The Instigator
imsmarterthanyou98
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Stirling
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

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 5 votes the winner is...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,318 times Debate No: 42676
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Hi i would like to have a orderly and interesting debate about this topic!
Basically i would like to debate that it is most probable that jesus of Nazareth never existed.

1.Burden of proof shared by Both parties.(will not be discussing wether or not god exists)
2.Use logic and back up arguments.
3.First round opening arguments last round Con will put no arguments here as argreed.
4.Be kind no insults and proper grammer.
Thanks,:)
Stirling

Con

Hi!

I would like to begin by saying I am a staunch Atheist. However, I wish to refute your argument of Jesus never existing. Jesus, the person, whether or not he had actual heavenly powers, is documented in a few sources.

Documented by Tacitus

“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”

This, if you aren't aware, is a documentation of the crucification of "somebody" who lead the Christians and as a result suffered crucification.

The Ossuary

Despite being called a fake and then being called an evidence-in-investigation, The Ossuary states "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Now this isn't much to go nuts over until you remember the historical names.

Jesus's Embarassing Death

Crucification was not particularly oble way of dying. It is pretty hard to be noble when you are nailed to a piece of plywood. So, if we had an ancient fiction writer looking to gain a few ducats by making up a story of a "hero religious figure" dying, it probably won't be by nailing.

______
And finally, it is just plain silly to assume that Jesus of Nazarath did not exist. Even if he was not the historically godly figure, he probably did walk the Earth before. Besides, we could easily be talking about a Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. (Link for this sentence http://rationalwiki.org...)

I look forward to your reply
Debate Round No. 1
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Christianity, like all religious movements, was born from mythmaking; and nowhere is this clearer than when we examine the context from which Jesus sprang. The supposed historical underpinning of Jesus, which apologists insist differentiates their Christ from the myriad other savior gods and divine sons of the ancient pagan world, simply does not hold up to investigation.

On the contrary, the closer we examine the official story, or rather stories, of Christianity (or Christianities!), the quicker it becomes apparent that the figure of the historical Jesus has traveled with a bodyguard of widely accepted, seldom examined untruths for over two millennia…

It’s true enough that the majority of Biblical historians do not question the historicity of Jesus – but then again, the majority of Biblical historians have always been Christian preachers, so what else could we expect them to say? For all their bluster, the truth is that for as long as there have been Christian writings, there have been critics who have disputed Christian claims and called events from the Gospel stories into question. And since at least the 18th century a growing number of historians have raised serious problems that cast Jesus’ historicity into outright doubt, as we’ll see.

Jesus vs. Julius Caesar

For instance, historian Richard Carrier has pointed out the problems with Christian apologist Douglas Geivett’s claim that the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection meets “the highest standards of historical inquiry,” and is as certain as Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.E. Carrier notes, “Well, it is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims, and this is no exception.” Then he compares the evidence for both events:

First of all, we have Caesar’s own account. In contrast, we have nothing written by Jesus, and we do not know who really wrote any of the Gospels. Second, many of Caesar’s enemies reported the crossing of the Rubicon. But we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the supposed event, fifty years after Christian beliefs had become widely known. Third, there are numerous inscriptions, coins, mentions of battles, conscriptions and judgments, which form an almost continuous chain of evidence for Caesar’s entire march. But there is no physical evidence of any kind in the case of Jesus.

Fourth, almost every historian of the period reports the Rubicon crossing, including the most prominent of the Roman age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio and Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have shown proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed with material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they all quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they consistently show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn’t enough, all of them cite or quote sources written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions.

But not a single historian mentions the resurrection until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only Christian historians. Of the anonymous Gospel authors, only “Luke” even claims to be writing history, but neither Luke nor any of the others ever cite any other sources or show signs of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims. None have any other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy. Their actual identities are completely unknown, and all overtly declare their bias towards persuading new converts.

