The Instigator
jjmd280
Pro (for)
Losing
56 Points
The Contender
elgeibo
Con (against)
Winning
58 Points

There is no credible historical proof of the Biblical Jesus.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 17 votes the winner is...
elgeibo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 16,438 times Debate No: 5952
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (66)
Votes (17)

 

jjmd280

Pro

Thank you to whomever accepts this debate. I am arguing Pro.

My position -

There is no proof that Jesus existed. It would be difficult to credit the Bible generally (and the gospels in particular) as proof of anything. It is, at best, anecdotal evidence, viz. stories whose authorship cannot be authenticated and which cannot be corroborated except by other hearsay evidence. Although there are references in the Scriptures of persons, places and events whose existence can be corroborated by other historical records, it is hard to credit the story of Jesus in the gospels as anything more than fable.

The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) cannot be authenticated; and even if they could, they cannot be proved to be contemporary accounts as witnesses to the events described or even recorded recollection. They were most likely popular stories handed down by verbal tradition and miscellaneous writings of the early Christian sects, which were later collected and revised under the support of the Church (not all of the gospels were approved), and eventually translated into Latin by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. The English Bible, as stated supra, is even more "attenuated", being translated by William Tyndale, who used the Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Latin Vulgate; which translation was later revised (and edited) as the King James Version. To argue over which version of the Scriptures is correct is merely to argue the question.

For the same reason, it is debatable that these texts can even be relied upon as an historical record. For example, we know a great deal more about Pontius Pilate than we do about Jesus. Pilate was a Roman aristocrat, a knight of the equestrian class, and appointed Procurator of Judea as representative of the Emperor Tiberius. The historical references to Jesus, on the other hand, are sketchy at best. Philo of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul, does not mention Christ or the Christians; and the brief account of Flavius Josephus in the Testamonium Flavianum (C.E. 93) appears to have been added by a later hand. Even the reference by Tacitus is second-hand hearsay (probably from his friend and correspondent Pliny the Younger, who was Governor of Bithynia, and would have had access to the historical records and reports of the region). See Annals, 15.53.

The proof (or disproof) of an alleged fact is determined by evidence of which there are many kinds, e.g., physical evidence, testimonial evidence, opinion evidence, demonstrative evidence, scientific evidence, etc.; and what is required to prove an asserted fact depends on the matter in question, and the probative value of the relevant evidence of it. In this respect, the Bible is no more relevant than other ancient literary works such as Homer as proof. Questions of this sort require one to assume as true what may not be prone to proof; which presumptions invariably result in irrational arguments that get nowhere.

The truth is that the Scriptures are just not intended to be subject to such critical examination; and to argue the validity of the numerous texts, again, merely begs the question. You can argue it forever, but it will bring you no closer to the truth.

Although apologist scholars believe that an actual Jesus lived on earth, the reasons for this appear obvious considering their Christian beliefs. Although some secular freethinkers and atheists accept a historical Jesus (minus the miracles), they, like most Chrisitans, simply accept the traditional view without question. As time goes on, more and more scholars have begun to open the way to a more honest look at the evidence, or should I say, the lack of evidence. So for those who wish to rely on scholarly opinion, I will give a few quotes from Biblical scholars, past and present:

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)

Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character never existed as a person.
-Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar (Gerald Massey's Lectures: Gnostic and Historic Christianity, 1900)

I look forward to the response and rebuttal, and hope for a clean, lively debate.

Source Material - Note - I will accept Wikipedia, if corroborated with external, reputable links.

http://www.bandoli.no...
http://www.provethebible.net...
http://mama.indstate.edu...
elgeibo

Con

My opponent brings a very good (and for some Christians, very scary) subject up. Is there a real, historically acurate, Biblical Jesus? I have chosen to debate that there is indeed! I will, as is my way (look up my other debates, I bring God in a lot), bring in my beliefs as well. Belief can come only from the heart, but, history can add credence to belief.

