The Instigator
IntoTheTruth
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SnowyOxygen
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Bible is True

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 450 times Debate No: 61092
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

IntoTheTruth

Pro

I believe that the Bible is true, and that all it teaches - Jesus, God, The Trinity - is also true. There are a few reasons why I believe this.

1. Textual Accuracy
Did you know that the Bible is 99% textually pure? Not many people do. This means that the Bible has virtually unchanged since it was first written. It has been preserved so carefully that the meaning and what it teaches has not been changed.

2. Prophecy
There are many prophecies written in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the New Testament. Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies that were written about Him many, many years before His birth. These are only a few - there were over 300 prophecies about Him - but these stated that he would be:

-Born of a woman
-Born in Bethlehem
-Born of a virgin
-Come from the line of Abraham
-A descendent of Isaac
-A descendant of Jacob
-Come from the tribe of Judah
-Be the heir to King David's throne
-His throne would be eternal
-He would spend a season in Egypt

And much, much more. There were also prophecies that stated he would
-Be rejected by His own people
-Be declared the Son of God
-Perform miracles
-Crucified
-Have His hands and feet pierced [by nails]
-Be a sacrifice for sin
-rise from the dead
-Ascend into Heaven

Jesus fulfilled all these prophecies and more. Keep in mind that these were written years and years before His birth. But how can we trust that Jesus actually existed, and that He wasn't made up? The answer is simple.

3. Evidence to Support Jesus's Existence
Jesus was mentioned by two 1st Century Roman historians, Josephus and Tacitus. This is a non-biblical source, which means that Jesus was mentioned outside the Bible. Both of their writings mention Jesus's crucifixion and miracles. There are other writings that provide evidence for Jesus's existence, but they are up for debate by scholars. Today, though, both Biblical scholars and classic historians accept the following as facts:

-Jesus existed
-He taught people about God and morality
-He was baptised
-He was crucified
-He claimed to be God
-His tomb was found empty

Judging by the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible and the evidence supporting Jesus, it's logical to think that he was who he claimed to be - God. But, how do we know that the Bible has accurately documented Jesus's life? Wasn't it written hundreds of years after his death (or resurrection, depending on your viewpoint)? Is it logical to think that the Bible is true? This brings me to my fourth point.

4. The Bible is a Book of History
This statement particularly describes the Bible. When you open it up, it is essentially a collection of places and people, all described in various amounts of detail, that date back thousands of years. Believers and non-believers can both agree that the Bible is a book of history. But is it accurate? Consider this: archaeological findings have continually validated the Bible. None have contradicted it. Of course, we used to think the Bible was full of historical errors - take Luke's account of Lysanias being the Tetrarch of Abilene. Many people thought that was ridiculous. It was common knowledge that, 50 years prior, Lysanias was the ruler of Chalcis. As it turns out, there were two people named Lysanias, and that's what caused the confusion. Plus, the New Testament was not written hundreds of years after Christ - this is a common mistake. It was actually written near the close of the fist century, by the people who knew Him personally or had encountered Him. Would they lie about Jesus's miracles or the resurrection? Remember, Jesus definitely existed, and Old Testament prophecies needed to be filled. Would the writers lie? There is a simple answer to this:

No.

Historians and scholars all agree that Jesus taught many people morality: not to lie, to steal, and to love everyone. Lying was, and is, bad. The Bible was written by close followers of Jesus who follow what he taught. They had no reason to lie. Plus, there were multiple people, far and wide, who knew Jesus and what He taught. They would know if He performed miracles or not, and if the authors of the New Testament were lying, they would be put to death. Keep in mind that it is also a historical fact that his tomb was found empty. Why would this be? Perhaps Jesus is who He claimed to be.

We have already touched on the textual accuracy of the Bible, the fulfillment of prophecy, evidence to support Jesus's existence, historical accuracy, and why the authors had no reason to lie. The logical conclusion to make is that the Bible is true.
SnowyOxygen

Con

To be honest, I've never actually believed in any supernatural or religious inconsistencies and was brought up in a completely secular skeptic atheist family. And through the years of listening to debates and reading information, it has only served to solidify my resolve. The sheer amount of contradictions and absurdities that you may find in this piece of twice millennia year old book written by several people make it near impossible for me to believe. Not only does your god want me to believe that these works of highly improbable fantasy are true, but he will condemn me for questioning it while giving no solid evidence of it's existence.

Firstly, let me target your point about textual Accuracy. I'm thoroughly confused at this. Not only are there several types of Christianity which believe and preach several different teachings and would kill each-other in the past, but there are also a large number of different versions of the bible. I also question "since it was first written". The numerous books of the old and new testament were written by different people over a period of several centuries, so it was never "first written".

Your second statement worries me. Because the new testament book was written after the old testament, you are therefore assuming that either the writers of the new testament didn't read their own religion's book, or that because it is written in a book by people who had very little scientific understanding then it is true. By that logic, according to the fantasy book series "Disc world", there is a world shaped in a disc sitting on four elephants on a giant turtle floating through space. The same goes for the evidence that Jesus exists; people writing about something does not make it credible, and it is in no way evidence for the existence of Jesus. Furthermore, you state that Jesus not being present in his own tomb is evidence for who he claimed to be. But I propose this: Maybe he's not in his tomb because he never existed in the first place?

"Archaeological findings have continually validated the bible and none have contradicted it." This is probably the largest error in your entire argument. Archaeological findings have validated that people who had no understanding of science affirmed the existence of the events in the bible, they do not validate any of the events that appear in the bible. Furthermore: You can disprove the whole creation argument with a small amount of scientific knowledge and logic. Noah's ark and the flood for example: Not only does this contradict god being all-powerful by not being able to control what he created, but it also contradicts several scientific dating methods and him apparently being kind.
You only need to look at a tree and you'd find that some are over 6000 years old and apparently survived the flood. Furthermore, Noah's ark, the biggest wooden boat ever made which would twist and break in the seas, was built by 8 unskilled humans 4000 years ago?

"They had no reason to lie." Actually, when everyone was uneducated and controlled by rulers, what better way to install fear into the population by telling them they will go to hell unless they follow the word of the church? And what better motivation to go to war and commit total genocide than the word of your loving god?
Debate Round No. 1
IntoTheTruth

Pro

IntoTheTruth forfeited this round.
SnowyOxygen

Con

Strange, I would have thought that the challenger would be prepared for his own debate. Oh well.
Debate Round No. 2
IntoTheTruth

Pro

IntoTheTruth forfeited this round.
SnowyOxygen

Con

Still absent...
Debate Round No. 3
IntoTheTruth

Pro

IntoTheTruth forfeited this round.
SnowyOxygen

Con

SnowyOxygen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
IntoTheTruth

Pro

IntoTheTruth forfeited this round.
SnowyOxygen

Con

SnowyOxygen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
You can study my other statements,
but here's proof that the Bible is False :

My name wasn't Jesus.
No votes have been placed for this debate.