The Instigator
TheSquirrel
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
lbj123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Jesus as a historical figure.

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 4 votes the winner is...
TheSquirrel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,196 times Debate No: 42849
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (4)

 

TheSquirrel

Con

I have found no good evidence for the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. Pro will have the burden of proof, all I must do is refute his claims.
First round is for acceptance. Pro may use first round to provide evidence, if he does he shall be obligated to post "No Arguments as Agreed" in round three.

Rules: No using the bible alone as evidence of Jesus' existence. It is not a contemporary source and is incredibly biased on the subject.
lbj123

Pro

That is false. Jesus was once an actual human being, and I will prove it to you.

First off, our calendar was based of the religion of Christianity. You don't think so? Well, let me teach you a little history lesson.

During the French Revolution, a man named Maximilien Robespierre was a complete counter-revolutionary man during this time. As the control freak he was, he had executed the leader of the CPS (Committee of Public Safety), George Danton. As soon as he took control of the CPS, Robespierre had created a significant period time that people know as the Reign of Terror. During the Reign of Terror, a sub-movement was taking place, called the de-Christianization movement. The most significant part about the de-christianization was the Republican Calendar, which contained secular names that represented the four seasons and agricultural ideas. Before this, the names solely came from Christianity.

Who knows how long we have had our names for months? Probably a very long time. Also, if you go back more than 2013 years, then you will see that it would have been 1 B.C. (meaning Before Christ), and we are currently living in 2013 A.D. ( After Death, referring to the death of Jesus). I'm pretty sure somebody along time ago would have challenged this time system a long time ago if they had thought otherwise. However, those people didn't. Why? Because they knew that Christianity was a realistic religion. Christianity has to do with Jesus Christ.

Therefore, Jesus, at one point, existed on this planet.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSquirrel

Con

"First off, our calendar was based of the religion of Christianity."
Actually, I'm sure you will find our calendar is based off of the Roman calendar, including using the names of roman Caesars and gods for the months.(1) Also, AD means anno Domini or year of our Lord, in Latin, not "after death".(2) Perhaps this is fallacious of me, but I feel it calls into question the amount of research Pro did on this subject.
Other than that, I hardly need reply to Pro's argument at all, as it does nothing to show that Jesus actually existed.
I'm not sure what else there is to say here. Pro has not created a reasonable argument for the historical existence of Jesus and I wish him good luck in round 2.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://rcg.org...
lbj123

Pro

Now you're just being cocky. You think this debate is a joke? You think that you can just narrate to the whole audience your victory? You can't even put up a fight. It's on, and it starts with the sources you had given me.

I have nothing against your second source. Your first source is something I don't oppose either. In fact, it proves my stand-point of the argument even more. The first sentence is enough: "The Gregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar". I would like you to recall what holidays we celebrate that have to do with Christianity. For example: Christmas, Valentine's Day, Thanksgiving, Easter, and the list goes on. Our calendar isn't called the Christian calendar because they decided to call it that. Our calendar is called the Christian calendar because of the holidays we celebrate. Do you celebrate any of these holidays? Do you still think that Jesus was never a human being? Well now, let's go back a thousand years from now.

In 1095, the first of the eight Crusades took place. The Crusades were wars against Muslim territory to fight for the Holy Lands. The Holy Lands were lands with in and just outside of Jerusalem, which meant inside the border of Judea, where Jesus was born. During the first Crusade, Pope Urban II was fighting with the goal that he must preserve the Holy Lands. If you think about it, you should be able to establish the fact that they were fighting for this land because Christ was born here. They knew that Christ existed.

Also, think about it. Who, during the early A.D. years, also believed in some form of Christianity? St. Nicholas (Santa Claus), Constantine, Ignatius of Antioch, etc. These people wouldn't be recognized for what they did if they didn't know that Christ existed. It is only logical that Jesus Christ existed, and that you were an unprepared debater.

The only thing that you have done was make a logical sense of time. You used your own sources against yourself when you thought you had it all, and you haven't even stated your side of the argument. Who cares if you are "only supposed to opposed pro's claims". Let me tell you something. That's sissy talk. This is my revenge towards you, and you're going to like it. How about you grow up, and speak with a purpose, and tell me why you think that Jesus Christ never existed. However, the pity of a debater you are, I don't think it's necessary.

Jesus is a historical figure, and I have more than enough proof to say so, while you haven't said a word for your case. Speak up, or give up.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSquirrel

Con

The closest my opponent comes to an argument for his position in this round is that we celebrate christian holidays (what, america? And this proves what exactly and how so?) and that certain people in the past believed (excuse me, pro says "KNEW") that Jesus existed, yet all of his referenced individuals are not contemporary with the Christ character. They did not 'know' of Jesus' existence (as my opponent tries to beg the question within his own argument) but they very well may have believed. But a personal belief is hardly evidence.

My opponent continues to offer no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus (although he seems convinced that his non-sequiturs some how qualify). The fact that Pro (nor anyone else so my contention goes) can not pull an actual case together and bring evidence to bare on this subject is sufficient to suppose that Jesus never existed.
My opponent commits a fatal error. He expects me to bring testimony to this debate and I quote "Who cares if you are "only supposed to opposed pro's claims". Let me tell you something. That's sissy talk."
This is either a shifting or more likely a base misunderstanding of the burden of proof. If this debate where about the existence of unicorns (which have a basis in fictional literature as does Jesus) would it be reasonable to ask someone to debate about their non-existence? To bring evidence that supports their fictionality? The best one can do is argue from the basis of no evidence, and that is just what I have done here today with Pro's help and will continue to do in the future. Because you can not prove a negative. You can only show it to be more likely than the positive claim.
I urge the loss of conduct against Pro for the use of an unwarrented ad hominum attack on my person, but of course, the vote is your own.
lbj123

Pro

No argument as agreed
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
TheSquirrel
@chengste
I look forward to receiving your education.
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
not my best just some of the more easy ones to learn about, some of the first ones I learned of when I started studying
Posted by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
TheSquirrel
@chengste
I'm sure there is, but your mentioning them by name, I'm assuming they are your best (they usually are).
I'd be glad to challenge you in this debate as soon as I have finished with my currently ongoing one.
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
go for it for there is more the just Pliny and Josephus
Posted by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
TheSquirrel
@chengste
I noticed you voted, and I just want to say I'm SO SORRY I couldn't prove a negative to you.
/s
I'd be willing to debate you on this issue, especially if the best you can come up with is Pliny and Josephus.
Posted by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
TheSquirrel
@chengste
Feel free to debunk every single one of them then.
How about the discrepancies in the story of Jesus' resurrection? How many people were there? Was the tomb open when they got there, or did it open while they were there? Did angels speak to them, or was it Jesus himself? Where any (or all) of the people there women? It depends on which gospel you are reading, and it's a pretty serious contradiction. How about Jesus' alleged last words? How about the two very different creation stories in Genesis? How about the different genealogies of Jesus? Does God get tired and rest (Ex 31:17) or does he never tire or rest (Is 40:28)? Is God all powerful (Jer32:27 Matt 19:26) or not (Judg 1:19)?
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
pick one or two of the "478" mistakes even a simple layman like myself can debunk this silly site. See for example was Abraham justified by faith or works, or course by faith and because of his faith he did works. For example, he knew God had promised him that he would have many child/grandchildren etc. Yet he was willing to sacrafice his one son having faith that God would somehow keep His promise.
Posted by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
TheSquirrel
Absolutely rofling right now! I totally forgot to comment on round 1 post by pro: "Who knows how long we have had our names for months? Probably a very long time. Also, if you go back more than 2013 years, then you will see that it would have been 1 B.C. (meaning Before Christ), and we are currently living in 2013 A.D. ( After Death, referring to the death of Jesus). I'm pretty sure somebody along time ago would have challenged this time system a long time ago if they had thought otherwise. "
Pro was obviously unaware of the current trend of using BCE (before common era) and CE (common era).
This obviously didn't make it in the debate, so disregard it when voting, but I had to point it out because it just struck me. I don't think it'd make a difference anyway.
Posted by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
TheSquirrel
@chengste And yet the bible is clearly wrong on several accounts on location of places, times and events.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
@ablesmack

The first questiona and the one posed was that the Bible is not a historical document, however the precise location of places, times and events proves that the Bible is historically accurate. CAN you follow this?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
TheSquirrellbj123Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO you needed to do some more research people like Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and more who are all historians that all recognize Jesus as being a person that lived. I cannot change who I agree with after the debate because CON did nothing to convince me otherwise
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
TheSquirrellbj123Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's rude comments in round 2. Pro made two arguments for the existence of Jesus--the argument from the Christian calendar, and the argument from belief in Jesus. Pro never explained how Jesus' existence followed from either of his premises, and Con rightly pointed that out, so arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
TheSquirrellbj123Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an incredibly lopsided debate for multiple reasons. Pro's conduct is really unfortunate in round 2, and he really should treat his opponent with more respect. Grammar is pretty much even, but the debate and sources also go to Con. I'll say this plainly: the existence of a Christian calendar (that was, as Con said, derived from the Roman one), the existence of holidays (many of which are based off of pagan holidays that preceded Christianity), and of individuals who are remembered and believed in Jesus do not prove the existence of Jesus, just as the statues and temples attributed to him don't prove the existence of Zeus. Perhaps you could theoretically prove that such a person could have existed, but the evidence isn't in your arguments, and your certainty only hurts your case. You could have used Con's burden against him since it was absolute, but you took on your own absolute burden, and then did nothing to support it, not even one link. Con gets my vote.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
TheSquirrellbj123Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Pro that Jesus existed, but unfortunately, as much as it pains me, I'm giving 6 points to Con. The only evidence Pro offered was totally irrelevant and didn't prove Jesus's existence at all. All he did is prove that Christianity had an influence on Western Civilization and that people who lived long after Jesus's death believed he existed. Christianity's existence and the "legend" of Jesus could easily be explained by a collaboration between the writers of the New Testament, and Pro did nothing to refute that explanation. Only Con cited sources, which is ironic because all it would have taken for Pro to win the debate is cite a couple of websites showing historical evidence.