As I have a lot of characters to type, I'd like to start off with my beliefs, then some historical backing.

Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem of Judea to Joseph and Mary was expected before his birth by prophecy. That he lived a perfect life, taught others the teachings of God so relevant that whole religions (a very important "S") continue to teach them today. That he then died, he died taking on the sin of all mankind that those who would believe in his sacrifice would have their punishment taken away as Jesus had taken it upon himself. Then came back to life, was seen by many, and now resides in heaven speaking to God on our behalf.

Some of those statements are pure and total belief. There is no way to prove them. But, what can be proved is the person-hood of Jesus. And that is what I intend to do......now.

My opponent used a couple of contemporaries of Jesus to disprove him, although my opponent more disproved the source of the contemporaries than Jesus, please, do not forget that.

My opponent has already spoken of Flavius Josephus and how his accounts may or may not have been falsified, but Josephus also speaks of Herod and John the Baptist (http://www.carm.org...) both of whom are spoken of in the Gospels. Why would we trust that John the Baptist had lived, yet deny the existence of Jesus. The Talmud (one of the holy books of Jewish faith) speaks of "Yeshu" being hanged (Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281) the Talmud also speaks of the High Priest Ananias who is mentioned in the Gospels as well as Acts. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus also spoke in his book "Lives of the Twelve Ceasers" about a Chrestus whom certain Jews believed in a rioted against the government because of. There are others, but I think we have a basic understanding of what I'm going with that there are many contemporaries of Jesus who wrote about him, and who are not questioned about their veracity.

Next is evidence based on history. In the book "Jesus" by C. Guignebert (https://www.alibris.com...), he decides that, "conclusions which are justified by the documentary evidence [concerning the life of Jesus] may be summed up as follows: Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emporeor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself." We also know more about Jesus, who has only been brought into question in the last hundred years, than we do about Homer and Alexander the Great, yet we never question their existence.

My opponent tells a good story using half truths and skeptics that have only popped up in the last 150 years, much like Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code fame (that's unfair, my opponent does a much better job of telling a story than Dan Brown). I have used full truths and skeptics from the very start of time, and they prove a historical Jesus.

Let me ask a question back of my opponent now. Why is it that the same people who question Jesus' historical accuracy jump so quick when a coffin that may have been Jesus' is found (http://www.news.com.au...)? Are you more worried about Jesus' historical nature, or more worried about the spiritual nature that his life means on you? For, if that coffin was found to be Jesus Christ's with 100% proof, would you not now be asking how "silly Christians" can believe in a pile of bones? It's the same reason why CE and BCE are creeping up out of nowhere. "Common Era" and "Before Common Era" is a joke, how do we define what is "Common" and "Before Common" by the same birth of Jesus. Just instead of "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" it attempts to take Jesus out of the equation, but he's still there for those who ask questions.

My last proof (for this session) will be other religions. I've already shown that Judaism speaks of Jesus. Islam also speaks of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Neither religion centers on Jesus, in fact, it would be in the best interest of both for Jesus to not exist, yet they do. Why? Because, in a time that was mere hundreds of years after Jesus, not thousands, they knew that a Jesus of Nazareth had been born, and simply lived with it instead of trying to hide the fact.

I look forward to my opponents next round and wish him good luck on his research against the person-hood Jesus.
Debate Round No. 1
jjmd280

Pro

I must begin this round with giving Kudos to my opponent. Your argument was a pleasure to read. Your conversational tone is well received, and to see a Christian that doesn't resort to logical fallacies and that labels unprovable beliefs as just that is refreshing, to say the least. Thank you for that.

Best to do this rebuttal point-by point for clarity.

My opponent cited that I attempted to discredit the sources of the history of Jesus, instead of the actual person Himself. Well, that is my resolution - There is no credible historical proof of the Biblical Jesus.

I must say this – Where does our knowledge of Jesus come from? Not Him. I must rely on written history and archaeological proof to make a case. If Jesus had written ANYTHING – I'd have no case.

