowledge of such places? How do we know how the system of Heaven and Hell works, that good people go up and bad goes down? Clearly, this is circular logic, because this contradicts its own argument. Thus, the loop is not true logic, since logic builds off itself, and does not run in a constant loop. Sin is a lie. )

Now, since we have determined this, we can also point out evil is something that God also loves unconditionally. Why? Because he invented it. If God didn't like evil, he would have made it so it didn't exist. Thus, we know he wants evil to exist. Thus, sending us to hell over something that he wants to be in the world is wrong. It doesn't make sense. The system that has been presented to you is a lie. So, if sin is a lie, then why does hell exist? If it did, it serves no purpose. Hell is nonexistent.

Since sin is a lie, and the books of Jesus from the Bible claim he is the savior due to the cleansing of our sins, they are a LIE. Jesus now has no point of dying. Because if he was the Son of God, he wouldn't have died over something that doesn't exist. I really don't need to provide contradictions from the Bible at this point, but I will irregardless.

The story of his death from the Gospel of John and that of Matthew, along with Mark, contradict each other. John claims that he died from a soldier's spear. In Matthew, however, he uttered his last breath while hanging on the cross. Without a soldier's spear. He also says two completely different things before he dies. Jesus dies twice while on the same cross.

2 Peter also states that the Bible is infallible and not wrong. This is a lie, since Genesis is impossible.

Since the Bible can indeed be fallible, and the religion is fallible, then what part of the religion around Jesus Christ can be true? Thus, using Christian sources is NOT credible. They are biased, trying desperately to use a circle of illusions and false logic to prove something that never existed.

Well, since I just proved my opponent's next argument for Christian sources to be false, he can now skip to the Talmud, where I await his argument.

I must also thank you for your patience once more. And I also must re apologize.
Debate Round No. 3
Jifpop09

Pro

Argument 1: 98% of scholars agree Jesus existed

Currently, 98-99% of scholars agree that A man by the name of Christ, who led a group called the christians, was trialed by a man named Pontitus Pilate. Many atheist scholars have been vocal, that they can not respect any educated man who denies Jesus of Nazareth existed. There is just an overwhelming amount of evidence, and some scholars have even went as far as calling mythicists uneducated and ignorant.

http://www.newmediaministries.org...

http://www.bede.org.uk...


Argument 2: We have more evidence of Jesus then.....

Julius Caesar. The great general who conquered Gaul, invaded Iberia, established a dictatorship, and defeated Pompey in the Roman Civil War. Books were written about him, hell, he even made some himself.

For you to argue that there is not enough evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed, then you would have to deny EVERY person that is recorded less then Caesar. Which would be nearly everyone of ancient and medieval history.

Argument 3: I have only included a portion of the secular authors.

I have honestly only put a portion of the secular authors who recorded Jesus's existence. If I were to put the rest, and all the non-secular authors, I would have went 20 rounds. There is just to much evidence to sanely deny the man.

Rebuttals

Starting with your sources, Josephus according to your second source for him was alive at approximately 37 AD. However, Jesus was to be born at around scholars estimate from 7 to 2 B.C.E.

I figured you would bring this up. Josephus, was in fact, quoting multiple sources in "
Testimonium Flavianum" Something he was admired for. Josephus even confirmed John the Baptist, another famous man/prophet who wrote 100's of letters and records of Jesus's existence. Please read the below article regarding Josephus on Jesus:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com...


This is also the same case for your next source, Tacticus. He is born at around 55 C.E. (A.D. C.E. is a Christian translation of the time A.D.) and thus, he can not be accounted for a witness to the trial. (also, his birth was from the first listed source for him from Pro's argument with Tacticus, a .edu domain..)

I am doubting whether or not you actually looked at the actual text. Tacitus was the most respected and generally considered the greatest Roman historian. Almost all Roman scholars agree the passage was genuine, and showed a complete knowledge of the time, and was most likely sourced from the roman achrive, as he was a high official, and had access to every single record that the scribes had ever recorded on Rome.



