The Instigator
guitarrox
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Jesus Christ was in fact a real man.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 932 times Debate No: 29060
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

guitarrox

Pro

I believe that the bible has just as much validity as a historical document as any other found in history and the the documentation of Jesus Christ having been a real man is as valid if not better than the documentation for many other historical figures. I've Chosen for a 5 round debate in order to allow each of us to comment before actually starting and I thank who ever my challenger is for the opportunity. Good luck.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I accept. For reference, I may copy from my previous debates to answer any specific issues. My argument will be as follows:

1) A historical event or person's validity rests solely on the primary sources which justifies them. Primary sources is meant in the broader sense of any contemporary or near-contemporary evidence (near being within a few decades).

2) Jesus Christ is a more-than-extraordinary individual. Not only is he - at the very least - one of the single best speakers of all time, but also...you know... was God. As such, proof of his existence revolves around the proof of Jesus of Nazareth, creator of Christianity, prophet, Messiah, and born-again Son of God.

3) Any evidence presented must be extremely compelling to make us believe that such a character existed. A few ambiguous words, for example, are not enough to justify he who should be a very famous person. However, no such evidence exists.

4) Finally, the Bible itself is incredibly unreliable and untrustworthy as a source. If it is unreliable, then the character of Jesus being factual certainly comes into doubt.

With that in mind, I shall await my opponent's first arguments.

To define Jesus: "The central figure of the Christian religion.Jesus conducted a mission of preaching and healing (with reported miracles) in Palestine in about ad 28–30, which is described in the Gospels. His followers considered him to be the Christ or Messiah and the Son of God, and belief in his resurrection from the dead is the central tenet of Christianity"[1] I use the Oxford definition as such a dictionary is usually quite reliable.



1 - http://oxforddictionaries.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
guitarrox

Pro

guitarrox forfeited this round.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

well...
that decelerated quickly.
Debate Round No. 2
guitarrox

Pro

guitarrox forfeited this round.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
guitarrox

Pro

guitarrox forfeited this round.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
guitarrox

Pro

guitarrox forfeited this round.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Some days I'm tempted to post up a dozen or so debates on this issue and try going through all of them at once...
then I remember I've got exams and should stop f*cking about on this site.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Very contemporary Moriningsun.....
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Josephus didn't write anything that credibly shows Jesus has a historical figure (though does as a fictional character), Tacitus' sourcing makes it very likely that his evidence is false, Lucian wrote fiction, Suetonius is over a hundred years late, didn't write about Jesus (wrote about Chrestus - a name. It's the equivalent of saying because people wrote of Joseon as a real, this is evidence of Jesus), and finally, if it were evidence of Jesus Christ, it would make all history we know about him go out the door (for Suetonius' claim makes Jesus alive and proselytizing at 49 AD), Thallus' writing is a text that no-one has read for over a thousand years and even then likely false, and the Talmud is written post-5th century, and fictional.

Challenge me to a debate if you so wish on this issue - I don't think any scholar truly confirms Jesus Christ as existing. Moreover, I'd especially not use the Lucian evidence. It's one of the comical evidences, because it requires things to be true that are completely false. For example, Lucian was not a "well established historian" but a well established satirist. Citing a satirical work as proving that the characters inside it is real is ludicrous - Dorian Grey didn't exist, even though Oscar Wilde wrote about him, or Mr Grey from 50 Shades doesn't exist just because someone wrote "50 shades of Earl Grey".
Posted by Morningsun10000 4 years ago
Morningsun10000
Non-Christian ancient historians, who wrote about Jesus. They were well established historians and not fiction writers:

Emperor Tiberitus
Josephus (A.D. 37-100), the Jewish historian
Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55?-after 117), the Roman Historian
Lucian (second century), Greek Satirist
Suetonius (c. A.D. 120), a Roman Historian and court official
Thallus (c. A.D. 52) was a Samaritan-born historian
The Babylonian Talmud
and some others.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Are you defending the idea of Jesus of Nazareth existing as a person, or existing in the way the Bible portrays him (in other words, a divine being)?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by THEVIRUS 4 years ago
THEVIRUS
guitarroxStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: That was about the easiest debate to completely read on religion.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
guitarroxStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit.