Jesus Christ is the Son of God
Debate Rounds (3)
The first round is for the challenge to be accepted.
The second round, I will demonstrate that He paid for your healing through a healing miracle.
The third round, I will demonstrate that He paid the price to take away the sins of the world, and prove that salvation is only found through faith in His name.
Thank you Pro for posting this debate. I look forward to reading your arguments. The Proposition is that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Pro is the instigator. Pro affirms the proposition. Pro assumes the BoP in this debate. Pro's opening round acceptance requires no burden of proof for Con. Pro must prove the proposition in order to win the debate.
For Pro 3 things must be demonstrated to confirm the proposition.
1. A god exist.
2. Jesus Christ existed/exists.
3. Jesus Christ is the son of the god.
I'll take a neutral position on the 3 claims
I don't know that a god exists.
I don't know that Jesus Christ existed or exists
I don't know that Jesus Christ is the son of a god.
The floor is yours Pro. Happy debating.
1. A God exists - This can be approached from many different angles. One of which is that which I proposed upon setting up the debate (a healing miracle). However, for the purpose of the debate I will seek to demonstrate this also from another angle.
The way I shall do this is a way that is written in the Bible, Romans 1:19-20 says:
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
This scripture shows that by looking at what is created, the existence of a Creator is clearly evident. This truth is logical in many other examples of man; for example
- By observing a painting, it is evident that there has to be a Painter
- By observing a building, it is evident that there has to be a Builder
- By observing a book, it is evident that there has to be an Author
and so on....
Secondly (and along the same lines), looking at the Universe, there has to be a God. Everything is in the right place for life on this planet and it is fr too awesome to just happen by chance. The distance of the Earth from the Sun, the distance of the Earth from the moon, the temperature on the Earth, the axis of the Earth, how the Earth revolves on it's axis. The way life is sustained on this planet - Plants and animals, oxygen and carbon dioxide. The complexity of the Human body, DNA etc. Attributes like love, emotion, feelings, compassion, passions, desires, mercy, grace, faith, hope and personality.
Man has not been able to create anything close to the complexity and amazing design of the Human Body alone, let alone the rest of Creation.
To prove the existence of God, Jesus Christ and to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, I will type something at the end of this post for yourself and whosoever to be healed of whatsoever they need.
2. Jesus Christ existed/exists - Romano-Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus confirmed the existence of Jesus Christ in two references in his historical work:
for more detailed information.
Jesus Christ continues to exist, which is evident by the countless personal testimonies of people who have converted to Christianity after having a personal encounter with Jesus Christ, either through a dream, vision, supernatural divine encounter, miracle, healing, speaking in tongues, casting out of a demon or receiving a prophecy that spoke to their heart. A explanation of the latter is found in the Bible and this continues to happen around the world today (for examples of this look on youtube, to find countless videos of such modern day power encounters with Jesus Christ):
1 Corinthians 14: 24-25 - "But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you."
Jesus said that signs (for example, miracles/healings) would follow believers. These signs would confirm the word by which they preached, that Jesus Christ and His Word is the truth.
3. Jesus Christ is the Son of God - Jesus himself said that He was the Son of God and has this title ascribed to Him in the following scriptures (Matthew 4:3, Matthew 14:33, Luke 22:70, John :34 and Romans 1:4).
Again, Jesus Himself said if we don't believe the message, then at least believe the signs (miracles/healings) themselves, because they prove that He is one with the Father.
So, to finish this round of the debate I would like to produce a demonstration of one of these signs that confirm the Word and the good news of Jesus Christ. All you have to do is read what I write below and then do something you couldn't do before (bend down, move around, stand up etc).
If you are in pain, sick or injured, then this is for you:
"In the name of Jesus Christ, ALL sickness and disease GO! Be healed and made whole right now!"
Thank you for allowing me to respond, I am grateful for your time and participation in this debate. You may share what is on your heart now :)
Thank you Pro for that opening argument.