Your next argument is not any better with Julius. He is even older than the other two. According to my opponent's encyclopedia source (Britannica), he was born at around 180 A.D. There is not any chance or way he had access to any reliable account of Jesus.

I request Con to relook at the passage I provided for Sextus Julius Africanus, as he has clearly passed over the details. It is Thallus who was eyewitness to Jesus, a secular man who had lived during the crucifixion.

http://christianthinktank.com...

I would like to remind the audience has actually provided no sources of his own. He has only repasted my sources in a list, even though he did not dispute manyof them, or did he make solid cases regarding which, besides age. Also, if you have a request (pictures), please tell me over pm. I will stop if it bothers you, but it seems like you are attempting a conduct attack.


My opponent also likes to use pictures... Really... Big... Pictures.. If he could please not do that, that would be greatly appreciated. Personally, I found it annoying when the picture was bigger than his points. That is just my opinion. He can if he feels it is necessary. I am just asking politely. (Why am I asking him via the debate and not message? So the audience knows in case if they are wondering why the pictures {rum (Pirates of the Caribbean reference)} is gone.

This is a direct violation of the rules. I see in no way how attacking christianity is relevant to the debate. He accepted the debate, and I even took the time to clarify the rules for him, but he still decides to do it. He has already forfeited, but I ask the audience to take the rule violation into due consideration, and discredit all arguments made directly related to the post above, as he has been imformed prior.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

- There is more evidence on Jesus then almost any other figure in history.

- 98-99% of educated scholars believe in his existence.

- 100% of my opponents argument were based on the fact that many of the people were not alive during the crucifixion, but I never had claimed they were.

- There are 1000's of other records and authors who have confirmed Jesus existed.

- Denying the 98% is no diffirent then denying the 98% who believe in global warming.

- My opponent has violated the rules on three different occasions, even after I clarified and confirmed many.

- My opponent provides no sources of his own, but has copied my sources, even though I had read through his arguments many times, and many were irrelevant to anything he said.

Thank you for debating me Demonlord, and good luck in future debates.



demonlord343

Con

As I quote, "Currently, 98-99% of scholars agree that A man by the name of Christ, who led a group called the christians, was trialed by a man named Pontitus Pilate. Many atheist scholars have been vocal, that they can not respect any educated man who denies Jesus of Nazareth existed. There is just an overwhelming amount of evidence, and some scholars have even went as far as calling mythicists uneducated and ignorant."

This is called Appeal to Popularity. Or Fallacy of Majority. This is called trying to validate a statement based on the number of people that support it.


An example: People used to believe the Earth was flat, however this was not the case.

http://logical-critical-thinking.com...


"We have more evidence of Jesus then.....


Julius Caesar. The great general who conquered Gaul, invaded Iberia, established a dictatorship, and defeated Pompey in the Roman Civil War. Books were written about him, hell, he even made some himself. "


Ummm.. pardon, but when did this become an argument of Julius Caesar? And where is this evidence? Oh wait, 20 rounds? "If I were to put the rest, and all the non-secular authors, I would have went 20 rounds. " Then how come we are having trouble getting valid proof?


This is called a red herring fallacy. This is trying to switch to a different topic in order to prove something true. The equation for this is Red herring = A is B, therefore C. This is a false way to prove something like Jesus existed. Just because Julius Caesar existed or there is “more” evidence for Jesus does not alter the fact that the point of that statement is irrelevant. There is no point, and it does not help your argument, especially since you did not provide a source for this new information. This is a violation of the rules. He has not provided a source for this information. I urge the audience to look at that.


http://logical-critical-thinking.com...


"I figured you would bring this up. Josephus, was in fact, quoting multiple sources in "Testimonium Flavianum" Something he was admired for. Josephus even confirmed John the Baptist, another famous man/prophet who wrote 100's of letters and records of Jesus's existence. Please read the below article regarding Josephus on Jesus:"


Ummm... point being? He may of confirmed John the Baptist (a very good member to the Jesus cult), but this still is not evidence for the man that walked around. Great, he wrote a story about a man that is told from another man. No actual eye-witness testimony from any of these "secular" sources about the man Jesus. There are absolutely no eye-witness testimony from an honest and secular source! Not one! Every single piece of evidence that Pro has provided has been either passed down through Christian scribes or they all are relying again on Christian eyewitness testimony.


