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

I call BS on Christianity

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,481 times Debate No: 33596
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (49)
Votes (0)




I call BS on your Christian faith, whatever you got I call BS. The idea is that I can credibly critique and provide sources that dismiss the reason you believe or even what you believe.

One, you have to be stand up kind of person and not cowardly accept this challenge and then claim you are not really a Christian".do so and you forfeit.
Two: This is a formal debate and not a debate aimed at making others feel good by pussyfooting around. While convincing the audience may be important to some, fact"s quote and citations will be your friend.
Three: It will be "Pros"" responsibility to redirect voters from voting anything other than neutral on conduct. YES, the acceptance of the debate means you NO_ONE votes other than neutral on conduct. I used this rule recently and Christians seem to believe rules only exist for non-believers. What do I mean? I mean to say that the bible is an evil book that instructs believers to commit acts of violence against non-believers and therefore Christians are void in regards to politically correct conduct to begin with and have no right to accept a vote because I all BS on their faith.
Fourth: Punch for punch, I am to address your beliefs and I will do so with politically correct conduct until your conduct warrants otherwise".and I do not care if you are just politically incorrect because the bible told you it was okay. In fact, I do not really care what votes I do or do not get, my goal isn"t to be judged by the majority that hasn"t enough understanding to judge a formal debate (myself included), my goal is only to make one think and to learn something new. The question is, are you up to it"as I get bored easily when Christian claiming not to be Christian accept these challenges and derail the entire debate.


Thank you Con for starting this debate. The readers must be confused on why I am Pro and my opponent is Con. That confusion is on the meaning of 'BS' which means 'Bona fide sound.' My opponent may have started this debate but failed to define the terms and the debate. As we can see he opposes Christianity and because so Con is in his proper position. Therefore, the correct way to read the resolution should be:

Resolution: I call (Bona fide Sound) on Christianity.

Since I am Pro, I have a burden of proof to fill. I think we should define the debate and then we will know what I must prove.

Sound - Exhibiting or based on thorough knowledge and experience; logically valid.

Christianity - The religion derived from Jesus Christ in New Testament, based on the Bible as sacred scripture.

Bona fide - Made in good faith without fraud or deceit.

These definitions are cemented and are valid references in this debate.

Burden of proof:
I have the Burden of proof because I have made the claim. Pro needs to provide a reason why Christianity is bona fide sound. Con only needs to show that Christianity is not bone fide nor sound. The most convincing argument should prevail.

1) Pro must defend their position.
2) You must have sources for all claims.
3) Conduct vote is left up to the voters.
4) Con must defend his warrants.
5) All rules and definitions must be followed.

1. Round one is for acceptance for Con and opening argument for Pro.
2. Con may present their own argument or may just rebuttal Pro. Pro introduces new arguments and rebuttal.
3. Additional arguments for Con and rebuttal by both.
4. Rebuttals only
5. Final rebuttals and conclusion

Pros argument

We first need to establish that Christianity is solely based out of the New Testament. Therefore, we have no need to address the Old Testament unless the New Testament refers back to the Old Testament. The reason for this is because the Old Testament was under law physically and the New Testament is under the law spiritually. In the Old Testament man had to pay the price of sin which was death. That is why they had to sacrifice animals and stone people, they had to rid the sin from amongst them. Jesus Christ came and paid that sin debt for all. Therefore, we do not need to pay the price of death for sin and we can forgive and love as commanded in the New Testament. With that established we can continue on to why the New Testament is bona fide sound.

C1) Historical Relevance
The relevance of Christianity reveals that it was a distinctive movement brought in order to gain spiritual vitality. There are a host of competing Christianities, many of which had as much claim to authenticity as any other. In this discussion we are strictly focusing on the Biblical doctrine of Christianity, non-Biblical references cannot be accounted as Christian unless it is verified within the Bible. The Bible we will use is the King James Version.

What sets Christianity apart from other religions is the Bible. No other book has the influence in the world as the Bible. The Bible has found nations and peoples who modern science did not believe existed. The Bible has pushed influence into our universal beliefs and laws. The Bible has given us the universal code of treating your neighbor as yourself.

Other religions are based on teachings of men who never claim to know the truth or are inspired. Christianity is based on real historical events involving real people. The most important thing in a faith is the integrity of the Book or religion we are placing our faith in. Most people claim their are errors in the Bible therefore it is not trust worthy. People think they've stumbled upon apparent inconsistencies when they haven't taken the time to find out all the facts nor made an in-depth study of the passage. Many Bible questions have been answered as new discoveries have been made in fields such as language, history, archeology, and other sciences.

You will find no modern scholar who thinks the gospels as bald-faced lies or embellishments. The New Testament appears to no doubt portray that the writers sincerely believed in what they claimed.

C2) Christian Teachings
The object of Christian teaching is Jesus Christ Himself. Christianity implies, first of all, accepting and realizing the Teachings of God given by Him for the embodied people through Jesus Christ. The main postulates are:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength (Mark 12:29-30).
You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31).
Believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light (John 12:36).
Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Acts 2:21).

In the New Testament, there are many precepts that call us to be honest with other people, to care about well-being of others more than about one’s own, to be peacemakers, to forgive, not to avenge. Not to get involved emotionally in judging others, not to seek accumulating “worldly” wealth. To strive to do all that we can for helping other people spiritually; the personal search for God and service to Him should always be of the primary importance in one’s life.

C3) Validly of Jesus
The major problems with thinking the story of Jesus is just a legend, is that the time between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels is just too short for this to happen. Two generations after Jesus’s death places you in the second century, just when the apocryphal gospels begin to appear. Mark is one of the earliest gospel, so his source must be even earlier. The Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death.