Josephus -
Josephus is the first non-Christian writer to mention Jesus. He does this in Books 18 and 20 of his Antiquities, from about 93 AD. It is worth giving the reference in Book 18-

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ . And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

For two centuries no Christian used this passage, although many of them quoted Josephus. For example, Origen quoted Josephus when writing 250,000 words against the pagan writer Celsus but he never uses this passage even when it would have been most useful. In Chapter 6 of Book 1 of 'Contra Celsum', ' Would not Origen have loved to show Josephus as writing that Jesus performed wonderful works?

It is admitted that the 2 passages of Josephus were tampered with by Christians. This rules them out altogether as evidence. If a prosecution lawyer in a court case tried to introduce evidence that had been tampered with by prosecution witnesses, that evidence would be rejected.

It is worth pointing out that any Christian scribe who had just copied out 17 books of Josephus would be familiar with his style and easily able to express Christian thoughts in Josephan language.

Conclusion -
Christian defenders as early as Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) never cited it. Origen (185-254), who dealt extensively with Josephus, wrote that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the messiah nor proclaim him as such.� Eusebius, in 324 CE, first mentions this passage (twice), and is likely the forger of it. Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc. – in all their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus' wondrous words.

Please note that both Herod and John the Baptist are in Book 18 - a forgery by Eusebius.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus -
Writes, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome."� (circa 120 CE) -
Derivative from heresay, useless for evidence that Jesus was an historical person. Chrestus was itself a common name, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful.

My opponent -
"there are many contemporaries of Jesus who wrote about him, and who are not questioned about their veracity."

This is an untrue statement – as there are no contemporaries who wrote of Jesus that are credible. What writings we do have were made years after his death and are heresay of easily questioned veracity. In fact, the absence of the Messiah in so many of the contemporary histories of the time is in itself revealing.
http://www.bandoli.no...

It is fallacious to compare the history of Jesus – THE SON OF GOD -to any other historical figure, but to satisfy the point, proof of Alexander -

Coins minted while he was alive, and The Elephant Medallions -
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.savingantiquities.org...
http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk...

Translation -
From king Alexander to the people of Chios,
All those exiled from Chios are to return , and the constitution on Chios is to be democratic. Drafters of legislation are to be selected to write and emend the laws so as to ensure that there be no impediment to a democratic constitution and the return of the exiles. Anything already emended or drafted is to be referred to Alexander.
The people of Chios are to supply twenty triremes, with crews, at their own expense, and these are to sail for as long as the rest of the Greek naval force accompanies us at sea.
With respect to those men who betrayed the city to the barbarians, all those who escaped are to be exiled from all the cities that share the peace [of Corinth], and to be liable to seizure under the decree of the Greeks. Those who have been caught are to be brought back and tried in the Council of the Greeks. In the event of disagreement between those who have returned and those in the city, in that matter they are to be judged by us.
Until a reconciliation is reached among the people of Chios, they are to have in their midst a garrison of appropriate strength installed by king Alexander. The people of Chios are to maintain the garrison.

To answer my opponent's next question: Are you more worried about Jesus' historical nature, or more worried about the spiritual nature that his life means on you?

First, I am an atheist. I do not believe in the Biblical Jesus. Jesus was a common name among the Jews in antiquity. I don't doubt for a second that there may have been several men named Jesus that were itinerant Rabbis. But none could perform miracles. None walked on water. Do not forget I am disproving the Biblical Jesus – not a man named Jesus. But seeing that this Savior, according to the Bible, turned religion on it's head- and there is not one shred of credible evidence for that – for me disproves the Biblical account.

Besides – if that ossuary you referenced is found to be TRUE – that will prove that Jesus was not the savior depicted in the Bible.

If FALSE, that those bones are of a common man, not of the Messiah, then we are back to square one in proving Him.
Either one would be a blow to Christianity. But I doubt that either will ever be absolutely confirmed.

I don't disagree with you about BC and AD. Just as in God We Trust on money- I don't agree with it, but it does not affect me. Many militant atheists do, what I will call Capital "A" Atheists, but I am not one of them. I recognize history as having a heavy religious undertone, and am fine with that. To attack BC and AD is ignoring this. For if it weren't for religion, there'd be no atheists!. ;-) (But I do have issue with the Pledge – I say it the original way.)

As for the Quranic and Talmudic proof - I hold them in the same regard as the Bible. They are wonderful stories, full of adventure, but alas – just stories.

Talmud -
Jesus as a name was from the Old Testament, where it is written Yeshu(a). The new religion gains legitimacy by attaching itself to the Old Testament. This includes Jesus' name, his lineage and the idea of the Messiah.

Quran, –
I'm sorry, but Koranic references were made to legitimize Islam, they helped to popularize it. Jesus not existing would severely weaken Islam, whose scripture, the Quran, refers to Jesus as a historical figure. That is all – The Koran, IMO, is more flawed than just about any holy book – well, Dianetics, and The Book of Mormon tie for a close second.

To close - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
elgeibo

Con

I must say, it is nice to hear from an atheist that believes more in atheism than doesn't/refuses to believe in God. I also appreciate the fact that my opponent keeps this debate at the professional level, and this has not come down to:

P: Jesus isn't real, you're an idiot!
C: Jesus is real, you suck!
P: You suck times infinity!
etc.

On to the show

My opponent continues to bring up Josephus, though I have already agreed that tampered writings are about as good as a screen door on a submarine (http://www.urbandictionary.com...) as it means only that the document was not very well looked after. And as far as Gaius Tranquillas is concerned only retorts that Chrestus was a common name.

Common name, yes, common death, somewhat, common enough to be spoken of 160 years later? Certainly not!

The CRIPS co-founder who died in 2005 of gassing in California, what is his name. Stanley (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Fairly common name, gas death, fairly common for hardcore criminals (which, let's be honest, Jesus was to the Jews of his day. Calling God HIS father, the shear blasphemy of which we cannot fathom today!) But will Stanley "Tookie" Williams III be remembered 160 years from now? Will he be written about 500 years from now? I'd be willing to bet that no, he will not. How many CRIPS even know Stanley's name?

All that to say, it's not 100% proof at all for a historical biblical Jesus, yet it does reveal that he made an impact. Even if you don't believe Jesus was God, this would put Jesus in the ranks of Johnny Appleseed, Paul Bunyon, and John Henry. All characters that have been based off of real people.

Proof of Alexander the Great can all be explained away by a true unbeliever. One could easily point out that my opponents "proofs" of Alexander had been faked. The note that was written in seizure of Chios was not written in Alexander's hand it could have been simply used by a herald, the "myth" of Alexander the Great spread so far that they put a likeness on money and said it was Alexander's (like someone would put God's name on money! What a crock!). The elephant medallions certainly don't contain DNA of Alexander the Great, what do they have to do with his proof?

The topic being "Credible proof" has been been answered, the proof is there. The best retort my opponent could come up with was to beat the same dead horse of Josephus and say only that Gaius lived 130 years after Jesus and that Jesus was a common name. With these same "proofs" one could prove Abraham Lincoln never lived as there are forgeries about him and Abraham was a common name. My opponent then denies the Quran and Talmud as proof because they are nothing more than "story books", though they have no need to mention Jesus, since they are not about him at all, yet still do anyway.

The Quran yes, needed Jesus to gain gain legitimacy, the Talmud however, is not the Old Testament, but a book of teachings by later teachers of the law. They have no need to mention Jesus, I go so far as to say again, it would be better to not mention him, but in so doing continue to give a historical Jesus proof.

As I said in my first round, belief is not proof of the thing believed. In fact, given proof, the need for belief would be nullified. However, what belief after so much time does do is give credence to the life of Jesus. Where are the worshipers of Ba'al? Why have worshipers of ancient religions become all but extinct? Because they were based on lies told by generations that had no evidence. Yet, now, today believers in a true historical Christ are still all over the globe. And their numbers are rising, not falling (http://www.religionfacts.com...)!