1. Pro begins by claiming that the existence of a god is self evident. He seeks to prove this by quoting a passage from the Bible, Romans 1:19-20. He then moves to what is essentially the watch maker argument. I will begin showing that these are insufficient "proofs" for the existence of a god.
1A. The Bible proof. Just because something is written in a book, that doesn't make the thing in the book true. This seems rather obvious and shouldn't need to be expanded upon. I will a bit though. Any book can make a claim. The Koran makes claims. The truthfulness of the claim resides outside of the book. Pro would need to demonstrate that all claims in the Bible are true in order to use the Bible claim as a proof for something. Claiming that the passage is true is an assumption made by Pro. Assumptions don't prove things.
1B. The passage is clearly wrong. The passage claims the existence of a god is self evident. "...God is plain to them...God has shown it to them. ...his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ... So they are without excuse." Evidence that the passage is wrong is the existence of those who don't believe a god exists. I myself see no evidence that a god exist. The demographics of DDO, 33% self identify as either atheist or agnostic.  World wide, the number of atheist/secular/agnostic people total approximately 850 million people.  Clearly if the existence of a god was self evident then there should be no atheist, no agnostic people, and no secular people. Clearly the passage has it wrong and isn't proof of a god existing.
Pro's next argument takes us to the watch maker argument. This fails due to the analogy fallacy. Yes a painting needs a painter. That is because paintings don't occur naturally. The painting is not a natural object. The universe is a natural object. Paintings =/= universes. Buildings =/= universes. Books =/= universes. In order to claim a universe needs a builder, one must demonstrate that universes don't occur naturally. This claim, at the moment, is beyond the ability of human knowledge. The analogy fallacy is when one incorrectly equivocates two different things. Then it is said that since thing A (painting) needs a painter, thing B (the universe) needs a builder. This is incorrect. Paintings don't equal universes, so one cannot claim that because one needs to be constructed the other must also need to be constructed. I would also add a short side note. Even if we could prove the universe was constructed, the only thing that would tell us is that something, or several somethings, had the ability to construct it. That doesn't tell us what the something is. Maybe it is mortal and no god at all. Maybe it is a collection of advanced scientist who created our universe. Maybe it was 3475 gods that did it. This argument is no proof of any god.
Next Pro moves to an argument of improbability. "...there has to be a God. Everything is in the right place for life on this planet and it is (far) too awesome to just happen by chance." There are approximately 100 billion galaxies in our observable universe. There are approximately 100 billion stars in each galaxy. Our own star has 8 planets. Lets just use those numbers, 100 billion x 100 billion x 8=800,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible planets in the observable universe. It is a statistical certainty that there are planets, and many planets, in habitual zones throughout the observable universe. If this was the only planet, I would be completely on board with this argument. That would be incredible. But there are just to many to marvel at the fact that we happen to be on one that harbors life. Also this falls under the anthropic principle. Life will always find itself in a place that harbors life. That should be of no surprise.
This is the extent of Pro's "proof" for the existence of a god. As I've shown, all of these arguments fail and fail for often more than one reason. To this point Pro hasn't established that a god exists.
Pro than move on to try and prove Jesus existed and still does exist. He claims that "Roman-Jewish Flavius Josephus confirmed the existence of Jesus Christ in two references in his historical work." I've gone to the link Pro has sourced for this claim. Josephus was born in 37 A.D.  (same source Pro used) I'm going to be very generous here. Lets say Josephus began recording his historical accounts at the age of 20. That would mean in year 57 A.D. Josephus would begin is historical accounts. Jesus is believed to have been crucified around 30 A.D and 33 A.D  (if he existed) Josephus would have no first had knowledge that Jesus existed. He was born after the crucifixion. When Josephus would've began his historical accounts of Judea at that time early Christian would've been claiming Jesus existed and Josephus may have noted that in his historical writings. But Josephus himself would have no first hand knowledge that Jesus did exist. This is insufficient proof that Jesus did exist.
