It's more logical to believe in the Resurrection of Christ Jesus of Nazareth
Debate Rounds (5)
So, therefore, if Jesus was a liar, He would not have resurrected. In it, the disciples all doubted Jesus after the crucifixion and were doubting Him(Sorry, don't have the verses for it, but I know I read it). Jesus must have Resurrected and showed Himself to them, or else why would they be martyred?
Peter, Andrew, Bartholomew, Philip, James, Simon-Crucified
Thomas(the logical one)-Speared
John was the only natural death.
If the other disciples knew that the Resurrection was a lie, even after Jesus told them it would happen, then why would they die?
This same thing goes with lunatic, except, if He was a lunatic, then how did He have such wise sayings? Plus, the prophecies of going with Him are 10 to the fortieth power!
Just 8 of them would be covering 2 feet high of silver dollars in an area the size of Texas, going up to one of them, and on the first one, it being a marked one(red X). Thats not even the full thing!
Now, may my opponent answer wisely and smart.
Either way, before we delve into the specifics, you first need to prove or provide adequate evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Because it isn't logical to believe in the resurrection of something that doesn't exist.
Also, even if some of the new testament events are true, that does not by any means prove the other ones. That would be like saying that the absence of evidence for all the miracles in the old testament, (like the creation of the earth by how Genesis describes and Noah's flood) proves that the rest of them never happened.
Now for evidence that He existed.
Roman Tacitus, an accurate historian of the ancient world, acknowledged superstitious Christians, who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.
Suetonius, the chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian wrote that there is a man named Christ who lived in the first century (Annals 15.44)
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote a book called Antiquities, in which in a part of it(18:3) it says
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." Another version says, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
Plus, wouldn't the Jews have just said that He didn't if He didn't? They acknowledged His existence, while blaspheming Him, but nonetheless acknowledged Him.
BTW, do you not believe in the disciples and Jesus, just Jesus, or what? Who do you think He was made up by, along with His disciples?
The examples you gave of historians, were they alive during the time of jesus's life or after? And are they 1st hand witnesses of jesus or not? The quote you gave didn't actually contain any evidence to persuade me, it was just another testimony that any religious person I know could've told me. Also, about the jewish historian you quoted, many scholars believe his words to have been modified by most likely, Eusebius or another church father. That stuff he wrote was written after the gospels and could be hearsay.
So again, answering your last question, I do believe that jesus was made up. Here's why:
1. Jesus NEVER wrote anything.
2. The savior of the world being sent to the most superstitious, illiterate part of the world doesn't make sense, that's illogical when he could've been born in China instead where they already could write and read much better. And it is also illogical for a normal guy to be resurrected like that.
3. There is NO mention of a miracle working Jesus in Secular sources.
4. The story of Jesus copies other stories and includes unoriginal ideas like virgin birth and resurrection after 3 days.
5. The earliest writings of Jesus contain no details about his life.
6. The bible and writings of Jesus have been translated and altered many times over time.
And there are some more....
2. The prophecies said from the house of David, in the the city of Bethlehem.
3. Because of the Pharisees and others, plus the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 would have killed eye witnesses.
4. The Judaism religion was here long before all other religions, at least in all the senses, the actual start was with Abraham and the covenant, and Judaism predicts these things.
5. So? This doesn't prove much, however I do understand where you are going. There is one verse, however, that is when He was 12, and it just says he asked questions and gained wisdom when His parents forgot Him cuz He wandered off
6. Nope, its about 98% accurate, we have alternate sources for the Bible as well.
2. That doesn't counter my point at all.... just because they said so doesn't make it logical, and that is what we are discussing.
3. Excuses? My argument still stands. AND there are no writings about Jesus written while he was alive.... isn't that odd?
4. And it was still copied, the virgin birth, resurrection after 3 days thingies, those aren't original at all.
5. The point was that the lack of knowledge about him during this period of his life suggests his non-existence. All of the details were filled in later and not confirmed by the earlier writings.
6. 98% accurate? How do you know that? And as covered in my number 3, you have no unbiased sources other than the bible.
knux3k forfeited this round.
Oltex forfeited this round.
knux3k forfeited this round.
Oltex forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.