So again, I have provided reasonable evidence to show a historically accurate Jesus.

I will be out of town till Sunday night, I hope my next round doesn't end before I get back, it shouldn't! I'm excited to see what my opponent has in store for me when I get back!
Debate Round No. 2
jjmd280

Pro

And here we are at the Last Round.
I will allow myself to step out of the "scholarly tone", and step into a more conversational tone. To turn a phrase, let's let our hair down.

Thanks for a most interesting and enjoyable debate, elgeibo. It has been a pleasure. I look forward to debating you again soon.

Act 3, Scene 1

My opponent admits that Josephus is as credible as James Frye. ( http://www.slate.com... )

My opponent states that Gaius Tranquillas had to be writing about Jesus, for the story was still being told. OK – I can see that. But as with the Bible proper, it is not credible, no matter how many times or how long into the future you tell the story. We still hear stories about Hercules, whom in Ancient Greece was though to be real, too. The point is – and remains – There is no credible historical proof of the Biblical Jesus. (argument from tradition)

Jesus the rabble-rousing single man who roamed around preaching – if I stretch my imagination – MAYBE. But as for Jesus the Christ – the water-walking wunderkind of Jehovah – the rising Rabbi of religion – the "water into wine, here's a 2 fish and a 5 loaf of bread for 5000 men, raising of Lazarus" fellow so many have come to know and love – NOPE, NADA, NIL, NYET – there isn't just the lack of extraordinary evidence – the isn't even ORDINARY evidence.

And that is the basis of faith – the belief of something without sufficient evidence.

Religion is the ONLY discipline that not only doesn't think it strange to believe in unprovable things without question, but will attempt to destroy and divide those that do question . (Christianity is a lot more well-behaved these days, but that gem of a religion- Islam, is taking up the slack.)

As far as the analogy to Stanley Tookie – What to say? ..I know – Stanley never claimed to perform miracles, never walked on water (at least to my knowledge) and his Last Supper wasn't at all based in cannibalism (again, AS FAR AS I KNOW – DON'T quote me. I live in LA part time, and the CRIPS don't need a reason to start looking for me. ;-)) Now, that is not to say he won't become mythical, at least with the CRIPS – I'm willing to bet most if not ALL CRIPS know who Stan is, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go out and ask one. ;-) (Red Herring)

I do agree the myth of Jesus holds sway over millions of people. It has produced HISTORY, WEALTH, DISCORD, DEVUSIVENESS, and CHARITY , among other things. All the hallmarks of a wildly held faith. But does this basis of this faith hold up to real scrutiny? NO. (appeal to consequences)

I will also concede that it is ALMOST impossible to prove Alex the Great – but Historians do not doubt his existence. He left a little burg in Egypt called Alexandria, and several battle sites that are unmistakable for his brand of conquest. – Point being, although you may nay say the proof, no matter how you look at it, it is proof – you'd be harder pressed denying his existence than I am with Jesus the Miracle Man. Besides – the point is moot, for as I said before, To compare The Literal Son of Jehovah's existence to a mere mortal is ridiculously absurd. Historical myths based on real people abound – but, there was only ONE SON OF GOD. To actually not record His existence in ANY credible way is unbelievable – if He existed. To be honest, I would expect HUNDREDS of relatings, if not THOUSANDS. In the time He was supposedly alive, His actions and subsequent execution as represented in the Bible would have been the OJ trial of The 1st century AD. (or BCE, don't wish to offend.) (Red Herring)

The denying of Alex only shows how flawed written history can be, and supports my resolution more than refutes it.

My opponent -
like someone would put God's name on money! (appeal to common practice)

I wish to address this for one reason – it is widely misunderstood WHY it's there. It was placed on all money in response to COMMUNISM, in other words, to irk the crap out of the Reds. It is Ceremonial deism, which is is a legal term used in the United States for nominally religious statements and practices deemed to be merely ritual and non-religious through long customary usage. Examples of ceremonial deism include the reference to God introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, and the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency. So, for that reason, I haven't an issue with it. Besides the point, but worth noting. (Thank Debate,com for 8000 characters!)