The New Testament gains relevance from the Old Testament. The prophecies of Jesus were given in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New.

Prophecy: Heir to the Throne of David
O.T. Reference: Isaiah 9:6-7
N.T. Fulfillment: Luke 1:32

Prophecy: Born in Bethlehem
O.T. Reference: Micah 5:2
N.T. Fulfillment: Luke 2:4-7

Prophecy: Lamentation for the killing of infants
O.T. Reference: Jeremiah 31:15
N.T. Fulfillment: Matthew 2:16-18

Prophecy: His feet and hands would be pierced
O.T. Reference: Psalm 22:15-16; Zechariah 12:9-10
N.T. Fulfillment: John 19:33-35, 20:25-27

Prophecy: Given vinegar to drink
O.T. Reference: Psalm 69:21
N.T. Fulfillment: Matthew 27:34; Mark 15:23; John 19:28-30

I think I have shown that Christianity is a sound belief for those who believe it. You can never force someone to believe or accept the evidence presented. Until my opponent presents reasons why Christianity is not bona fide sound then it shall remain with no obvious error. I send it back to Con.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for your acceptance of this debate, and welcome.
Pro, your statement was a bit of a sweeping generalization and loosely defined which is why it is now under attack. One more thing before we move on, Pros" galloping Gish. The Galloping Gish is a tactic well known to most Christians and I will ask Pro to either address every point you post, or not post it at all. Audience please note that this tactics theme is to lists as many points as possible and in such a "broad fashion" that each point (no matter how irrelevant) cannot be addressed properly by his opponent because of the sheer numbers. Please don"t fall for it while voting.
Rebuttal: BS: Sorry Pro, but Christianity "IF" is solely based in the New Testament (N/T) there are some problems. It has a rotten storyline that never made since, it is not a history book, and it contradicts itself, and it doesn"t stand by itself without the O/T because some denominations adhere to the O/T as well.
One more problem I see and call BS on, Problem is that there have been countless numbers of bibles written and perhaps millions of interpretations which have led to the denominational divisions of Pros" faith, which now number38000 (at least).
So we will take a quick look at a story that founds the New Testaments, the story of Jesus. Normally this story would never convince anyone of sound mind to believe Christianity. If an individual who had never encountered any form of Christianity heard this story, this person would be revolted by this story.
The story of salvation, "if man believes that god rapes a little girl, so that he can give birth to himself, so he can commit suicide and forgive mankind, so that he can live in paradise with that god." This storyline would send every rational person off and running in the opposite direction.

History of the O/T, the foundation of Christianity: The O/T is little more than a re-written version of the Jewish bible aka Hebrew bible akaTorah and or Tanakh. The O/T contains only about 5 (five) of the original 24 books. So the original non abridged version had little to do with storyline enhancement, it historical values is already diminished, the omitted sections did not support the ideas of the N/T because of contradictions. So the price of sin seems to be based in the materials that didn"t hit the editors floor.
Another example of conflict with the O/T existence is contradicts. The Zohar for example. The Zohar depiction of original sin is in conflict with Christianity, Judean and Islamic renderings. The conflict simple, this sect claims it never happened. The teachings of the Zohar claim to be the oldest Jewish based religion having kept quiet and to themselves until mankind grew wise enough to understand their message. Ironic that all religions make the claim they are the oldest and wisest. The Zohar story is devoid of gods" works in having created man, but rather tells of god"s ( Again, according to theistic sources there are 38000 Christian denominations(sourced below), all of which all in conflict will each other"s ideologies and at least eight renditions of the bible currently being used by them, probably a lot more.
This means there are still 37999 denominations that disagree with Pro"s single denominational view, the base of Christianity he suggests is always going to be a base based in his own ideologies. So now all I have to do is argue that his denominational perspective is in conflict by a Christian majority to counteract anything he may claim and I feel this will be an almost insurmountable obstacle for him from this point on.

Time to shift gears and demonstrate that the Bible is not historically relevant. As there are no contemporaries of Jesus on record or even in the bible, no historian in his right mind is going to claim otherwise. Just so you know where we are going here, without a history, Jesus never taught anybody anything. All encounters with Jesus are based in hearsay and nothing more. Jesus is a void as far as history is concerned.
Another reason Jesus is not a historical figure. The N/T Gospels were written a generation (a generation is being lenient here) after mythical Jesus"s supposed death. The Gospels were written by anonymous individuals (ironically some of which claim to be illiterate) and it was done so in Greek. These facts casts a very large shadow of doubt on every aspect of legitimacy concerning Jesus"s life. Historically speaking there is another problem for Jesus. The story of Jesus exists in multiple older religions, including Horus the son of RA, and the son of Jupiter as pointed out by Justine Martyr the first self-proclaim Christian historian.
The bible storyline even grossly contradicts itself about Jesus life. Contradictions as to his whereabouts, his birth place along with other major storyline problems, well it doesn"t take rocket science to figure this out. In short, Jesus is just not a stable character in the bible.
I had to cut this portion of my post because of space limitations chasing the Gish, so if you wish to read more go to> as this was one of my sources.
Nazareth, the city that never was. The rational mind would have a hard time believing Jesus was born in a town that never existed, now wouldn"t they? "The savior was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived in Nazareth until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question"was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." No certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology. What amazing evidence to prove the reality of a Divine man! Absolute ignorance as to his ancestry; nothing whatever known of the time of his birth, and even the existence of the city where he is said to have been born, a matter of grave question!
More can be found on Marshall J. Gauvin at the depository at the University of Manitoba.
I am almost out of character space here, so I will list some bible contradictions found in the N/T text. There are so many I will close with this list to aid my rebuttal aimed at the wall of text/scripture Pro left me on his opening address. When I return I will attempt to work all of this in and tie it together in my future rebuttals.

