The Instigator
IQok
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
A341
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is Jesus the son of God???

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 750 times Debate No: 49638
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

IQok

Pro

I am Pro so I believe Jesus is the son of God. Con will be making the argument that Jesus is not the son of God.

Round 1 will be for accepting the debate.
Round 2 will begin the arguments.
A341

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
IQok

Pro

In Mark 12:1-6, Jesus thought that while the prophets, even the greatest of them, were servants, He was a Son, an only Son. In John 5:22-23, He taught that all men should honor Him even as they honor the Father. In John 14:9, he went so far as to say, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." Men hated Him for making this claim to be the Son of God; they put Him to death for making this claim (Matthew 26:63-66). However, before they put Him to death, He told them that God would set His seal on the claim by raising Him from the dead. (See John 2:19.) It was a stupendous claim to make; it was an apparently absurd claim, but God did set His seal on it by raising Jesus from the dead. By doing this, God Himself has spoken more clearly than if He spoke from the open heavens today, "This Man is what He claims to be. He is My Son. All men should honor Him even as they honor the father."

To summarize the first point, Jesus Christ proved Himself to be the Son of God by the claim he made to be the Son of God and by the way in which He substantiated that claim by His resurrection from the dead which was witnessed by several individuals and documented accordingly.

Second, He substantiated His claim by His character, by its beauty and strength and nobility. The character of Jesus Christ is nearly universally acknowledged. Jews nowadays acknowledge it. Even the most notorious infidels have admitted it. Robert Green Ingersoll once said, "I wish to say once and for all, to that great and serene Man I gladly pay the homage of my admiration and my tears." But here is this Man, whom all admit to be a good man, a man of honor and truth and nobility, claiming to be the Son of God. Certainly a Man of such character was what He claimed to be.

Third, He substantiated His claim by the miracles that He performed. Herculean efforts have been put forth to discredit the Gospel accounts of Christ's miracles, but these efforts have all resulted in utter failure. He substantiated His claim by His influence on the history of the world. No argument is needed to prove that Christ's influence on the history of the world has done immeasurably more good than any other man who ever lived. It would be foolish to compare His influence on individual life, domestic life, social life, industrial life, and political life with that of any other man, or that of all men put together. Now, if Jesus Christ was not divine, as He claimed to be, He was a blasphemer and an imposter or else a lunatic. It is easy to see that His influence on history is not that of a lunatic or a blasphemer and an imposter. Then, certainly, he must have been the Son of God, as he claimed.

Fourth, I would prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God by pointing to the fact that he possesses divine power today. It is not necessary to go back to the miracles that Christ performed when He was on earth to prove that He has divine power. He exercises that power today, as anyone can test it. There are two major ways in which His power is demonstrated today:
In the first place He has the power to forgive sins. Thousands can testify that they came to Christ burdened with a terrible sense of guilt and that he has actually given their guilty consciences peace, absolute peace.
A341

Con

Circular argument

Almost your entire argument is based using the bible to prove that the bible is correct, I would like to point out that there is no independent verification of the acts Yahshua allegedly performed.

Yahshua never existed

While most people do accept Yahshua existed I do not, there are (as far as I have seen) no accounts of his existence from his lifetime, the first independent account comes from the historian Tacitus in 90 AD. 60 years after Yahshua was supposed to exist. That is not a contemporary account and probably not even within the lifetime of any of Yahshua's disciples (considering that they would probably be around 90). The information in Tacitus's account probably came from the Gnostic faith who worshiped Yahshua decades (at least) before the Christians.

Yahshua's influence

"No argument is needed to prove that Christ's influence on the history of the world has done immeasurably more good than any other man who ever lived."

True, if Yahshua did exist he has had a massive effect on history, a massively negative one. The church has been a catalyst for almost all of the horrors that plague humanity, it has been a retardant for science and reason, preventing any inquiry that challenged the church (from Galileo to Darwin), it has provided a justification for genocide from the sacking of Jerusalem to the holocaust, it has caused the largest spike in intolerance ever, causing homophobia, racism and bigotry towards other religions.

Furthermore would you say that Mohammad was a prophet or a lunatic. You defend Yahshua's divinity with:
"He was a blasphemer and an imposter or else a lunatic. It is easy to see that His influence on history is not that of a lunatic or a blasphemer and an imposter. Then, certainly, he must have been the Son of God, as he claimed."
But that applies equally to Mohammad if not more. Mohammad was the founder of either the biggest or the second biggest religion in today's world (depending on whether or not you group Catholicism in with the rest of Christianity) and within a few generations of his lifetime Muslim armies occupied cities from Spain to Persia.