I would like to also had that historian Dr. Richard Carrier has a peer reviewed book coming out in which he argues that it is more likely than not the Jesus never existed. Here is a youtube video in which he makes that case.  I'm not arguing that this proves Jesus didn't exist. However, if an academic historian is willing to right a peer reviewed book arguing that Jesus didn't exist, it stands to reason that there are good reasons to believe he didn't. Which at least should demonstrate that claiming Jesus did exist is still very much in question.
Pro, "Jesus Christ continues to exist." Unless Pro can prove this, this is just opinion. He claims this is supported with personal experience. That maybe. But, personal experience offers us no evidence and is untestable.
Pro quotes 1 Corinthians that offers us no evidence supporting the proposition. Not sure why it is included.
He quotes Biblical scripture that states Jesus is the son of a god. Of course all of us already know that Biblical scripture makes that claim. Text doesn't prove text though. Would we expect to find any other claim in a Christian document? No, of course not. Citing a Christian document that says Jesus was/is the son of a god takes no steps in proving that claim is true. How does Pro know those passages are true?
Pro's final challenge. Pro's claim, "If you are in pain, sick or injured, then this is for you." I will let the voters test this as I will as well. Say these words. "In the name of Jesus Christ, ALL sickness and disease GO. Be healed and made whole right now." I will let the voters assess their experience. For me and my 18 year old daughter, we tried Pro's challenge. My headache is still present. My daughter has light scoliosis and her back still hurts. It failed for both of us.
Conclusion. I don't believe Pro has meant a reasonable burden of proof. His arguments for the existence of a god fall short. His arguments for the existence of Jesus falls short. And the only link he has to support his claim that Jesus is the son of a god, is a Christian document that would absolutely make that claim for biased reasons.
Thank You Pro. The floor is yours.
I will continue the third round of this debate in the way I set out to in the beginning, in order to keep my word:
"The third round, I will demonstrate that He paid the price to take away the sins of the world, and prove that salvation is only found through faith in His name."
However, I will also respond to some of what was presented in the second round.
Firstly, in 1A of Cons response he said "Pro would need to demonstrate that all claims in the Bible are true in order to use the Bible claim as a proof for something". In response to this I say - prove to me unquestionably that any claims in the Bible are false.
1B - Responding to Cons claim about 850 million people not believing that the existence of God is self evident. This doesn't prove that God is not self-evident through Creation, all it proves is that 850 million people have hardened their heart towards this evidence.
31.5% of the worlds population identify themselves as Christian (Approx 2.2 Billion) - http://en.wikipedia.org.... So 2.2 Billion people would also say that the existence of God is clearly seen.
Next, concerning Cons argument about the universe not being the same as a painting. He is correct in this in one respect; a painting is made by man, the universe is made by God. God said "light be" and scientists tell us that the universe is still expanding.
Isaiah 55:11 says "so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it."
This truth is being seen by scientists through the ongoing expansion of the universe.
God said the earth is circular:
"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in" Isaiah 40:22
This was written in approximately 8th Century BC, two centuries before the next (and considered by many the first reference to the Earth being round - 6th Century BC Greek philosophy).
So from Isaiah 40:22 we can see what we now know through science, the Earth being round and the universe expanding ("stretches out the heavens").
Cons argues that it would be impressive the way that the Earth is just right for life, if it were the only planet. I would say that it even more impressive that there are Trillions of planets out there and God chose the Earth (which He made for man) and created it just right for us. Everything in creation has a "nesting period" before new life comes along. This is exactly what God did for us. He made everything right in the Earth before He made man to live in it.
Referring to Cons argument that Josephus would not been around the same time as Jesus. This is true, but Josephus would have been around the same time as a lot of Jesus' disciples from the early church. So even though he would not have first hand evidence of Jesus' existence, he certainly would have had the next best thing. Josephus was around the same time as saint Paul and also the disciples James and John. He live in the same general area as the first followers of Jesus Christ (many of which did have eye witness accounts). It would be like me asking someone 30 years older than me about a man they knew in their village, I am sure they would be able to give me a lot of information (especially if they knew well). There were simply too many of the first followers of Jesus Christ around at the time of Josephus for it not to be true. In the early church, the day of Pentecost was 50 days after passover (not long after Jesus had been crucified/resurrected). There were 120 followers that day (initially).