Does every man sin?

1KI 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

2CH 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not
JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Out of space and I have to run off to work"see ya.


Thank you for your last round Con. Con didn't approve of my generalization of Christinaity and he suggested that I loosely defined the term. I provided a solid framework for Christianity. Con has full right to only focus on what he precieves as weaknesses in my argument. Also, when Con refers to BS he is using it in a derogatory term and I am using as defined in round 1. Let's move on...

Con's rebuttal:

Con never offers any instances of rotten storyline, instances where it does not make since, why it is not a history book, where it is contradicting, and what Christian sect conforms to the Old Testament. All Christinaity holds the Old Testament as sacred but not obligating, as Christians we are obligated to follow the New Testament.

C1) Historical Relevance

Con brings up the wide variety of Bibles and faiths of Christianity. I only need to varify the authenticity of the New Testament and the KJV. Renewal is a part of God’s preservation plan that ensures that we have His inerrant Word in texts that He has ordained. Scholarly opinion views that the New Testament is indeed contemporary with the apostles. Every historical criterion, the text of the New Testament is vastly better documented and corroborated than any other document of these times. Luke acknowledges the existence of earlier verbal and written sources. If earlier collections of Jesus' sayings did exist there seems no reason at all why the gospel authors should not have quoted them.

The King James Version can be considered the Word of God in the English language. All modern translations must often rely upon the Received Text for substance, for the manuscripts of the King James text are historically more numerous than the modern translations, not to mention, massively more consistent.

Con makes baseless assertions about the original Old Testament having only five books. The Hebrew Old Testament is divided into three sections, TORAH (The Law): NEVI'IM (The Prophets): KETUVIM (The Writings). Con needs to show how the storyline and historical value are diminished. He also needs to offer us the books that suppose to have been in the Bible that isn't. This was very confusing as Con suggest the Old Testament has too many books and then he says it does not have enough.

Con brings up the Zohar and then says, "Zohar claim to be the oldest Jewish based religion.... Ironic that all religions make the claim they are the oldest and wisest." Zohar is not Christian by any means, hence, Zohar. Remember that a sect can only be Christain if it follows and believes the words of Jesus Christ which are recorded in the New Testament.

C2) Christian Teachings

Con simply wants to blame the Christian doctrine for all the sects that take the name of Christainity. I can claim I am anything but it does not make me that thing. We must look at the doctrine on the New Testament and see if that sect follows those teachings. Con has mistaken Christainity as one absolute sect, there are many interpretations, but that does not change the Word inside.

2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

No one denomination should rule over Christainity. This is why we are focusing on what is in the New Testament and not what others say is there.

Con becomes irrational himself if he believes that God must impregnant Mary like human beings do. Only temporal beings need to mate and be male and female. God is eternal and He does not need to procreate like humans, He simply creates from His eternal nature, Jesus already existed, Jesus is God. The suggestion that Mary was raped in anyway is absurd. This verse does not sound like Mary was raped in anyway:

Luke 1:38, "I am the Lord’s servant," Mary answered. "May your word to me be fulfilled." Then the angel left her.

Con asks, "Does every man sin?"

Yes, they do. My opponents attempts to suggest that the verses he citied have contradictions are laughable. First, everyone sins and it is that simple. Secondly, when a Christian ask for repentance of sin they are cleansed, therefore without sin. Those saved are blameless but not sinless.

C3) Validly of Jesus

Con asserts that any person with sound mind and body would never believe the story of Jesus Christ but I contend that people do that very thing. Con mentions there where no contemporaries in Jesus time but that is a mistake. During the time of Jesus, there were other "holy men" are what are called "Hasidim." A Jewish Hasid was someone who had a close relationship with God and had the ability to call upon God. In comparing these healers with Jesus, we also see some glaring differences. First, Honi had no control over the forces of nature, but resorted to power other then themselves through prayer. Jesus was different because when He did a healing He did not "receive" power; He did it with a simple, powerful word that was His own.

Accounts verify a man named Jesus lived and was recorded correctly in the Bible. What does the claims of Horus or Jupiter offer to discredit that a man named Jesus Christ ever walked the earth? From what I have seen, none. Justine asserted that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the entire divine of logos. My opponent needs to back up his claims here.

" About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease." Antiquities, XVIII, 33

"And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and accusing them of having transgressed the law delivered them up to be stoned." (Jewish Antiquities 20:29)

:"It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for 40 days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover."

Con asserts that the Bible contradicts itself but he does not even know the birth place of Jesus Christ which was Bethlehem. Con says that, "Nazareth, the city that never was. The rational mind would have a hard time believing Jesus was born in a town that never existed, now wouldn"t they?" A rational mind would know the story and the birth place and Nazareth has always been a town, before Christ. The city of Nazareth was a small and insignificant agricultural village in the time of Jesus. It had no trade routes, was of little economic importance and was never mentioned in the Old Testament or other ancient texts.


Con has not offered any substancial evidence against Christianity but mere assertions. I have shown evidence that Jesus Christ is considered by historians as a real person. Con did not show any errors within the Bible itself or the doctrine of Christainity. The Biblical text are considered the most preserved text in known history. I think the resolution is affirmed until Con shows otherwise. I send it back to Con.

Debate Round No. 2


No, thank you!
The foundation of Christianity having removed the rose colored glasses of Christianity.
The base of Christianity will now be listed in the order of their importance as supplied through Pros" thoughtful (?) rebuttal.
The number one (1) reason is belief (or faith). Belief/faith is the non-supported irrational reasoning believers use to support their beliefs without evidence concerning the bible, god and Jesus. Faith tells them there is evidence, but the best laid plans of mice and men, doesn"t mean much when facing fact.
Faith: Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. A system of religious belief: the Christian faith

The number two (2) reason: Apologetics: Apologetics are the excuses for the short comings that appear in faith, a lack of evidence, god and scripture.
Number three (3) and the third leg of the Christian structure, its many bibles. When the bible doesn"t support faith or apologetics it is rewritten, this includes both the Old and New Testaments.
I am still trying to understand pros must of pros" last post here, with the misspelling and lack of cohesion I am not sure how to proceed with my rebuttal. So I will try and use a point to point comparison once again.

{"Pro posts this: {"Renewal is a part of God"s preservation plan that ensures that we have His inerrant Word in texts that He has ordained.;}
Sorry Pro! But if gods" word is inerrant, then it would never need correction in the first place. To suggest gods" word is inerrant and then to admit to someone needing to re-write the bible to keep it that way only demonstrates gods" failure to obtain inerrancy in the first place.
Pros" web site here seems to be a rendering of a desperate lone engineer"s struggling with his new faith. His credentials, Auh, well he doesn"t seem to have any. He has no discernible skill set or discipline to interpret the KJV for me or anyone else. So all I am going to do here is point out that in 2000 years pros sect or cult hasn"t won the debate against any of pros other religious constituents.

Pro quotes con and then states this: ("Con brings up the wide variety of Bibles and faiths of Christianity". I only need to verify the authenticity of the New Testament and the KJV. )
Con accepts pros offer to academically and historical validate his bible for us while rendering all others invalid. Can we use the spelling and grammar checker this time and then provide some valid non-Jim Jones type sources as well?
Summary so far, pro fails in this last round to explain why I as an atheist should just take his word that his bible and beliefs are the only truths found in Christianity.
Perhaps when he convinces the rest of Christendom, Judea and Islam, then he can profess his esoteric views with authority.
Pros needs to convince the remaining 37999 Christina denominations (not counting his cult), 15000 here in the U.S., the entire practicing Jewish population which is about 60 and 75 percent of the estimated 13.5 to 14.5 million Jews and the 1.57 billion Muslims. (To quote pro from the comments section), first you rack up some victories in debate as to your religions denominational (biblical?) superiority before you try and convince me of their validity. At the very least you cannot expect me or anyone else just to dismiss them because it is convenient for your beliefs and bible.

Historical Relevance:
Pro lists a travel agency as a reference (?), and I have to ask, was this a joke? ? A Disney travel agency says the Pirates of the Caribbean are real and if I give them money they will show me. Are they just after my money, or do you suppose they are really real and have always lived in Florida? Why or why not?
Pros next source: , are you still joking with me? NO? Okay, am I to accept that the Coyote made the earth and that the trickster who is the Raven played a trick on him? This was part of the Apache creation story that appeared in one of the books on this site. A site that"s sells books, but since they were on the internet, they have to be true"..right? Why or why not?
Pros" next source:, this is just getting too sad to be funny anymore. This site tells us that Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. Pro, this web site seems to support the academic contention and not yours, was this deliberate? "and I quote, "The earliest description of Jesus outside of the Gospels is found in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities. Yet for centuries scholars have doubted that a Jewish writer could have written an account that contains basic tenets" my summary of the remainder of this paragraph, "but if you twist the words of the bible to read "this way", it must be true". The author offers an apology that uses bible scriptures to verify the apology needed to validate the bible in the first place. Jewish historian, born A.D. 37 and Jesus died when in 1st century AD.?
Let"s take it further; what day would it be illegal to Crucify Jesus or anybody for that matter (Crossover?)? Who was his company and why were they crucified for crimes that would have never brought the penalty of crucifixion (convicted thieves)? The roman court system was one of the most just and advanced systems in the world, why was Roman law in full retreat that day (it wasn"t?)? Why did the multitudes that saw Jesus not writing about Jesus OR his crucifixion (there were no multitudes of first hand contemporary encounters?)? Why did the scribes not mention Jesus or his Crucifixion (Jesus who?)? Why did the 40 plus historians of that day never mention Jesus or his Crucifixion (there was nothing to see?)? Why did Pilot never hear of Jesus (no ears?)? Why are all accounts written in a he said she said fashion generations after this famous event if it happened (because there are no first hand encounters, no historical contemporaries?)? Pro doesn"t have these answers to support the validity of Jesus because the bible doesn"t provide any.
Case in point, U.S. Law, while public funding for schools allow all public schools to study the bible, they do not allow the bible to be study from! Because the bible has no historical validity.

Pros" next site would not even be accepted in Junior high school essay. it is written by an anonymously source, unsupported, conjecture, unaccredited and it isn"t even worthy of my insults. No really! Has anybody here finished high school yet? Just because it is on the internet doesn"t mean it is true.
Pro sources a dead end and under construction site?
Pro finds a creditable source!!!!! Yeah!!!!! Too bad there is nothing quoted or usable to support pros position like he claims. and I quote "You can also read some of my poetry, and two story books written for children (adults also enjoy them) about the MacBears of Bearloch." Thanks Richard, but no thanks, we good?
Pro then offers this site concerning Contemporary Jesus which looks like a cult condemning education and rational thought altogether, are you even reading what these sites have to offer?

Pro the Christian states: {"The Biblical text are considered the most preserved text in known history. "}
Con face palms in disbelief. If your bible was just re-written and changed as you claim, then how is this preserving it? You have conceded this point, was this your intent?

Audience, please note that my opposition is posting with statements that read like this "most scholars believe", "most authorities agree", and so on. Whenever one hears this, one you should probably check their reality at the door for safe keeping and hold on to your ticket really tight never letting it out of your sight.

I think the resolution is affirmed until Pro can shows us otherwise, until then, I send it back to Pro.



