The Instigator
prioritisingmorality
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kvasir
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Jesus Christ was a real person + He was 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 3 votes the winner is...
Kvasir
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 407 times Debate No: 78856
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

prioritisingmorality

Pro

Historians have made a time period of history "BC". As I'm sure you know this means "Before Christ". The fact this has been done has been stated by historians that this time period was a time before Jesus was in the world correct?

So what the historians are saying here is that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure + this is a time period which took place before he was born.

That is what HISTORY states. History states using the timeline of "BC" that a man named Christ existed and there was a time period caleld "BC" which was before he was born.

If Christ was not a real historical figure explain why the time period is titled "BC"?

If Christ was not real then how could he have been born? History states Jesus was born and that the time period of "BC" is before he was born. So people who deny Christ's existence tell me how the time period of BC can exist?

Now proof he is the Son of God.

Christ's life and ministry was recorded in the four gospels which I believe we can treat as historical documents.

In the Torah there are many prophecies foretelling what the Messiah, Son Of God will do and what will happen to him.

The Torah and New Testament were written years apart.

So how come the New Testament stories fufill all the prophecices given in the old testament?

All the prophecies made about the Messiah are fuffilled in the New Testaments story of Jesus perfectly.

Even if you are an Atheist you have a burden when you see that in Jesus's life in the New Testament fuffills all the prophecies given in the old testament.

Even if there is no God like Atheism states its rather coincidental that everything the Old Testament said would happen is said to have happened in the New Testament?

A series of books which were written many many years apart.

Sorry if i sounded rather cocky..... I do understand some of what I said sounded rather butty XD. I do apologise. I didn't intend to be a bit of a show off.
Kvasir

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to have this debate. I look forward to it being fun and entertaining.

I will start by refuting my opponents case, before I present my own. Burden of Proof is naturally on Pro, being the instigator of the resolution. Please look to my debate on BoP for reasoning on this: http://goo.gl...

R1)

My opponent argues that because the years before 1 AD are named "before Christ", a jesus christ must have existed. I am not going to debate the existence of a person named Jesus living around that time. I am rather refuting the second part of the resolution, as I believe Jesus was not the son of any god. As a note though, the system of BC/AD was made up by a monk in 525 AD, centuries after the death of Christ, and was not widely used untill 700 AD [1]. There is far better proof of his existence however, such as roman written records of public executions conducted around that time. I repeat, Jesus did exist.

R2)

My opponent argues that because books written after and before the life of Jesus describe the same events, Jesus must be the son of god. Firstly, there is a large gap in this reasoning. My opponent fails to argue why such events, should they have occurred, in any way proves that Jesus is the son of god. Secondly, the credibility of these writings is far from assured. And no, I do not accept the four gospels as historical documents.

The fact that the texts from before and after the life of Jesus agree on the events is easy to explain. The supporters of Jesus would, after his death, naturally pretend that he fulfilled all of the prophesies of the earlier texts. After a while all who had ever met Jesus were dead, and anyone who denied the (false) written records were persecuted by the church.

Conclusion

I have refuted my opponents arguments. As there is so far no reason to believe that there is a god, that Jesus was his son, or that Jesus performed any miracles, my case stands true.

Sources

[1] http://goo.gl...;(see section 8)

Best of luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
prioritisingmorality

Pro

Well to begin with I would just like to thank you for being respectful. It's just there are a lot of internet Atheists who can be very bitter and cruel. Of course I am not making a generalisation or anything.

Now you have refuted my arguments. I guess I shall think up new ones instead of trying to recover the previous ones I lost.

Here's one.

In the time period of BC Jesus is not the only person who claimed to be the Messiah. MANY Israelites did.

Many people tried to use the Torah to say that they were the Messiah in order to gain power over others. In fact it is known historically one of the Herods claimed to be the chosen prophet this of course is not a very well known fact.

My argument is this.

Considering all the Jews who claimed to be the Messiah only ONE is remembered to this day 2000 years later. Jesus Christ.

So why is it that the claim of Christ is remembered but all the other people who claimed to be the son of god aren't?

For this reason I believe Christ's claim was most certainly special. This cannot be denied by even an Atheist. Christ's claim has been the most sucessful.

Plus why did the churches choose Christs claim? Why not choose one of the other people who had claimed to be the son of god and manipulate people with their claims?

