The Instigator
us
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
imsmarterthanyou98
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

did Jesus do miracles

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 9 votes the winner is...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,488 times Debate No: 43854
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (9)

 

us

Pro

Jesus did the miracles. it says it in the Bible and every educational book on Jesus. There is also proof of his miracles.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

I accept please make your case.I wish Pro luck.
:)
Debate Round No. 1
us

Pro

Jesus did the miracles there is so much proof. The Bible says all of what he did on mountains people can prove what he did. God know that he did those miracles. There is my proof.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

Thank you con for...that.
My points will be short and breif.
P1.If jesus did not exist he coulden't of done "miracles"
P2.Jesus did not exist.
P3.Logically we conclude that jesus did not do miracles.

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.........




I thank Con for what has been a rather short debate.

Debate Round No. 2
us

Pro

My opponent got his information off the internet which dose not have reliable information. the Bible has good information eye witnesses wrote about what Jesus did and they saw what he did.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

I almost don't feel the need to respond to anything this round but i will.Voters please note Pros very poor grammer.
Now my sources are peer-reviewed and supported by evidence.

The bible is simply fictional fairy tale supported by 0 evidence.

My contentions stand vote Con.


I leave you to ponder this.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.


Thanks for a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Thanks :)
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Yep, it's Gr8 M8!
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
@ sagey wow that's amazing.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Actually there are many Ex-ministers and Ex-Priests (Christian and Muslim) in the annuls of
"The Clergy Project" which is a body set up to help such clergy who no longer believe, find another life, away from their churches and mosques.
A few of them are also members of the same atheist and humanist groups I belong to.
They all thought they would never become non-believers.

Yet, very few, if any, go the other way from non-believer to believer.
Most of those cited by Christian organizations and websites, were not really Atheists, they were Agnostics who sat in the middle.
For every Agnostic (pretend atheist) that becomes a believer, at least 10,000 believers become non-believers.
My street was filled with believers only 25 years ago.
No children played on Sunday mornings, because all were with their parents at church.
There is not one believer in our street today. Sunday mornings are noisy, with children playing all along the street.
Sometimes I'd prefer it, if they were all at Church, it was much quieter.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
@ us
My Ex-Priest/Theologian friend said that he was going to believe in Jesus and The Bible, until the day he died.
In fact he put his entire life into that belief, gained a Masters of Theology degree, preached for over 30 years, until one night, he tried to answer a question put to him by one of his church members concerning the rationality of Hell and Heaven and why they exist.
He spent almost the entire night reading the Bible and trying to find an answer that could satisfy the particular question of his sceptic church member. He couldn't rationalize any of it.
He awoke the next morning an Atheist.
Never say Never!
Is my motto.
It may happen, one day when your mind decides to become Rational.
Posted by us 3 years ago
us
Never i will believe in him till the day i die. @imsmarterthanyou98. he will always exist the proof is there you just need to look at it.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
@us Is there absolutely any possibility of you becoming an atheist and accepting that god doesn't exist (Atheism)?
Posted by us 3 years ago
us
I know but you've been very mean and those comments are very hurtful.
Posted by MadeinAmerica1999 3 years ago
MadeinAmerica1999
I never said I disrespect Christianity. I do not agree with a book that was written with no proof. I am an atheist.
Posted by us 3 years ago
us
Well to me the Bible is not a fairy tail it is Gods word. And i will respect your religion if you respect mine
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
usimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: no arguments from pro
Vote Placed by supershamu 3 years ago
supershamu
usimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: There really was no argument made by Pro which is quite unfortunate. Con made a little bit of an uphill battle for himself with the P1. P2. & P.3 argument but again it was uncontested by Pro
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
usimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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: Con actually made a case. Pro lost conduct points for his rude dismissive nature. Pro at one point said that internet sources aren't reliable but used the bible as a source. The bible in its entirety can be found on the internet.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
usimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The Bible is a reliable source whereas the internet is not... that's an automatic loss on arguments. Conduct also to con for actually posting and argument. S&G is tied, as is sources, as all of con's links are broken.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
usimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro only sourced The Bible, without citing passages, so essentially no evidence was given, since all accounts of Jesus were compiled decades after his death with no corroborated witness evidence nor external evidence presented. Con presented evidence, even though I disagree with Con's argument that Jesus didn't exist, as I believe he was just a man suffering from Schizotypal Personality Disorder which can have sufferers believing they can do miracles.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
usimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not even try. Con gave very reasonable arguments while pro responded with Cause the bible says so. I am seeing that debating religion feels terribly one sided! Christians and Muslims can no longer defend their religion!
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
usimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had sound arguments backed up by sources.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
usimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not say why the Bible was reliable, and Con did some very thorough research. Conduct minus for Con's rambley one-liners and style that seemed to suggeset obstinate indignation. Grammar goes to Con. Please work on capitalization, puntuation, sentence fragments, and spelling (though Con had a few errors too). Because your arguments were incredibly short Pro, there is no reason to have that much misspelling. All in all, Con's points were not refuted, and Pro offered no justified offense, or even any sources. Pro didn't even quote the Bible.
Vote Placed by kawaii_crazy 3 years ago
kawaii_crazy
usimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I am Christian and believe in miracles but Pro was very disappointing in this debate. He could have gone to an online bible and given those as sources and could have made his arguments a bit more lengthy. Con was a bit rude in the last round but otherwise made very good arguments, though he didn't change my mind and I still believe Jesus does miracles.