The Instigator
Ssunlimited
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
gen13trans
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Jesus Christ is a historical person

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 1 vote the winner is...
Ssunlimited
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 824 times Debate No: 39581
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Ssunlimited

Pro

I will argue that Jesus did indeed exist.
gen13trans

Con

of course jesus was real. why wouldn't you look it up on wikipedia? jesus was displayed in museums everywhere. i believe in gods, jesus, buddha, and even ghosts who tell me good things.
Debate Round No. 1
Ssunlimited

Pro

If you believe Jesus existed! Why did you accept my debate challenge?

Evidence Jesus Christ existed:

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[d] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[18] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.[19] Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer.[20] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life."

"The Christ myth theory, which questions the existence of Jesus, appeared in the 18th century. Some of its supporters contend that Jesus is a myth invented by early Christians.[216][217][218] Supporters of the theory point to the lack of any known written references to Jesus during his lifetime and to the relative scarcity of non-Christian references to him in the 1st century, which they use to challenge the veracity of the existing accounts of him.[219] Beginning in the 20th century, scholars such as G. A. Wells, Robert M. Price and Thomas Brodie have presented various arguments to support the Christ myth theory.[220][221][222] However, today virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.[7][223][224] Robert E. Van Voorst and (separately) Michael Grant state that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard theories of the non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.[16][17]
In response to the argument that the lack of the contemporary references implies that Jesus did not exist, Van Voorst has stated that, "as every good student of history knows", such arguments from silence are "specially perilous".[225] Arguments from silence generally fail unless a fact is known to the author and is important enough and relevant enough to be mentioned in the context of a document.[226][227] Bart D. Ehrman argues that although Jesus had a large impact on future generations, his impact on the society of his time was "practically nil". It would therefore be unsound to expect contemporary accounts of his deeds.[228]
Ehrman says that arguments based on the lack of physical or archeological evidence of Jesus and of any writings from him are poor, as there is no such evidence of "nearly anyone who lived in the first century".[25] Teresa Okure writes that the existence of historical figures is established by the analysis of later references to them, rather than by contemporary relics and remnants.[229] A number of scholars caution against the use of such arguments from ignorance and consider them generally inconclusive or fallacious.[230][231][232] Douglas Walton states that arguments from ignorance can only lead to sound conclusions in cases where we can assume that our "knowledge-base is complete".[233]
Non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first-century historians Josephus and Tacitus.[234][215][235] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in book 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews, and it is disputed only by a small number of scholars.[236][237] Tacitus referred to Christ and his execution by Pilate in book 15 of his work Annals. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus to be both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[238]"

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

"Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][not in citation given][3][4] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[5] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[6][7][8] Biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 4 BC, in the closing stages of the reign of King Herod and died 30"36 AD,[12][13][14] that he lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere,[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek.[18][19][20]"

"The question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is distinct from the study of the historical Jesus which goes beyond the analysis of his historicity and attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on methods such as biblical criticism of gospel texts and the history of first century Judea.[23][24][25][26] Nor does it concern supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus, which historians tend to look on as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[27]
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][3][4][9][10][11] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[28][29] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[5] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.[9] Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time - more so than any of his contemporaries - with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions".[30] Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and virtually all scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[5][24] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[24] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[11]
The sources for the historicity of Jesus are mainly Christian sources, but there are some mentions also in a few non-Christian Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[31] These include the works of 1st-century Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus.[31][32] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[33][34][35][36] Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.[37]
The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician.[38][39][40][41] Other possible references to Jesus and his execution may exist in the Talmud, but they also aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.[38][42]"

-http://en.wikipedia.org...
gen13trans

Con

gen13trans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ssunlimited

Pro

What the heck?
gen13trans

Con

gen13trans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ssunlimited

Pro

He's not debating me...
gen13trans

Con

gen13trans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ssunlimited

Pro

No comment
gen13trans

Con

gen13trans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
As my comrade Projectid mentioned, even if you can bring reliable sources that states that "a" and I must stress "a" person existed named Jesus in Jerusalem, what does that in fact prove? Jesus, historically, was a famous name to use (Yeshua) just like today we have many who are named John (Juan in Spanish countries). Yet how can you or anyone prove that the Jesus that is being referred by did in fact change water in wine? Walk on water? Create more fish and bread out of thin air to feed a giant crowd? Heel the sick and the lame? Raise from the dead?
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
I assume that you are ready and willing to not only defend that a person named Jesus existed, but that adding the title Christ, you are taking on the responsibility to prove that this historical Jesus was the Christ aka The Messiah? How do you propose to prove that this Jesus you claim is historically the Messiah outside of the Bible with no contemporary sources proving his deity?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Ssunlimitedgen13transTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments where based on historical fact, even by the most radical scholars. Con forefeited several times, and did not really show any argumetns at all. My point goes to Pro.