Of course you can say that they just chose Christ above all the others because if for example the Herod had been chosen by them you would see me saying how come Herod was chosen. But..

Christs claim is remembered 2000 years after he made it.

I reckon all the people who had claimed to be the son of god convinced many. There were probably many sort of equilalents to worship places for them.

How come only Christ's is remembered 2000 years after?

What cannot be denied at the very least is that Jesus's claim is most certainly the most successful. It was certainly special considering all the other claims which have been forgotten within a decade after they were made.

So. If Jesus is not the son of god...

Why is his claim to be remembered 2000 years after? I reckon if this was a false claim just like all the other people who weren't the Messiah it would have been forgotten very very quickly.

There were many claims to be the Messiah in those days. Not just Jesus.

All the false claims to be the son of god have one thing in common: They were forgotten not too long after they were made.

If Jesus's claim was false why wasn't his forgotten like all the other false claims were?
Kvasir

Con

Kvasir forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
prioritisingmorality

Pro

prioritisingmorality forfeited this round.
Kvasir

Con

I am very sorry for not being able to present an argument last round. This was because private matters appeared over the weekend. If my opponent skipped his turn to make up for that, then I am thankful.

My opponents argument is that Jesus' claim is the only one that is remembered today, and therefore it must be true. He/she also claims that because Jesus' claim was the only one that was accepted by the church and remembered, it must be true.

R1) As far as my understanding of the bible goes, Jesus was certainly not "chosen by the church", rather the church at the time worked against him because they saw him as a threat.

R2) The fact that Jesus is still remembered can be attributed to him being a charismatic man, who gained the support of the people, and to the fact that literate people managed to collect stories about him. These are still nothing but stories.

Conclusion:

While there is no doubt that Jesus was a remarkable man, there is still no proof or true reason to believe that Jesus had a divine connection or that he was the son of god. Vote Con.

Thank you for the debate, and best of luck to you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Kvasir 1 year ago
Kvasir
I am very sorry about that FF, things got in the way. I will post my argument here, 9 hours delayed, in the hope that it will be respected in the place of my round 2.

Thank you for your argument. I do try to be as respectful as possible, and I realise that personal insult does not achieve much.

My opponents argument is that Jesus' claim is the only one that is remembered today, and therefore it must be true. He/she also claims that because Jesus' claim was the only one that was accepted by the church and remembered, it must be true.

R1) As far as my understanding of the bible goes, Jesus was certainly not "chosen by the church", rather the church at the time worked against him because they saw him as a threat.

R2) The fact that Jesus is still remembered can be attributed to him being a charismatic man, who gained the support of the people, and to the fact that literate people managed to collect stories about him.

Conclusion:

While there is no doubt that Jesus was a remarkable man, there is still no proof or true reason to believe that Jesus had a divine connection or that he was the son of god.

I hope my argument is accepted by Pro and the voters. Best of luck in the final round to my opponent!
Posted by shalal12 1 year ago
shalal12
Haha!
"Abortion" and "gay marriage" is proved by a Christian. As if there is nothing left with Christ's true religion!
Posted by shalal12 1 year ago
shalal12
God doesn't need a son. You don't know what "God" is!
Jesus (pbuh) was among the dominant prophets and he was the son of Marry.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
prioritisingmoralityKvasirTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Kvasir, hope everything is alright. Pro loses on conduct for saying most atheists are "very bitter and cruel". Con wins for sources, for providing one. Con wins on arguments by rebutting the (transparently irrational) claims by Pro.
Vote Placed by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
prioritisingmoralityKvasirTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully refuted Pro's arguments. Pro admitted to his arguments being refuted in round 2. Instead of supporting his original arguments, he came up with new arguments which were also refuted by Con. Con gave good rebuttals by refuting Pro's first round arguments and in the third round was able to refute Pro's second round arguments by giving a reasonable explanation that Jesus was charismatic, and not the son of a God. Pro's arguments had a lack of evidence and was more of "why" and "how come" arguments, which all in summary say "can you prove otherwise?" which is not convincing since there is no proof for the original claims.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
prioritisingmoralityKvasirTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar go to Con due to several grammatical errors by Pro, such as lack of capitalization and fragments. Sources to Con for being the only one to actually use an outside source in this debate. Conduct is tied. Arguments to Con, because not only did he completely refute all of Pro's points, but Pro conceded to this and moved on to a different argument which shows little to no clash in this debate by his part.