The Instigator
PowerPikachu21
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Jesus Christ doesn't exist

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 2 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 829 times Debate No: 84250
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

PowerPikachu21

Pro

I argue it isn't reasonable to assume Jesus exists.

Rules:

1. No trolling, kritiks, semantics, etc.
2. No new arguments in the final round.
3. Con is allowed to start his/her arguments round 1 if he/she wishes to.
4. BoP will be shared.

With this, who accepts?
Wylted

Con

The only chance you stand is if you run some sort of stupid solipsist argument. So have at it, buddy
Debate Round No. 1
PowerPikachu21

Pro

I thank Wylted for accepting this debate. And no, I wasn't going to suggest a solipsism argument.

Argument:

P1: In order to prove Jesus's existence, we need proof.
P2: The Bible is said to be the word of God/Christ.
C1: Therefore, I need to disprove that the Bible is God's word.

We're not sure if the Christian God does exist, but the following can be used to cast doubt:

1; Many people are Christian, so why aren't their prayers to God answered?
2; What ways can we use to reach out to God, and does it require belief?
3; Is there even proof of the Christian God existing?

Con must show reason to believe in Christ, or the Christian God. With that, what is Con's argument?
Wylted

Con

This debate is over the existence of Jesus and not the divinity of Jesus, my opponent agrees to this point in the comments. However despite agreeing to this point he fails to argue anything even related to the existence of Jesus. Let's examine a few conclusions.

"C1: Therefore, I need to disprove that the Bible is God's word."

This isn't really true. The bible being God's word or not is completely irrelevant when examining whether the person now known as Jesus existed. Most people would agree that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God, but you'll find very few who deny the existence of Joseph Smith.

"Con must show reason to believe in Christ, or the Christian God. With that, what is Con's argument?"

Not true. I must merely show that the person referred to as Jesus Christ, actually existed. As the resolution makes clear and my opponent clarifies in the comments, the existence of Jesus, and not the divinity is what's in question.

THE WITNESSES

We have several pieces of evidence which act as a witness to a living breathing historical Jesus. There must be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question [1]. The bible meets this criteria as well. It has the 2 original sources for the gospels Q and Mark as well as the historian Josephus, the Apostle Paul, and the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Josephus

Josephus was a historian who documented the Jews at the time. He documented the existence of Jesus in "the antiquities of the Jews book 18 3:3. [2]

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,[9] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[10] as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"

Now at the time, a group of Christians were the keepers of the works of Josephus and based on the fact that it wasn't uncommon for somebody to add a little to ancient documents like this and that Josephus died a traditional Jew and was never converted to Christianity we know that a lot of this verse is just forged. Most scholars do agree that there was an original authentic nucleus to this writing from Josephus. [3]

The original nucleus is typically agreed to mention Jesus's name and the crucifixion and not much else.[4] This verse also helps the later verse I'm about to mention ("the aforementioned Christ") make sense where it probably wouldn't of without a reference to it. [5]

"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[6] (antiquities book 20 9:1)

Tacitus

A roman historian also happens to mention the crucifixion of Jesus in his final work "The Annals".

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, [7] [Annals book 15 chapter 44)

Historians consider this source to be completely reliable and excellent in the fact that it is an outside source as well. [8] The verse refers to Christians as "abominations" and speaks in a very negative tone about them. This is not really something a Christian scribe would write in the book.

Q and Mark

The gospel of Q and Mark which all the gospels are written from using that as source material are accounts trustworthy as indicators of the existence of Jesus Christ. You can tell they were being honest about him existing for a number of reasons. Most importantly is the embarrassment factor which is something historians look for in determining reliability of a text. [9]

The church would have incentive to cover up the embarrassment factor and you can actually see this with the gospels written later then Mark where Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit when it wasn't in season was left out (Mark 11:12), Or Jesus's first failed attempt at healing a blind man which makes him have to attempt it again (Mark 8:28). In the gospel of Mark John the Baptist, baptizes Jesus but the later gospels eliminate John the Baptist from the picture or the Baptism or try to down play his role.

If this document was a work of fiction, this god man wouldn't have these personal flaws.

The gospel of Mark says Jesus is from Nazareth but the church was embarrassed for him to be from that city and later on changed it to Bethlehem.

Paul's Epistles

Paul's letters are written between 40 AD and 50 AD.[10]

These are probably the earliest Christian writings you'll find. The Epistle Paul knew Jesus's family. He talks of Jesus's birth and resurrection offhand and mentions encounters with Jesus's brother James. It's pretty unlikely that Paul would lie about this because his audience would have known of James and knew he was lying and not to mention these encounters with Jesus's brother really didn't go too well.

Here are some verses by Paul which refer to Jesus as a flesh and blood man.