As for Abraham Lincoln, I don't have to stick with this type of proof – which is NOT helping your case - http://www.liveauctiontalk.com...

You should've stuck with Alexander. ;-)

"My opponent then denies the Quran and Talmud as proof because they are nothing more than "story books", though they have no need to mention Jesus, since they are not about him at all, yet still do anyway. "

I have shown they had a GREAT need to mention Jesus, and your correction that the Talmud was written after Him (and thank you again) helps me, not you. The mention in the Talmud was in response to the claim of his Holiness, and attempted to further legitimize Judaism. It was a reaction to the growing Christian movement, and was not historical proof of anyone – just proof of the new religion. Jesus was used as a tool – and worked very well in the texts of these Holy Books.

His last argument (look how long Christianity has been around and how many peeps practice it) is best refuted by saying that he is using the logical fallacy of appeal to belief. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

But - countering his appeal with a couple of fallacies of my own – Islam is the fastest growing religion (argumentum ad populum) and Hinduism is the oldest (Appeal to Tradition)
There. I can do that, too ;-)

In summary –

Where do we go from here? Does the debate about the authenticity of Jesus really mean much?

Nope. I just find it a fascinating little window into the mysteries of human thinking. I mean, we are debating about whether a person really existed in the flesh and blood in order to prove that a supernatural being exists. But it is really for naught – I am no more going to convince my opponent that he is wasting his time with Christianity that he is going to prove to me that out of thousands of religions that exist, his is the true one.

But, it was fun, and I thank you for reading, and voting based on the debate, and not your personal beliefs. I hope that is not asking too much. Remember, I didn't say your Savior did not exist, I said it's impossible to credibly prove Him.

*shakes elgeibo' hand.
elgeibo

Con

As we have let our hair down (whew! I was getting a headache!), I will not debate a whole lot in this round.

It was my understanding (maybe I misread) that this debate was about a historically accurate Jesus. We were not debating on whether or not: he was the son of God, turned water into wine, walked on water, etc; but on whether or not he actually existed.

If the point was existence and not Godhood, I feel I won the debate, as my opponent even conceded (though slightly) with "Jesus the rabble-rousing single man who roamed around preaching – if I stretch my imagination – MAYBE" 3rd paragraph.

If, I was supposed to prove Jesus' Godhood, I think I did an admiral job of trying, but it would be impossible to, and I concede defeat.

That having been said, I'd like to speak on faith a little more.

Faith cannot have proof. To give proof destroys faith.

To those in this world that need absolute proof before they believe in something, faith is the most ridiculous lie ever conceived by man. A mostly logical (enough to make Spock start blubbering about his daddy) person looks on those with faith as easily duped idiots. Our purely logical friend understands that people need/want something to believe in, but only because they have not yet reached the intelligence to get over the need for a bedtime story and a kiss from mommy to make them feel protected enough to sleep. A purely logical person continually asks "why" and will not rest until they get their answer.

For those with whom faith is the only way to live, they look at everything with a child-like wonder. They are the ones who are easily taken in by fads and will follow anyone with an idea, because it could be true! These people find the highly logical person to be "harshing their buzz" and a stick in the mud that can't just live. The highly faithful see the highly logical as people that cannot live outside of bounds and will never have a fulfilled life until the numbers add up. The highly faithful person will ask "why not" and then stumble around with a glazed look in their eyes.

I believe that it is the person who uses both of these ways of viewing the world that will have a fulfilled life.