Cons behavior was shameful last round. And on top of all that he has not provided any evidence for his accusations. Most debaters make statements and then provide links or evidence for that statement. The evidence Con provides sheds no clear light on his accusations and we are left wondering what it is he is claiming. Con says Christianity needs no proof but that is not what the New Testament says:

1 Peter 3:15, "15 Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you..."

2 Corinthians 13:5, "Examine yourselves...Test yourselves."

Con has given us no reason why Christians reject common sense or physical nature. He has not shown that Christianity does not require proof. Or that Christianity does not need to test itself for the truth. Con mistakes that I offer apologies for Christianity, I am not an apologetic Christian. Con simply asserts that Christianity has short comings in evidence, scripture, and God, but provides no evidence for it. Con asserts that Bibles have been rewritten for apologetic purposes instead of language barriers. Con completely ignores when I said last round, many interpretations are reasonable from a Biblical standpoint.

Con suggest the Word of God needs or has been corrected but then provides no evidence for it. Con over looks the need to change the language inside of Bibles so people would understand it. He also over looks that anyone could interpret the Word in their own way as suggested last round. Con shows no inerrancy in the Bible.

Con makes the crazy claim that I must render all other Bibles invalid, yeah right. I only need to show the Bible I use as valid and I have done that. Con does not attack the valdality of the King James Bible. Con is more concerned about my sources(just ad hom attacks) than providing any real attack to my claims. Con says I need to explain why he should take my word that the Bible and Christianity are truthful. I do not need to do no such thing, do not all of us make our own choice, I need to give the readers a strong argument for Christianity and rebuttal Con. It is easy to rebuttal someone when they provide no real sourced argument. Con never mentions what it is I am dismissing.

Historical Relevance:

Con -"Pro lists a travel agency as a reference (?), and I have to ask, was this a joke?"

"The city of Nazareth was a small and insignificant agricultural village in the time of Jesus. It had no trade routes, was of little economic importance and was never mentioned in the Old Testament or other ancient texts. Archaeological excavations indicate Nazareth was settled continuously from 900 – 600 BCE, with a break in settlement until 200 BCE, from which time it has been continuously inhabited."

Last round I offered this evidence of ancient Nazareth after Con claimed it never existed. I did not know if he meant now or when Jesus was alive. We see this site which provides guided tours through Israel and Nazareth says that Nazareth was around before Christ. Therefore, Christ could have lived in Nazareth opposing Cons claim. But, we have more sites that provide the same conclusion:

"Archaeological research has revealed that there was a funerary and cult center about two miles (3 km) from current Nazareth, dating back roughly 9000 years. Silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC) which indicated substantial settlement in the Nazareth basin at that time."

The New Testament is considered 99.5% pure. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls dating back to 200 B.C. for the Old Testament, to 68 A.D. for the New Testament, drastically reduces the time span in which the New Testament was written. The time span of the New Testament remains exceptional.

Con clearly says he is here just to insult and that means he is not here to debate. Con is completely lost and he is on his heels as we can see. Confirms the validality of the New Testament. I have no idea why my opponents reuse of this link does not work but the one I used does. Is a site of a author who has wrote on the New Testament. Con offers no reason why we should discredit him because he writes children books. He offered no reason why the author is wrong. Con makes accusations about this site.., he mentioned it looked cultic but gave us no examples.

Con should explain this, "If your bible was just re-written and changed as you claim, then how is this preserving it? You have conceded this point, was this your intent?"

I would like to know how rewriting scripture does not preserve it? How else would you preserve it when paper and ink, fade and deteriate.

C2) Christian Teachings

Con concedes Christian doctrine unless he address it.

C3) Validly of Jesus

Con continues to attack my sources and he fails. has sacred text from all over the ancient world and I cited it for the record of Josephus. He gives us no reason to deny the record of Josephus or that the site misquoted him. Con just does not understand the strength of Josephus' record, he is a well respected Historian. Josephus was a Jew and did not believe Jesus Christ was God but he wrote about Jesus showing that Jesus lived. He also remarked that Jesus had done many miraculous acts, this from a historian that does not recognize Jesus' divinity. I never suggested that Josephus claimed Jesus was divine in the first place. The Biblical authors have some of the highest integrity of any author in history and the records of the Bible still hold true unless shown otherwise. Con says that there was no other evidence of Jesus Christ well there is:

Cornelius Tacitus; See Annals XV,44: "Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius."

Suetonius: Roman historian and court official wrote in his Life of Claudius: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." (Life of Claudius 25.4).

Pliny the Younger: Recounts that he had been killing Christian men, women, and children. He is concerned that so many have chosen death over simply bowing down to a statue of the emperor or being made to "curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." (Epistles X, 96)

Julius Africanus, who wrote around AD221. He quotes Tallus', "Tallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as 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." Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1


I agree with Con, the resolution is affirmed until Con shows us otherwise. I have given you a Historical account of Jesus but Con complains about sources instead of the argument. He did not even offer us links that oppose Jesus as a person or the Divine. Last round and this round I have offered the validality of the Bible and all Con can do is complain that he does not believe it. Con did not address Christian doctrine at all. I send it back to Con.

Debate Round No. 3


Pro insists that I have shown no evidence, ironic that his beliefs are based in a religion that shows no evidence which lead to the claim it was BS. Now when pros" religion comes under fire, when his logic that lacks reason and evidence comes under fire, Pro protests claiming I have no evidence for his lack of evidence. Maybe he has been holding out on us? But he has offered nothing but conjecture up to now.