""Jesus was born in human fashion, as a Jew, and had a ministry to the Jews. (Galatians 4:4)
"Jesus was referred to as "Son of God". (1 Cor. 1:9)
"Jesus was a direct descendent of King David. (Romans 1:3)
"Jesus prayed to God using the term "abba". (Galatians 4:6)
"Jesus expressly forbid divorce. (1 Cor. 7:10)
"Jesus taught that "preachers" should be paid for their preaching. (1
Cor. 9:14) "Jesus taught about the end-time. (1 Thess. 4:15)
http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
PowerPikachu21

Pro

I thank Wylted for his argument. I will now begin my rebuttal.

Rebuttal:

Josephus;

"Josephus died a traditional Jew and was never converted to Christianity we know that a lot of this verse is just forged." So does this mean Josephus didn't actually see Jesus? If he didn't witness Jesus Christ, then he can't be used as evidence proving Jesus does exist.

"This verse also helps the later verse I'm about to mention make sense where it probably wouldn't of without a reference to it." Okay... and that verse is...? "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" So Jesus had a brother. Can you show me James, and have him say "Yes, I am Jesus's brother". And if that was the verse you were talking about, how does that even link to the first quote?

Tacitus;

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty" He suffered a penalty? Where's your source? If he did exist, then he could be penalized. But as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't exist, and cannot get penalized.

"Historians consider this source to be completely reliable and excellent in the fact that it is an outside source as well." Can I see the source, as well as explained to me how it is reliable? Again, a non-existent person cannot be punished. You can pretend a non-existent person has been punished, however. I need to know if Jesus truly was punished, and it's not being made up.

Q and Mark;

"If this document was a work of fiction, this god man wouldn't have these personal flaws." Is there evidence of Jesus having impacts, though? A non-existent man can't have flaws, but you can pretend a non-existent man has flaws, and I think that's what the gospel is doing; pretending Jesus exists, and having flaws.

Paul's Epistles;

Hmmm... It is true someone would catch James on lying, however, what is James never existed in the first place? Assuming James isn't real, someone else made him up; perhaps a group of Christians. If James is to be evidence, Con needs to show he does in fact exist! Yeah, those people may get caught lying, but it's religion!

Sources;

Sources 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 aren't linked. It would be helpful if they were, though.

And with that, I hand this over to Wylted. Good luck!
Wylted

Con

There is no excuse for how horrible my opponent's arguments are. The sheer stupidness of the arguments indicate he's trolling and should have conduct points taken away. I'll do what I typically Do when frustrated with incompetence, and take this point by point.

"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" So Jesus had a brother. Can you show me James, and have him say "Yes, I am Jesus's brother". And if that was the verse you were talking about, how does that even link to the first quote?"

The first quote mentions Jesus dying on a cross, the second quote mentions the name Jesus without the first quote the second one is silly because it refers to Jesus who wasn't introduced. I really don't know if I can dumb it down any further. You're asking a question that has already been answered.

Also, No I can not show you James and have him say that he is Jesus's brother, because James is dead, nor would it even be useful to do so, because the debate isn't about whether he is actually his brother, but about the existence of Jesus.

" Can I see the source, as well as explained to me how it is reliable? Again, a non-existent person cannot be punished. You can pretend a non-existent person has been punished, however. I need to know if Jesus truly was punished, and it's not being made up."

The source is in the debate I linked to and named as a source. All sources are easily accounted for. I guess you could pretend a non existent person got punished. Anything is possible, try applying Occam's Razor and recognize the importance of multiple witnesses. Also recognize the fact that Tacitus wrote about numerous historical events and is a reliable contemporary historian. Is it possible that you'll win the lottery tomorrow, sure, but saying that something has a chance of not being true is stupid, and not even a rebuttal. I've provided reasons to believe this is true, and my opponent needs to provide a real rebuttal as opposed to pointing out that a possibility may exist where this historian is accurately recording every historical event he encounters, but decided to play a joke by recording something about a man from a religion he doesn't even believe just to screw with future generations who may or may not even get the joke because the small cult surrounding this guy fades into oblivion.

"Is there evidence of Jesus having impacts, though? A non-existent man can't have flaws, but you can pretend a non-existent man has flaws, and I think that's what the gospel is doing; pretending Jesus exists, and having flaws."

Did you even read what I said about this. This is literally the kind of stupidity that makes me tempted just to randomly quit this debate, so I don't stoop to the level of my opponent. Here is what I said, genius.