Similar arguments could be applied to Adolf Hitler or Joseph Smith but I think the example of Mohammad works best. Simply basing the truth of an argument on how well it propagates itself doesn't work. This is explained best by the almost tautological idea that ideas that propagate themselves most effectively have the widest following.

Personal Testomony

"Thousands can testify that they came to Christ burdened with a terrible sense of guilt and that he has actually given their guilty consciences peace, absolute peace."

Very similar feelings are felt and recorded by millions of Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and any other religion you can name.

Further more those who call themselves born again are themselves divided into several mutually exclusive cults within Christianity. Why should I discount the millions with different views to you who claim their sins are forgiven and listen to you?

A Note on Academic Credibility

I would like to thank the writers over at Konig.org for that article, before I get into anything I would like state that under fair use I am allowed to criticize copyrighted material and quote it for the purposes of that criticism [1]. You however are not allowed to pass of another's work as your own and as a result are liable a breach of US copyright law. Take this as a warning for the future.

I would like to thank @DocG84 for alerting me to @IQok's lack of credibility.

@IQok copied his entire argument from [2], here is a quick comparison of @IQok's argument and the article from Konig.org:

"To summarize the first point, Jesus Christ proved Himself to be the Son of God by the claim he made to be the Son of God and by the way in which He substantiated that claim by His resurrection from the dead." [2]

"To summarize the first point, Jesus Christ proved Himself to be the Son of God by the claim he made to be the Son of God and by the way in which He substantiated that claim by His resurrection from the dead which was witnessed by several individuals and documented accordingly." -@IQok's

[1] http://www.copyright.gov...

[2] http://www.konig.org...
Debate Round No. 2
IQok

Pro

IQok forfeited this round.
A341

Con

My opponent appears to have deleted his account after he was confronted with possible copyright infringement.
Debate Round No. 3
IQok

Pro

IQok forfeited this round.
A341

Con

A341 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
IQok

Pro

IQok forfeited this round.
A341

Con

A341 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
There only appears to be a higher probability that he did exist, as it appears that there was some woman named Mary who was seduced/raped by said soldier, which was recorded at the time that Jesus was supposedly alive and the other thing that there existed at least one brother who vouched for his existence, yet Mary disappeared off the scene after the so called resurrection event, maybe she did not believe in it and realized these events all came from her filling Jesus with lies about his origins since he was born.

Though he was apparently well educated in Judaic mythology so took it upon himself to deliberately make himself appear to be the Messiah, which for him would have been quite easy, simply find a donkey and ride it into town, alas, suddenly they have a Messiah.
The teachings of Jesus were from Buddhism, so essentially he was a person who introduced Buddhist humanism into Judaism.
That is his only claim to fame if he did exist.
Posted by A341 3 years ago
A341
@Sagey I am still not convinced a historical Jesus existed.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Actually, that source concerning the Roman Soldier who raped/dated Mary and got her pregnant with Jesus is now from a more reliable source, in fact more reliable sources than the writings of St. Paul or the Gospels, since the source comes from a person who actually lived in the time of Jesus Christ.
Apparently that soldier raped and seduced quite a lot of women during the time he occupied the region where Mary lived. According to this source Mary was charged with adultery, but was not executed as many others were. Interesting stuff, ancient history.

Though of course, Christians have always denied these writings that existed at around the same time as Jesus for obvious reasons.
Because it bursts their delusional bubble!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I could provide many sources for my last post, but that would be biasing the debate.

You can find them for yourselves easily enough.

I even have 1 Jewish source that names the Roman Soldier that was likely the father of Jesus, but that source is suspect.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Jesus was infinitely more likely the Son of a Roman Soldier.
As at the time Jesus was born, there were many women claiming divine virgin pregnancies, as to be a pregnant out of wedlock was a stoning offense and if you were raped or dated the much hated Roman soldiers, you would also be stoned to death.

So many women made such claims as virgin pregnancies and from bathing in the same water that men used. Such was biological knowledge then, almost non existent.
Mary was just one of many claiming such from having been seduced or raped by Roman soldiers.
Mary was just a very good fibber and convinced Joseph and later when Jesus was born, convinced him as well.

It's amazing what tales came out of times when women had to tell massive lies, just to stay alive.
Had she not been a good liar, she would have been stoned to death like many of the others.
Posted by A341 3 years ago
A341
@DocG84 Thank you, I should have thought to check that. Though to be fair it is the strength of the arguments and his ability to defend them that matter.
Posted by DocG84 3 years ago
DocG84
http://www.konig.org...

Where the Pro copied and pasted from...
No votes have been placed for this debate.