Pro has been dubiously been screwing the pouch and selling the puppies with his erroneous web sites. Then he has the audacity to and make erroneous claims of what these very same web sites are saying. Pros burden in this debate is to provide Christianity on a platter and tell us why I cannot call BS on it. Pro protest once again about this debate this time. Now are we going to be lead to believe participating "within the rules" for this debate is a shameful practice?
I"ve noticed that when a Christian can think of nothing to say in his or her defense, Christians will resort to quoting the works of others in the hope it will make them sound wise and hide the fact they have no valid response.
Pro states he is not an apologist because he believes the bible is the inerrant word of god, but he states this right after this that his denomination beliefs are based in a "re-corrected version" of all the bible/s out there. Forgive me, but when a bible is changed it is making apologies for gods" inerrant word, it is called blasphemy isn"t it?
Pro now claims the bible needed to be easier to understand (by adding or subtracting god"s errors?) but that blasphemy AGAIN!
My response is this, again you cannot get the rest of Christianity to agree by getting them to accept your claim about bible modifications, so neither do I feel compelled.

It"s as simple as this".there are (still) 38000 Christian denominations, and hundreds of thousands of interpretations. The argument isn"t whether one is more reasonable than the other; the argument is there is no reason for me (or the audience for that matter) to choose one over the other and thus granting autonomy for his version of esotericism.
Pro places the bible on the platter of this debate that no-one forced him into. Pro then goes to water because it has been, and is being debated. Perhaps Pro needs to finds a new hobby, perhaps knitting?
Pro insists that Nazareth exists because of is travel agency says so, he then uses a site which is little more than representation of a political entity that lays claim to the land Nazareth is to have stood on. Without Nazareth this entity (Israel) could lose their claim and invalidate 2000 years of bloodshed to reclaim this land, and he assures us that they have no such hidden agenda in doing so. So Nazareth therefore MUST be real. Pro then cites Wikki, which is NOT a valid source because anybody can post their opinions about history on the Wikki.

Pro believes I have discredited his Richard Bauckham for writing children"s books. Funny I only remember stating that Richard Bauckham agreed with my sources concerning the lack contemporaries of Jesus. Pro doesn"t seem to want to address this however.
Pro quotes con and then makes the statement: {"Con should explain this, "If your bible was just re-written and changed as you claim, then how is this preserving it? You have conceded this point, was this your intent?"

I would like to know how rewriting scripture does not preserve it? How else would you preserve it when paper and ink, fade and deteriate."}
To answer Pro, re-writing it is changing what was written. Having just copied it as it was written is to preserve it is not changing it, you see the difference now? Pro is either deceived by his own grammar or is confused why his faith re-wrote the bible.

Pro goes to water about "his" invalid sources and tries to reason that these invalid sources are claiming there are contemporaries to Jesus when all of them merely repeat what I"ve been saying all alone. No, no there are ZERO contemporaries concerning Jesus. I would be very surprised in this great big wide world with a superstitious 2000 year old claim if you could NOT find other believers. The trouble is they seem have no more of an idea why they believe than you do, and as they believe without evidence or contemporaries of Jesus, SO DO YOU!
With that said, I have some time and space to provide valid, academically sound, fully accredited opinions about Jesus existence but since Pro hasn"t met his burden of proof concerning Jesus. I will move on and provide some evidence showing God is a fraud and never really existed according to Pre Jewish biblical writings. Maybe this is the very reason Pro doesn"t want me to address the O/T?

God of the O/T is really spelled god"s in the plural tense and remained so until Christian "re-wrote god"s inerrant word. This was NOT a misinterpretation/miss translation, nowhere in the older scriptures does any sort of a god with the name God appear. Can you say polytheists? The God who was really god"s with many names, had many names because there were many god"s. Yahweh being one of them I remember correctly, and he seem to have a taste for human sacrifice. So if the father of Jesus is a fake""""""""""? by Isla Carroll and Percy E. Turner Professor of Biblical Studies at Rice University.
This blog site has an accredited professor who is studying early Christian/Jewish polytheism. She references, sources and quotes a fully accredited series of studies that is summarized neatly on this blog.
Here is a small taste of what lays ahead in this blog.

Here's my quick take on Wrong's question. It is undeniable in my opinion that Judaism and Christianity before Nicaea were not monotheistic religions (as we define it today). In fact, one can question whether Christianity ever really became monotheistic - all depends on how convinced you are that the doctrine of the Trinity actually resolves the polytheism of a Father and Son being worshiped. Of course there is absolute resistance to this idea, especially among scholars who want early Judaism and Christianity to be monotheistic. So they have come up with all kinds of ways to contort the sources and their readings of them to make it look otherwise, including playing the heresy card.
This professor doesn"t completely agree with the why, but the who, what, where and when remain unscathed, it makes for a great and quick read. Unless you cannot stand to see the god of the bible laying at your feet shaking in his death throes.

Pro, the floor is yours, please don"t mind the dead body". clean up on aisle 3, can we get an associate on aisle 3 please?


Con I am not under fire because you have not provided any evidence. Simply making accusations does not equal evidence. Not once has my reasoning or evidence came under fire. See, Con has simply thrown baseballs through my window but my arguments foundation still stands strong. Con says I am offering conjecture, well, let's look at what I have offered.

C1) Historical Relevance

I offered evidence that showed the Bible has found nations that modern science did not believe existed. The Bible has influenced our beliefs and laws. That Christianity is based on real historical events involving real people. I verified the authenticity of the New Testament and the KJV and the King James text are massively more consistent. The New Testament is considered 99.5% pure. The only objection Con brings up is translation. Con never gives us evidence that the Bible has had changes, what those changes are, and what resulted from those changes. This contention has been addressed like baseballs in the window. Con drops his assertion about the Hebrew OT, the Zohar, and he blatantly denies that Nazareth exist after multiple sources have shown it did and does. He still has not shown that Nazareth did not exist, he simply asserts it. He has not addressed any of the evidence that the NT is a very accurate document. Con has not refuted this contention.