Here is the writing of the apostle Paul regarding first hand witnesses of Jesus Christ:
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." 1 Corinthians 5:3-9
Above is also proof that Jesus Christ died for our sins and all the people mentioned above were witnesses to His resurrection.
It's only through faith in His name that we can be saved (from our sins and the coming judgment):
"And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12
Peter said this to the council at Jerusalem after healing a crippled man.
Back to you Con
I'll begin by thanking Pro for this debate. Thank you Pro.
I would like to begin this round by reminding the reader that Pro's claim requires three things to be true. If any one of these points fail or aren't prove to a reasonable degree by Pro, then the proposition isn't confirmed. In the round 1 acceptance portion, Pro never asserted that we would work from the assumption that a god exists and that Jesus existed. In order for the proposition to be confirmed, Pro must prove 3 things.
1. A god exist.
2. Jesus existed.
3. Jesus was the son of said god.
The proposition fails if any one of these points haven't been demonstrated to be true by Pro.
Pro uses the word "demonstrate" in an interesting way. "The third round, I will demonstrate that He (Jesus) paid the price to take away the sins of the world,...." But his "demonstration" only consists of cited Christian text. That isn't demonstrating that his claims about Jesus are true claims. It only demonstrates that a Christian text makes these claims. Pro clearly works from an assumption that the text is true, then wishes to use the text to prove the "truthfulness" of the claim found in the text. This is circular reasoning and is unsound. Citing Christian text doesn't prove the claims in the Christian text.
Pro responds to my objection that using the Bible as proof for the claims in the Bible is flawed reasoning by stating, "prove to me unquestionably that any claims in the Bible are false." Two responses here. One, I don't need to. Pro is making the claim. It is Pro's responsibility to prove his claim. Second, I have. Pro claims god is self evident (to everyone) by citing a Biblical passage that says such a thing. Clearly there are those in the world who don't believe. This simple fact is evidence that this passage is wrong.
Pro tries to work his way out of this problem by claiming that those 850 million who don't believe have "hardened their heart toward the evidence." This is quit the claim by Pro. Are we expected to believe Pro knows what is in the hearts of these 850 million non believers? As a non believer let me offer a quick testimonial. I was raised to be religious, Baptised Lutheran, mandatory Bible study. I even spoke in tongues at the age of 11, faking it mind you. But, I gave it a try. At the age of 14, I realized all those claims those adults were making were claims that they couldn't KNOW to be true. I adopted a neutral position concerning Christianity based on this realization. I decided I wanted to know what was true and assumptions won't get you there. After 5-6 years of sporadic thought on the subject, Christianity failed. It simply doesn't make sense for many reasons. No hardened heart. Just reason and logic applied to the claims my culture was making.
Pro then tries to appeal to popularity, another logical fallacy. "31.5% of the worlds population identify themselves as Christians." Popularity doesn't prove truth. At one time most of the world believed the Earth was flat.
Pro's argument that a god created the universe is nothing more than a god of the gaps argument. "The universe is made by God." This is just a claim. I'm just as justified claiming fairy's made the universe. Or that advanced scientist made the universe. I raised this general objection to Pro in round one. "Even if we were to concede a builder, we cannot comment of the properties of the builder." The universe doesn't give us that information. Pro never addressed this point. If we concede the universe was built (for the sake of argument), that doesn't get us to the Christian god. Pro never aduquately addresses this point.
Pro wishes to offer further support for Biblical claims with "God said the Earth is circular." Then cites the passage. This passage actually goes against Pro's claim. The Earth isn't a circle. The Earth is a sphere. God, or more likely, the men who wrote the Bible got it wrong.