Finally, the Roman Civil War could not have proceeded as it did if Caesar had not physically crossed the Rubicon with his army into Italy and captured Rome. Yet the only thing necessary to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief — a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon. Carrier concludes that while we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of them are lacking in the case of the resurrection:

“In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event’s historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence — a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes.”1

So even before we begin to examine Jesus’ resurrection, we are forced to recognize that the historical evidence for it, and all the other extraordinary events of Jesus’ career, is not only far from ironclad, but already suspect. So there is nothing unreasonable about taking a skeptical approach to the Gospels’ image of Jesus in the first place. And it’s important to note that we are not just talking about the divine man-god Jesus coming under fire, because it is not just the supernatural aspects of Jesus that have come under suspicion. Even the mundane and perfectly plausible-sounding aspects of Jesus’ life have proved to be problematic…

EDITOR’S NOTE: Here is a list of other authors and historians that agree with David’s premise…

When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up.

-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus… The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information — not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life.
-Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)

It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all.

-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)

Many people– then and now– have assumed that these letters [of Paul] are genuine, and five of them were in fact incorporated into the New Testament as “letters of Paul.” Even today, scholars dispute which are authentic and which are not. Most scholars, however, agree that Paul actually wrote only eight of the thirteen “Pauline” letters now included in the New Testament. collection: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Virtually all scholars agree that Paul himself did not write 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus– letters written in a style different from Paul’s and reflecting situations and viewpoints in a style different from those in Paul’s own letters. About the authorship of Ephesias, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, debate continues; but the majority of scholars include these, too, among the “deutero-Pauline”– literally, secondarily Pauline– letters.”

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (Adam, Eve, and the Serpent)

We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)

Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the “historical Jesus”. . . and that sorting out “authentic” material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence.”

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University

We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world.

-Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read)

The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong.

-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

Far from being an intimate of an intimate of Jesus, Mark wrote at the forth remove from Jesus.

-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

Mark himself clearly did not know any eyewitnesses of Jesus.

-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.

-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)

The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of Jesus in any Gospel.

-Bishop John Shelby Spong

Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no evidence for it.

-Alan Albert Snow (The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read)

But even if it could be proved that John’s Gospel had been the first of the four to be written down, there would still be considerable confusion as to who “John” was. For the various styles of the New Testament texts ascribed to John- The Gospel, the letters, and the Book of Revelations– are each so different in their style that it is extremely unlikely that they had been written by one person.

Stirling

Con

Hi!

First, I wish to remind my opponent plagiarism is immoral. The MLA citation for your whole argument is the following

"Jesus Never Existed at All." Atheism Resource RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Dec. 2013.

Secondly, using easywhois.com, I see that the owner of your source is Amanda Brown. Here is a video by her that I found on YouTube. I invite you to watch and evaluate it. I warn you there is language.

Her extreme anti-religious views puts her down as a biased source and I remind the voters and you to keep that in mind.

My final point regarding the validity of this website is a Google.com link check. Check out these results. https://www.google.com...

Every one is a link from her websites to that one.

Now to the arguments.

_______________

"We have no record of the resurrection"

I remind my opponent that in this debate I am arguing the point of Jesus being flesh and blood and not the messiah. I also wish to point out I am an Atheist and do not believe in rebirth.

"Jesus vs. Julius Caeser"

Please forgive me it has been a long day but what bearing does Julius Caeser's war tactics have upon the life of a poor man executed as a state criminal?

If my opponent chose to read the article that he copy and pasted, he would see it spoke of resurrection and not the life of Jesus. Therefore, the article as a whole has no bearing upon this debate and my opponent has wasted a round. As a result I will write a short speech and allow my opponent more time in the next round to prepare a better argument.

________________

Geoffrey Blainey, a historian, said "Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time".

The following is from this site: http://www.canadafreepress.com...

Thallos, an author from antiquity gives the earliest possible reference for Jesus, from approximately 55 AD.

When Julius Africanus writes about the darkness at the death of Jesus, he added: “In the third (book) of his histories, Thallos calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, which seems to me to be wrong (ToQ66;τo τò σκóτoς O56;κλειΨιν τoQ66; O69;λiou Θαλλoς O36;πoκoλεQ50; O52;ν τρiτητQ82;ν Q82;τoρQ82;ν, P33;ς O52;μoQ50; δokεQ50; O36;λoγP61;ς).”