C2) Christian Teachings

I have shown that in the New Testament, there are many precepts that call us to be Christ like. Con has not shown us why we should not live Christ like. Con still has not addressed my remarks on Christian doctrine. Therefore, this contention stands.

C3) Validly of Jesus

I have shown prophecies of Jesus that were given in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New, Con has not addressed this. I have offered contemporaries from Jesus time with multiple historical sources that remarked on Jesus Christ. Not to mention the numerous sources within the Bible itself as contemporaries. Should we deny academic studies of the Bible and its authencity?


Con has not shown that any information I have provided is incorrect, he has just claimed it is. Con I am calling Bona fide sound on Christianity not you. Cons tactics in this debate and his ignoring of the contentions I've presented is shameful. He clearly wants to bash Christianity without any logical reasoning or evidence. He thinks we should just accept what he says because he says it. Con has not shown one time that the KJV corrected the original text. Now, translating text is not correcting them, correcting is changing teachings from the original. Con has not shown that the KJV has done this. Con claims that because Christianity has different types of Bibles we should reject all of Christianity. Well, Con has not shown us that these Bibles are any different from each other, or they have different wording, or teaching, or belief system. Con must show the doctrine of Christianity is wrong or the Bible I am using is wrong, he has not done that. I established which Bible we are using but even if I did not we can research scripture and interpreted it, as I have claimed the interpretation is upon the person reading it. We have not addressed any Biblical doctrine in this debate. Perhaps instead of debating topics as these Con should take up talking to a brick wall because that seems to be what I am doing here.

I quote Con quoting himself about Richard Bauckham, "I quote "You can also read some of my poetry, and two story books written for children (adults also enjoy them) about the MacBears of Bearloch." Thanks Richard, but no thanks, we good?" Then Con says this round, "Funny I only remember stating that Richard Bauckham agreed with my sources concerning the lack contemporaries of Jesus." Therefore, Con cannot go back and read what he posted to know what he said, sad really. Then he acts like I did not address what he said about Richard Bauckman. Con says that re-writing changes what is written and this could be true, but it also could not be true. People can write exactly what was written previously. Con has not shown that the KJV has changed from the text it was copied from. We see Con had no time to provide us with valid, academically sound, fully accredited opinions about Jesus existence because he couldn't.

Con says that God was worded in plural in the OT and that Christians changed it. Well, the name for God in Hebrew was Elohim and is both plural and singular. On top of the fact that God gave His name as YHWH which is a single individual and not a multiplicity of gods or personalities and is consistent with what we find throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Con never shows us that the Biblical God suggests human sacrifice. Cons own source Isla Carroll says, "Hebrews worshiped one god but allowed for the existence of other gods", I do not object to that. The fact that the Bible mentions YHWH more than any other form of God or name for God in the Bible makes it clear by Con's own source that they worshipped one God- YHWH. Con then tries to be funny by suggesting this evidence leaves God laying on the floor at my feet. His source agrees with me and then rejects that YHWH was mentioned as the God of Israel, showing they were Monotheistic. They did not have to deny other entities existing but only must have worshipped one God to be monotheistic. The four Hebrew consonants that comprise YHWH are given in Scripture as God's holy Covenant name, and it is this form of His name that is the most frequently used in the Bible (about 6,800 times).

Hopefully Con will provide us with some real evidence and rebuttals next round. Con must negate the resolution and my contentions, he has not done that. Back to Con.

Debate Round No. 4


AbnerGrimm,Pro posts. ["Not once has my reasoning or evidence came under fire. See, Con has simply thrown baseballs through my window but my arguments foundation still stands strong]
Pro went to Disneyland, there he found others that enjoy the same fantasy rides. Pro and his friends at Disneyland are pious over all "others" at Disneyland. They are pious because of they have RE-written the brochure from Disneyland. Other groups at Disneyland disagree with Pro, and they make the same claim of piousness because they re-wrote their brochures. Now Pro claims this proves his case? Pro now faults Con for the majority consensus of Disneyland and states their burden of proof is now mine in proving he isn"t right? The irony being that he now cites and sources them claiming what they believe is evidence? The trouble here is that Pro is using two related fallacies in reasoning (switching back and forth between them as it suits him) The first is. "argumentum ad populum", Pro is asserting what would sounds good in is limited beliefs to appeal to the whole of the Christian audience (an appeal to the audience). Then Pro cuts bait and insists he is right because of the numbers of believers that believe as he does, and then he uses them a sources? This is known as a argumentum ad numerum This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct
Historical relevance:
Con quotes Pro: "The New Testament is considered 99.5% pure." Pro RETREATS from the inerrant word of god to god only makes.5 percent mistakes but is otherwise inerrant? Wow, an almost all knowing almost all powerful god? I doubt very much that Pro would fly in a "Jet Airliner" that was missing .5 percent of its rivets. Let me take this one step further: If the blueprint and manuals of this Jet Airliner were .5 percent in error, then we would have to rename this Jet airliner, it would have to be called a paperweight because it would never move, let alone fly, just like Pros sources and claims.
Pro offers several straw men to define Con"s position. Cons ONLY position is to critique, to point out variables, inconsistencies and errors (BS if you will). Pro admits god and his word is flawed and is now clearly upset at me. Pro concedes that gods" inerrant word is flawed, even if he only concedes the error is .5 percent. Resolution, god and his almost inerrant word are almost "god like" coming in just short of being a real God however therefore BS.