I will build on this a touch. Mark 9:1 Jesus (if these are his words) predicts an impending apocalypse. "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here (Judea 25-30 CE) who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come to power." 2000 years later, it is safe to assume they're all dead. Mark 13 (complete chapter), Jesus followers ask him what signs will THEY see. Here are a few more astronomical perceptions that are wrong.
Mark 13:24, "...the sun will darken and the moon will not give its light." The moon reflects light, it doesn't have its own light.
Mark 13:25, "and the stars will be falling from the heavens..." This is a complete misunderstanding of the what stars are and the nature of the Cosmos. Stars don't fall. If a star was close to the Earth, it would be the Earth falling into it, not the other way around. And the nearest is (aside from the Sun) four light years away. There will be no falling stars.
We can clearly see, that the authors of the Bible have clear misunderstanding of the Cosmos. God gets the shape of the Earth wrong. Jesus gets the moon wrong, stars falling wrong, and the first century end wrong. This looks more like ignorant man taking a stab at a few things than an omniscient being.
Moving along. Pro makes a subtle switch to one of his arguments for god. The amazing fact that the Earth is in the habitual zone of a star. I point out this is a statistical certainty, based on the size of the universe. He than abandons his original point. Hops on my point, "it even more impressive that there are Trillions (number much larger than that) of planets out there..." This was never a strong argument by Pro. His original argument was easily refuted by shear size of the universe. This second one is nothing more that point to something amazing and arbitrarily assigning credit to the thing he wishes to exist.
Pro then address my Josephus point. To his credit, "This is true..." referring to my point that Josephus was born after Jesus claimed crucifixion and in no position to validate the events. Particularly the claim that Jesus was the son of the Jewish god. He makes some claims about who Josephus might have spoken to, regarding Jesus. But nothing is sourced and he never mentions how Pro knows who Josephus spoke to and when. I think the simple fact that at best Josephus would've been writing 25 years after the resurrection is enough to question Pro's claim that Josephus verifies the existence of Jesus. Also, Pro never mentions what Josephus wrote about Jesus. Maybe Josephus wrote, "some people say a man named Jesus was crucified and was the son of our god." If that is the writing, then that isn't much verification. Pro should've found what Josephus recorded and given us those quotes.
Pro concludes round 3 by citing another Biblical passage and then claiming, the "Above (meaning quoted passage) is also proof that Jesus Christ died for our sins..." Once again we are back to Pro trying to use the Bible to prove the things the Bible claims to be true. What else would we expect? I find it a bit shocking that Pro doesn't notice the logical problem with this. He is a Christian. If this is valid, a Muslim could do the same thing. Muslim, "Mohammad is a prophet. Here are the passages that prove it right from the Koran." Pro doesn't buy that argument. So why does he think we should? You must do better Pro.
Proposition, "Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
1. A god exist. Pro's primary argument is a god of the gaps argument. This is a fallacy and the arguments have been refuted.
2. Jesus existed. The only non Biblical source Pro uses is Josephus. However, Josephus was born after Jesus resurrection (if that happened), no quotes to what Josephus actually said regarding Jesus. This isn't strong enough to establish the existence of Jesus.
3. Jesus is the son of God. This is by far the weakest point in Pro's arguments. Pro's only support for this is Christian text. Which is exactly what we would expect to find in a Christian document.
Thank you Pro for this debate
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I find a bit shocking that Pro would debate like this. Firstly, Pro has to prove the existence of Jesus, God and Jesus is the son of God. As being attacked by Con that the Bible itself is false through science. Therefore, the Bible is full of mistakes. I have never thought that Pro asks people to pray. Pro did not explain how the praying would work under which condition. This, again, creates a big gap for him to jump in. Pro?s second round is about healing. Pro has not yet proven any witnessed that the healing did occur. Pro is claiming that many people believe Christian God than non-believers. This is not a good point. Pro also proves that there is a Romano-Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus confirms Jesus exists through historical work. Con argues that he existed after the crucified of Jesus Christ. So, he is not a witness. Pro did not really show that healing is true. Therefore, arguments to Con. If Pro proves that God can exist, then this will be a hard one.
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.