Pliny the Younger (61-112 AD) was a powerful Roman lawyer, senator and intellectual famed for his letters which were turned into ten popular books. In his tenth book is a letter written, #96, to Emperor Trajan asking for help with trials of accused Christians. Three times he mentions the Christians of Christ. This letter is not suspected of being a forgery by most historians. Pliny writes, in part,

They had met regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as if to a god (carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem). They also took an oath not for any crime, but to keep from theft, robbery and adultery, not to break any promise, and not to withhold a deposit when reclaimed.

Roman writer Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus was another Roman lawyer and friend of Pliny the Younger. His famous Lives of the Caesars included the section on the Deified Claudius, mentioning what most scholars concede is an allusion to Christ, or Chrestus. He stated:

He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of the instigator Chrestus (Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit).


Etc

These are all first person reliable sources.

__________________
The Crucifixion

I believe it imposable for a man to be killed if he hadn't existed at all. For the purpose of character limits, I will refrain from posting the evidence here but instead invite you to read this. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Mara Bar-Serapion is believed to be pagan and therefore can be viewed as a third party source.

_________________

I admit, Jesus has been greatly exaggerated and I highly doubt his religious powers. But his existance is basically undisputed except by a small circle of scholars. I hope you will provide a good argument for the next round.

Thank you

Debate Round No. 2
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

I apologize for the missed citation i was very busy i almost didn't have time for this debate,sorry.

However my oppponent might not have fully read my case in jesus vs Ceasar for it was simply compareing the evidence for both events.As it's stated.
"Then he compares the evidence for both events:"
"First of all, we have Caesar’s own account. In contrast, we have nothing written by Jesus, and we do not know who really wrote any of the Gospels. Second, many of Caesar’s enemies reported the crossing of the Rubicon. But we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the supposed event, fifty years after Christian beliefs had become widely known. Third, there are numerous inscriptions, coins, mentions of battles, conscriptions and judgments, which form an almost continuous chain of evidence for Caesar’s entire march. But there is no physical evidence of any kind in the case of Jesus."

"the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life."-Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)

"

It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all."

-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)

Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no evidence for it.

-Alan Albert Snow (The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read)

"Jesus Never Existed at All." Atheism Resource RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Dec. 2013.

Jesus's town.

For the past 2000 years first-century Nazareth was unquestionably considered the historic hometown of Jesus. The gospels make it abundantly clear that Jesus was “of Nazareth” (Jn. 1:45; Jn 19:19; Mk. 1:24; Lk. 18:27). However, Rene Salm has challenged the historical Nazareth in his The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (American Atheist Press, 2008). According to his view, ancient Nazareth did not emerge prior to A.D. 70, and the settlement of Nazareth did not exist earlier than the second-century A.D. long after Christ’s crucifixion. To substantiate these claims, Salm appeals to, among other things: 1) late dating Roman and Byzantine artifacts (e.g oil lamps), 2) the Gospel of Luke which tells us that Jesus’ hometown was Capernaum, not Nazareth, 3) “problematic” biblical passages (e.g. Mt. 2:23, “And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” ESV) that have no prophetic reference in the Jewish Scriptures, and 4) that Josephus and the Jewish Talmud do not mention Nazareth in their lists of Galilean cities.



Con's points.
Pliny the Younger Pliny the Younger (61-112 AD)(61-112 AD) Agian all of his sources are from people after jesus time.

Sources.
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stirling

Con

Stirling forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Most scholars who have worked on the historicity of Jesus are Christian, and thus have vested psychological and perhaps monetary reasons to conclude that he existed. Every article I've read, that attempts to show that Jesus existed, has logical or evidential fallacies. Anyone who says that Jesus existed is just giving their opinion, because the evidence shows that Jesus is just a mythical character and never existed.

For Jesus-believers, here's the long answer (with evidence), which is needed to cover all bases:

All reliable evidence points to Jesus Christ being just a myth. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, and significant evidence that he didn't. The evidence is in the Bible, the other religions of the time, and the lack of writings about Jesus by historians of the time.