"Most importantly is the embarrassment factor which is something historians look for in determining reliability of a text. [9]

The church would have incentive to cover up the embarrassment factor and you can actually see this with the gospels written later then Mark where Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit when it wasn't in season was left out (Mark 11:12), Or Jesus's first failed attempt at healing a blind man which makes him have to attempt it again (Mark 8:28). In the gospel of Mark John the Baptist, baptizes Jesus but the later gospels eliminate John the Baptist from the picture or the Baptism or try to down play his role."

The embarrassment factor is important because it shows these people giving their God very human flaws when his godliness is more believable and less embarrassing if he were perfect. Please take the time to actually address the premises, and perhaps work on your reading comprehension skills.

"Hmmm... It is true someone would catch James on lying, however, what is James never existed in the first place? Assuming James isn't real, someone else made him up; perhaps a group of Christians. If James is to be evidence, Con needs to show he does in fact exist! Yeah, those people may get caught lying, but it's religion!"

Paul was likely still alive when he wrote his books. I guess it's possible that he lied, like it's possible my mom is lying about actually being my mom, but it's a stupid thing to believe and not the product of using Occam's Razor. Not to mention that I provided within my argument the responses to all his stupid questions.

Also I provided the sources by linking to the debate I copy and pasted my argument from, which has the sources in it.
Debate Round No. 3
PowerPikachu21

Pro

I honestly didn't expect my opponent to insult me like that. Anyways, I will defend my case as needed.

Defense:

Josephus;

"No I can not show you James and have him say that he is Jesus's brother, because James is dead, nor would it even be useful to do so, because the debate isn't about whether he is actually his brother, but about the existence of Jesus." But if James did exist, and was Jesus's brother, that would mean Jesus had to exist.

Tacticus;

"Anything is possible, try applying Occam's Razor and recognize the importance of multiple witnesses." True, we have witnesses, but I question their reliability. I hope my opponent doesn't expect me to just concede, because I don't go down easy.

"Also recognize the fact that Tacitus wrote about numerous historical events and is a reliable contemporary historian." The source you linked was deleted, so I can't trust the reliability of this particular one. I want real proof. Sure, Tacticus is reliable, but Jesus is famous for Christians, so he could have made it up for the sake of the religion.

[And I know the sources are in the debate you linked. I didn't list ALL sources, just the ones which don't lead to a website.]

Q and Mark;

Con just avoids my point. There isn't solid proof of Jesus existing. Q and Mark being no different. Upon researching the quotes Cons using, it came from the bible. [http://atheism.about.com...] Yes, Jesus had flaws, but did he exist? The bible is for religious purposes, and does little to provide solid evidence of Jesus's existence, even if he "had flaws".

Paul's Epistles;

"I guess it's possible that he lied, like it's possible my mom is lying about actually being my mom, but it's a stupid thing to believe and not the product of using Occam's Razor." That doesn't change the fact that Paul could have been lying instead of James (a bit too late, though).

I hand the debate to Con. (Yeah, I don't have evidence against Jesus.)
Wylted

Con

I have no patience to even respond to that ridiculousness nor new arguments in the final round. My opponent needs to work on his reading comprehension skills. Vote Wylted
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ivan2002// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: well the whole notion of religion is stupid

[*Reason for removal*] Voter presents his own opinion on the resolution and not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
That's a fair point.
Posted by BlueDreams 1 year ago
BlueDreams
Totally justified maneuver, Wylted.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Yep, that's my intent. Except I don't think using biblical historians are inappropriate. They aren't necessarily biased and many of them are atheist and Jewish.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Yeah I mean the argument is that because he doesn't believe/know about evidence of Jesus' existence, Jesus doesn't exist. Unless he has much better arguments than that, all you need to do is pull out the 9 non-biblical historians who confirm Jesus' existence.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
His"arguments are so bad, I'm just going to copy and paste some stuff I did on an old debate. I could do a lot better, but don't need to
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Can't wait to see how Wylted slays this.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
It is the latter. I'm arguing Jesus Christ was created by humans for a religion.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
It's the latter
Posted by TheKryken 1 year ago
TheKryken
So is the resolution, "Jesus Christ currently does not exist as a supernatural being" or "Jesus Christ, the historical figure, never existed"? I first understood it as the latter.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 1 year ago
gordonjames
PowerPikachu21WyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro frequently mad logical errors. Pro introduced multiple spurious points that had nothing to do with the debate. Con would not lose conduct points if he had avoided insults.
Vote Placed by retroz 1 year ago
retroz
PowerPikachu21WyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con points- The witnesses, The Epistles Pro points- "anything is possible", Josephus did not convert, thus he is not reliable, __[insert name]__ did not exist. Pro's points were unsubstantiated... they merely said that the person did not exist, with no proof of it. they also said that because Josephus did not convert, he is not reliable... But had no proof of why. Con quotes several people in their case and provides several examples of Jesus existing So, Pro's lack of proof is why I am voting Con