Christian teachings are irrelevant to Pros context at this point. I will only offer a short response to Pros post. I count 1127 acts and or justifications for evil in the bible, I count about 224 accounts of love, and even some of these are sketchy at best. To profess the bible is a book of good is to ignore the greater bulk that makes up the bible is in error as well. How many did you count Pro? Some more points about Christians teachings, Jesus clearly thought the world was fat, fixed, Satan didn"t seem to know the difference either and apologetics note this as well, big deal.

Validity of Jesus.
Pro insists he provided contemporaries of Jesus, he has not. Pro insists his sources listed contemporaries of Jesus, they have not. Pro insists that scholars have done likewise, but I"ve shown that scholars merely agree there are no contemporaries of Jesus. Pro uses no quotes, his sources are invalid, unaccredited and lack every academic standard the world holds to. Pro is unaware of what makes up a valid source having reoffered a travel agency and an organization that is attuned to uphold the Israeli National claim of its lands.
There no historical contemporaries of Jesus, I call BS.
Why a historical Jesus never existed
There is no contemporary historical record of any kind of Jesus!! No written Roman, Greek or Jewish sources from this time (apart from the gospels) know of any historical Jesus or Christ. The name "Christ" is mentioned in some later texts (Tacitus, Suetonius Pliny d.y.) but then merely as the name of the idol of the Christians' worship (Read what these sources really say here). "We don't even know who the writers of the Gospels were, and don't have the original manuscripts themselves either. We just have later copies of copies of copies of copies " of copies of the assumed lost originals. And with each copy the copyist usually felt free to alter details or rewrite whole parts of the manuscript. (We usually don't trust dubious anonymous sources as evidence for anything, do we?)"

This is when Christians often throw out names of non-Christian writers who they claim wrote about Jesus like: Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian of Samosata, among others. First, most of those writers didn"t write very much at all about Jesus. Many talk about someone called "Christ." Christians assume this refers to Jesus, but there have been many people during that time and in other times who claimed to be "the Christ." But what I find more interesting is that none of those writers were contemporaries to Jesus who was alleged to have been crucified in the year 33 CE:

Josephus (37 CE " c. 100 CE)

Tacitus (56 CE " 117 CE)

Pliny the Younger (61 CE " c. 112 CE)

Lucian of Samosata (125 CE " after 180 CE)

Here are some writers who would have been contemporaries of Jesus and interestingly enough never mentioned him at all despite the Gospel claim that he was known far and wide:

Philo Judaeus (20 BCE - 50 CE)

Seneca (4? BCE - 65 CE)

Pliny the Elder (23? CE - 79 CE)

Turns out to be, none of the historians in question were contemporaries of Christ .
Even Christian apologetics sites disagree with Pro claims. There are other historians who have written about this. However, the problem with most of them is that they were not contemporaries of Jesus.
It is impossible to explain why the contemporaries of Jesus, the authors and historians of his time, do not take notice of him. < Auh, no it not imposable, the probability is that Jesus never existed! Nevertheless, Jesus has no contemporaries.
I have indeed sourced and cited the academic world telling us Jesus had no contemporaries. I have sourced and cited the unaccredited theist world admitting there are no contemporaries of Jesus. I have sourced and cited the accredited theistic world admitting there are no contemporaries of Jesus. Pro whimpering about evidence is now laid to rest. But I remind the audience that Pros" sources contain NO evidence and what was offered was invalid making my Pros complaints MOOT to begin with!
Pros" Travel Agency does NOT provide evidence of Jesus any more than it does with it trips to see Bigfoot, the Lock Ness monsters, leprechauns, Martians and so on. What does the scholarly world say about Jesus?

God"s name.

Pro plays a game semantics that simply does not apply while ignoring the historical and archeological content claiming it isn"t flattering to his beliefs, and therefore not true. Pro argues that the accredited Professors and Universities I cited got it wrong. Pro has no academic stature, no accreditations, no support and no clue to what he is talking about (example a perfect god with only .5 percent errors). Pro closes with the contention that the bible that came after the original works and therefore MUST be inerrant. I am sure there is no esoteric religious bias at play here at all. : )
Pros" god is the god of apologies, whether his version represents the "core" of Christianity or not is up to you.
I turn it back over to Pro for some more + or - .5 percent based apologetics.


AbnerGrimm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
The nail that sticks out get hammered, now if you could have only come up with a cross.
Posted by AbnerGrimm 3 years ago
The hammer
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
In all fairness to Grimm, I would never have brought this up even if I didn't understand his post. I figure everybody is entitled to a bad day. But because you were bring it up in the comments section, I posted about it anyway. Well that and because Grimm says he can destroy my world... : )
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
Posting with a phone app sucks ,LOL But to honest if I am busy and if I lose interest I will only spend about 5 or 10 minutes to post. One with such horrible typing skills (such as myself) should be allowed to be near a keyboard when this happens. : )
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
English version:

Chase, although you are still a Class A twat, its good to see you make something of an effort this time - as in your last round.

The difference in approach was telling.
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
Chase, although you are still a Class A twat, its goodo see you make so etching of an effort this time - as in your last round.

The difference in approach was telling.
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
Grimm>When you have the ego to debate then please send me a challenge. If you can figure out how to do that.

Chase>PS: Piousness aside, your sentence doesn"t really make much sense here, perhaps you could try again
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
Dann 14 hours ago

No,the reason god sounds like an idiot to you is because nothing makes sense to an idiot - that's why they're idiots.

And you're one of them.

LMAO!!!!!! "Dorkness under-da-hood in Camelot with New York State with Spiderman. " and if this sounds idiotically, then it is because you are and idiot and nothing makes sense to you"LMAFAO!!!!!!
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
Grimm I don't have to comment on his ego, but his ethical practices are already better than yours.
Posted by AbnerGrimm 3 years ago
When you have the ego to debate then please send me a challenge. If you can figure out how to do that.
No votes have been placed for this debate.