"I am doubting whether or not you actually looked at the actual text. Tacitus was the most respected and generally considered the greatest Roman historian. Almost all Roman scholars agree the passage was genuine, and showed a complete knowledge of the time, and was most likely sourced from the roman archive, as he was a high official, and had access to every single record that the scribes had ever recorded on Rome. "


Ummm... I do not have to say any more. Pro is refuting my argument without sources. His point is that he is an honorable historian from the Roman times. He may be famous, but he is still past the age limit... He was not an eyewitness to the trial, thus he is not a reliable source.


"I request Con to relook at the passage I provided for Sextus Julius Africanus, as he has clearly passed over the details. It is Thallus who was eyewitness to Jesus, a secular man who had lived during the crucifixion. "


I looked at it. Guess what? Christian website... Christian Think Tank? We have discussed and determined that Christian sources are biased and cannot be used. Also, your previous sources still say otherwise. Why is the argument contradicting itself?


"I would like to remind the audience has actually provided no sources of his own. He has only repasted my sources in a list, even though he did not dispute manyof them, or did he make solid cases regarding which, besides age. Also, if you have a request (pictures), please tell me over pm. I will stop if it bothers you, but it seems like you are attempting a conduct attack."


I have provided sources. They are in a list, clearly defined as to what they are used for. Some I did actually hunt down on my own, but I did not have to do a lot seeing how I didn't DISPUTE your sources, but merely used them as they were provided. I used your own sources to prove out facts. Facts that object to the sources' credibility. Like I also said, it was for the audience to know, since I have seen a few of your arguments, and you generally have pictures. I was being polite.



- Makeing a argument that Jesus was or was not god is a loss of conduct.


- All new evidence must be backed up by sources or a loss of conduct.


- Any developments outside the debate are void.


These were the three main rules of the debate. The ones in Round two are listed below.


- There is absolutely no reason to turn this into a god exists debate. This debate is simply if a man named Jesus of Nazareth once preached throughout the Roman Empire.


- I do expect sources, because I am going to put a lot of records of his existence on the table, so any counter-arguments need sources proving my records are false.


- I meant that any arguments in the comments or elsewhere should not be factored into the vote.


These are the rules revised in Round two. My opponent claims that I broke one of these rules. I have not. He did not merely understand the point I was trying to make. If Christianity, the famous Jesus of Nazareth is centered around, is false and not true, then how can Jesus be true? He can not. Thus, any christian sources that I find, they cannot be counted due to their bias to the debate.


Overall Conclusion


-No facts that my opponent has represented for his existence are legit and credible


-Christian sources are indeed biased, and thus, cannot be used in an argument for Jesus


-None of my opponent's sources were even alive at the time of this man's existence.


-My opponet compared to unrelated topics to each other. Multiple times. (Julius Caesar, global warming)


-I have violated none of my opponent's rules. He is introducing new rules even though I have clearly violated none.


-The claims I see that I have provided no sources are actually me following one of his rules. "- All new evidence must be backed up by sources or a loss of conduct."

Seeing how the sources are providing evidence, I see no reason as to why it should account against me, especially on how they do not provide any new evidence.

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by demonlord343 3 years ago
demonlord343
Apologies Jiffy, I forgot my final words.. Thank you for the Debate. Tis was fun! Good job. I will be seeing you, after the voting period for the final Team Debate conclusion!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Jifpop09demonlord343Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Jif's sources were overwhelming, however Con refuted them, so argument is tied. Anyways FFin round 2 gives conduct to jif.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Jifpop09demonlord343Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: While Con sufficiently dismantled Pros arguments i'm giving conduct to Pro and grammar Con cannot have " Ummmmmm" in a debate.