I hope I have shown myself to be intelligent, articulate, capable of showing and understanding facts and figures (I feel my opponent may have found a new respect for the thinking faithful) while still having a worldview whose very base is faith. If the facts and figures truly add up, they will add up; no matter what base they are based on, 2 + 2 will always equal 4 whether you use college ruled paper or construction paper. I believe Galileo had a lot to say on this topic (http://thinkexist.com...). There are true gems in his thinking that still astound me every time I read them! Albert Einstein too had many thoughts about the harmony of God/man logic/faith (http://rescomp.stanford.edu...).

Faith is the evidence of things unseen. Faith has only the evidence of its self.

Did Jesus exist, I think I have shown yes. Did Jesus turn water to wine and walk on water? I believe so, and in believing display not gullibility, but courage. The courage to look at a world with logical eyes, understanding that there is no reason to believe what I do, no proof, no record, but to do so anyway and to live my life under the guidance of what my faith has to say.

To echo my opponent, neither of us has been swayed, to expect otherwise would have shown the difference between faith and gullibility ;). I hope that, as I always do, our readers will not vote-bomb either side, in fact I would forfeit (were that possible) if I win by votes that were not explained, and I expect my opponent would as well. I would also like to add, be respectful in the comments section. I have seen too many ridiculous posts by ridiculous people in comment sections.

This debate has been a challenging delight. As has my opponent. Best of luck in this and future debates, and I'm sure we'll have debates in the future. Happy voting!
Debate Round No. 3
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jjmd280 6 years ago
jjmd280
jebwatson-

If you can prove that the Bible was a first hand history book - collaborated with other histories written AT the same time....OK.

If not, well....
Posted by jebwatson 6 years ago
jebwatson
*who's not lived IT. Sorry all.
Posted by jebwatson 6 years ago
jebwatson
Why is the bible immediately discredited with the phrase, "it would be difficult to prove anything with the bible?" What are history books then? Should we simply stop trusting history books written from first hand accounts? How is the bible any different? Secondly, you can never genuinely prove anything to someone who's not lived. If you did note experience it with your senses, you have no genuine idea what has happened. It's always a matter of faith. No matter what's said, that's what it always boils down to, faith.
Posted by thisoneguy 7 years ago
thisoneguy
Anyone interested they can go to youtube.com, and do a search for "Ron Wyatt", or "Revealing Gods treasures" there you can find many truths relating to this subject. I found it Amazing. there you will find around 20 videos to watch.
Posted by jjmd280 7 years ago
jjmd280
So are you saying that everything in the Bible is a lie?

No, just as true as The Wizard of Oz, though. There is a Kansas, and tornadoes do happen.
Posted by Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating 7 years ago
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating
So are you saying that everything in the Bible is a lie?
Posted by thisoneguy 7 years ago
thisoneguy
The Bible is true and carries proof in the scriptues contained, example as follows John,1:1," in the beginning was the word,,,,,," And what is the word?, Yes, the Bible!, Matt,4:4," (Jesus said),,,, it is written, man can not live by,,,,", can you see what happened here?,, "seek and Ye shall find".
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Absolutely read it. I've also read the tabloids. Publication doesn't make it true.

EXACTLY.
Posted by purplemustard03 8 years ago
purplemustard03
Absolutely read it. I've also read the tabloids. Publication doesn't make it true.
Posted by Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating 8 years ago
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating
The people in the bible who recorded everything received REVALATION FROM GOD who MANAFESTED IT THROUGH HIS SON JESUS CHRIST WHO WAS A REAL PERSON have you actually read the bible?
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating 8 years ago
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating
jjmd280elgeiboTied
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 
Vote Placed by Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
jjmd280elgeiboTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by mrchaz 8 years ago
mrchaz
jjmd280elgeiboTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Evakian 8 years ago
Evakian
jjmd280elgeiboTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
jjmd280elgeiboTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by elgeibo 8 years ago
elgeibo
jjmd280elgeiboTied
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 
Vote Placed by cmrnprk07 8 years ago
cmrnprk07
jjmd280elgeiboTied
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 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
jjmd280elgeiboTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
jjmd280elgeiboTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by attrition 8 years ago
attrition
jjmd280elgeiboTied
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