The story of Jesus can be shown to be just a myth created to fulfill prophesy, cobbled together out of stories from the Old Testament and previous gods and myths -- created in the 40's and 50's by Paul of Tarsus (who exhibited symptoms of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later, and many other people. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming.

Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, or his moral teachings. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god, who existed in the spiritual past.

If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, and teachings. Paul did not write about any of this. Note that to Paul, Peter was another (competing) epistle writer. Paul referred to James as the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother. This is much like people of a religion who refer to each other as brothers. Paul wrote (in Romans 16:25-26, Galatians 1:11,12) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy and delusions. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Romans 3:5-8.

If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written in third person fiction format like a Harry Potter story, with Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarizing from Mark. The gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts, and were written in Greek - which the disciples would not have known. In fact, there are no claimed eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus - anywhere. All we have are hearsay witnesses.

If the Jesus story were true, his trial would have been legal. Instead, the purported trial was illegitimate under both Roman and Jewish law.

If Jesus had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him. No historian of the first century (including Josephus and Philo of Alexandria) wrote about him or his disciples.

Therefore Jesus didn't exist.

The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Horus, Mithra, Osiris, and Dionysus). For instance, baptism into the death and resurrection of Osiris washed away sins so the soul could obtain the best place in heaven. Some early Christians attributed these similarities to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity.

Jesus is worshiped on Sunday because he is a sun god, like over a dozen others whose birthdays were also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.”

There were also over a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected (often after violent deaths). Christianity just told the story the best, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine.

For much more evidence, see the links. There are also several good books on this, including:
"Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed At All"
by David Fitzgerald
"The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty
"Not the Impossible Faith" by Richard Carrier

And if anybody still thinks that Jesus actually existed, please send the information on the reliable evidence supporting this position (not just somebody's opinion).
Source(s):
Stirling

Con

Stirling forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Extend all arguments opponent FF.
Stirling

Con

Stirling forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Pro could also have used the Archaeological Research findings that Nazareth never existed at the time of Jesus, and thus Pro is Correct, as Since Nazareth did not exist, Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
As far as the accusations of plagiarism go, I'm not bothering to analyse, due to the time constraints I have, so I did not consider any such crime in my deliberation.
Even with such plagiarism, I don't think it would make any difference if Con bothered to keep up the fight.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Maybe Con, like me, decided to take a holiday from D.O.
I'm about to take another one soon for a while, when my new production tool arrives, as I will be flat out getting it up and running, so hopefully it pays for itself in the short term.

Though, if Con had kept on with the debate, it's likely that my vote could have gone his way.
He did have a lot of circumstantial evidence for the existence of Jesus. That hasn't been highlighted.

Such as the letters to King Abgar, supposedly dictated by Jesus in answer to a request from Abgar V for help with his incurable illness (possibly leprosy) as rumors of Christ existed in his lifetime.
Though even these legends may not be truthful, but they were mentioned by Saul and likely there is some truth to it, so it is impossible to say somebody didn't exist in any form of philosophy, it is even impossible with such testimonials.

Pro would have been better if the debate Title was worded: Jesus never performed a single Miracle, including the Resurrection.
That would be an far easier debate to ring, as the Con would only have subjective and hearsay, mythical evidence to work with.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
I would honestly recommend that Pro reads a guide on proper citation, and what constitutes plagiarism and not plagiarism.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
Allow me to explain my vote in fuller detail: Pro's R1 is completely and entirely plagiarized from his sources. He does not put them in quotes or attempt to differentiate between his sources words and his own words. This is plagiarism because he is 1) using people's words without citation, and 2) passing them off as his own. Con points this out in his next round before rebutting the argument.

Pro then proceeds to spend his next round answering Con's argument, but it depends entirely on quoting sources rather than making his own arguments. Furthermore, despite being able to copy and paste from sources, Pro failed to answer the central case of Con, and dropped his points about Pliny the Younger and other writers who spoke about Jesus. He also failed to respond to any of Con's rebuttals relating to the last round.

