The Instigator
imsmarterthanyou98
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
us
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

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...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 478 times Debate No: 43895
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

First acceptance.
Second opening.
Third rebuts.
Last closeing.
us

Con

I accept your challenge
Debate Round No. 1
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

The case against his existance.

Overall 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 not to mention they have a bias. 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.

Here's the long answer supported by evidence, which is needed to cover all bases:

All reliable evidence points to Jesus being just a myth. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, and significant ,overwhelming amount of 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, stringed 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 again overwhelming.

Paul and the other epistle writers did not 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-wizard, 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 which is a far better fiction book than the bible, 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.Absurd.

Jesus is worshiped on Sunday because he is a sun god, like over a hundreds 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):

http://www.godlessgeeks.com.........;
http://www.atheismresource.com.........;
http://freethoughtblogs.com.........;
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com.........;
http://ffrf.org.........;
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com.........;
http://www.godlessgeeks.com.........;
http://nobeliefs.com.........;
http://nobeliefs.com.........;
http://freethoughtblogs.com............



us

Con

Using one part of the Bible to back up another might seem counterintuitive, but it"s not as insane as it might first appear. For one thing, Paul"s letters are the earliest writings on Christianity, predating the Gospels by some fifty years. Also, we know he existed. Textual analysis of the epistles proves at least seven of them were written by one guy; and Paul"s historic efforts to open the new church to gentiles are the main reason you"re not reading this in, say, Hebrew. But the biggest thing Paul has going in his favor is his ego. Rather than detail the life story of Jesus, Paul prefers talking about himself"including descriptions of his conversion and travels. Travels which, by the way, include two brief meetings with Jesus" brother James. Since James" existence would have been objectively verifiable to Paul"s readers, the likelihood he made him up is somewhere around "zero""especially since both meetings seem to go quite badly. This is a reason on how Jesus definitely existed.
Debate Round No. 2
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

"Using one part of the Bible to back up another might seem counter intuitive"
Con all but conceded at this point.
This is circular logic you cannot use the bible to prove that the bible is true .You need to provide evidence outside of the bible to support your claim of which you have presented none.

Furthermore as I stated in round one.

"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. "


That quite simply negates Con's one and only argument.My arguments still stand unchallenged.

Back to you Con.
us

Con

The most amazing conclusion in all of this is not that Jesus really existed " it is that He still exists. And He sits in Heaven at the right hand of God offering forgiveness to those who will not just believe He was a regular man, but that He as the Son of God, gave His life on that same cross that so many historians knew about, to take the punishment for sins that all of humanity has committed. It just takes faith and trust in that sacrifice to receive him. Jesus said: Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. - Revelation 3:20-21.

Jesus wants us to believe in Him so we can be freely forgiven of the sins we have committed in our lives, have eternal life and reign with Him. So now that it is established that He existed, why not take the time to get to know Jesus Christ and who He said He is from His historically-verifiable perspective? Your eternal life may depend on it
Debate Round No. 3
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

First and foremost I'm afraid con has yet to provide rebuttals to my points and the single premise he did procure was already negated in my first round opening argument so in closing my premises still stand my conclusion is sound and still unchallenged.


I'm afraid I cannot fulfill your request ,I posses not the slightest intention to squander a single iota the mere brief glimpse of time that I have in this world in worshipping or talking to absolutely imaginary mythical gods neither do I view Christianity is which is at the core a cult of human sacrifice as an efficient and intelligent way to view the world.

Do you really think that when you die you can be corporeally reassembled to me sounds like complete fairy tale to me
however the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can't give way, is an offer of something not worth having. I desire to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don't know anything like enough yet ,that I haven't understood enough ,that I can't know enough ,that I'm always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom.

I wouldn't have it any other way.



Good night thanks for the fun debate.
us

Con

The first century Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus twice. The shorter reference is in Book 20 of his Antiquities of the Jews and describes the stoning of law breakers in A.D. 62. One of the criminals is described as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." What makes this passage authentic is that it lacks Christian terms like "the Lord," it fits into the context of this section of the antiquities, and the passage is found in every manuscript copy of the Antiquities.

Josephus

Titus Flavius Josephus (37 " c. 100)
According to New Testament scholar Robert Van Voorst in his book Jesus Outside the New Testament, "The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that the words "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found" (p. 83).

The longer passage in Book 18 is called the Testimonium Flavianum. Scholars are divided on this passage because, while it does mention Jesus, it contains phrases that were almost certainly added by Christian copyists. These include phrases that would never have been used by a Jew like Josephus, such as saying of Jesus, "He was the Christ" or "he appeared alive again on the third day."

Mythicists maintain that the entire passage is a forgery because it is out of context and interrupts Josephus" previous narrative. But this view neglects the fact that writers in the ancient world did not use footnotes and would often wander into unrelated topics in their writings. According to New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn, the passage has clearly been subject to Christian redaction, but there are also words Christians would never use of Jesus. These include calling Jesus "a wise man" or referring to themselves as a "tribe" which is strong evidence Josephus originally wrote something like the following:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) has not died out" (Jesus Remembered, p. 141).

Furthermore, the Roman historian Tacitus records in his Annals that after the great fire in Rome, Emperor Nero fastened the blame on a despised group of people called Christians. Tacitus identifies this group thusly: "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius." Bart D. Ehrman writes, "Tacitus"s report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius"s reign" (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to Early Christian Writings, 212). this is the reason supported by the Bible why Jesus existed. Please vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I'm expecting Con to get some vote bombs from the heavily ignorant Christian Armada. Even though Con very generously said "vote for Pro". Such a nice guy, should at least get one bomb in his favour.
Or was Con applying reverse psychology there???? :-D~
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
@YouAreSmarterThanMe: Damn, you've really been doing your homework this time!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
@ YouAreSmarterThanMe: You must really love this topic??
:-D~
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
imsmarterthanyou98usTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct points go to Pro, as Con did not offer any rebuttals and then in the last round with no chance for Pro to reply made an argument very poor conduct. Sources go neither debater, as Pro should have cited specific pages and not full websites also Con cited no sources. Arguments go to Pro for making an argument and pointing out the problems with Cons preaching and not rebutting the arguments. Spelling and Grammar are tied.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
imsmarterthanyou98usTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con only verbalized already well researched subjective sources and partially backed up Pro with the second part on Josephus's writings that were likely not his and interpolated by Christian apologists. Though Subjective texts from Hearsay and Legend, such as the Gospels and the mentions from Josephus and Tacitus don't stand as contemporary eye-witness accounts. Personally, I do believe Jesus existed, though as Pro pointed out, that can only be termed a belief that is not supported by verified, tangible, empirical evidence. So my belief in the existence of Jesus of no place in particular (since Nazareth, did not exist in the life time of Jesus) may be Wrong.
Vote Placed by TheSquirrel 2 years ago
TheSquirrel
imsmarterthanyou98usTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Pro had 'um. Con's "argument" was pretty non-existent until the end, there, and though that was the end of the debate and Pro did not get a chance to respond, Joshephus and Tactis both were not even born at the alleged time of "Christ's" death, in fact they wrote almost a century after his time, they are not contemporary sources, they are hearsay.