Con does forfeit the next round, but this is irrelevant because Pro never answered Con's arguments in the first place. If Pro had answered Con's arguments and Con forfeited, then I would count this, but that's not the case.

Finally, Pro's R4 is plagiarized in its entirety, with no attempt at separating his words from the source's words and providing specific citations. Not to mention that his sources are all heavily atheistic, and Pro actually plagiarizes from Yahoo answers at one point: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com.... ("All reliable evidence points to Jesus just being a myth..."). He copied and pasted several lines verbatim.

Conduct to Con for Pro's massive plagiarism. Arguments to Con because despite the forfeit, Pro failed respond to Con's actual arguments. Reliable sources to Con because 1) Pro plagiarized extensively, and 2) most of his plagiarized sources weren't even good, such as Yahoo Answers.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Pro might find something useful in Bart Ehrman's case against the resurrection, that I posted in "Is the foundation for Morality: Natural or Supernatural" debate.
Since he is the considered one of the foremost New Testament Scholars living.
He has some interesting things to say about the Gospels, that not only apply to his resurrection myth, but also to his entire Life and Identity.

The differences between the gospel accounts is also enough to make the existence of Jesus suspect.

Con has a lot of Apologist material, though Apologists really don't have much historical Cred.
They base history on Theology, not on evidence.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Though I must admit, the evidence I have been presented with, to-date, supporting his personal existence is very fuzzy and inconsistent. So even the Encyclopedias may be wrong in assuming Jesus of Nazareth existed.

The possibility that he was simply a character profile constructed out of the imaginations of Paul of Tarsus and Peter/Simon based on either a legendary figure or somebody of a different name like Christos, is still a remote possibility,
Just as there is a remote possibility that Confucius and Socrates never existed.
Though there is more evidence for the historical, existence of the person called Socrates, than there is for the personal existence of a man named Jesus of Nazareth.
So I will weigh this debate on which is more convincing.
Technically, it's an equal playing field, which is bound to make it a great debate topic.
Because having billions of believers, doesn't mean the person existed.
Osiris had a massive following, from ancient Greek origins, right up until the second century CE.
Yet Osiris was completely mythical.
Some philosophers believe that the Catholic, veneration of Mary, mother of Jesus was to gain acceptance from the pagan followers of Osiris, by seeing Mary as a replacement for their beloved Osiris.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
As far as taking sides in this debate, I'm actually neutral.
Practically, I believe Jesus existed, though only as a lay preacher and not as any real performer of miracles.
Just as most unbiased encyclopedia references also assume Jesus of Nazareth existed only as a preacher.

So I will vote strictly on the merits of the debate and depth of evidence presented.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Actually: Here is a first class reference: Encyclopedia Britannica:

"His teachings and deeds are recorded in the New Testament, which is essentially a theological document that makes discovery of the "historical Jesus" difficult."

Which is the point I have made over and over.
There is no evidence in the NT, because it is entirely a Theological document, which only presents theological (Subjective) concepts, not points that can be useful in establishing anything real about Jesus.

The other point of contention is a man born in Bethlehem, but is from Nazareth. There's something fishy in the concept of his origins there which also makes it difficult to track down actual geographical evidence.

http://www.britannica.com...

Enjoy! :-D~
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
@muslimnmoore Rational wiki is not a credible source!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
imsmarterthanyou98StirlingTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had good sources and better points, Con forfeited multiple rounds.
Vote Placed by PiercedPanda 3 years ago
PiercedPanda
imsmarterthanyou98StirlingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: FF gives conduct to pro. Con had better arguments.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
imsmarterthanyou98StirlingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I am going to leave this a tie. Between pro's plagiarism and con's double forfeiture, neither side deserves to win this debate.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
imsmarterthanyou98StirlingTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the comments section.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
imsmarterthanyou98StirlingTied
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: I have no idea why Con Forfeited, hopefully Con is alright, maybe just the time factor. Though if Con is okay, it is poor conduct, thus my vote. You cannot make convincing argument if you don't reply.