i think jesus was not real
Debate Rounds (3)
Tacitus was a well-known "senator, orator, ethnographer, and arguably the best of Roman historians." His major work, titled 'Annals', speaks of the Emperor Nero, who was "suspected of secretly ordering the of a part of town where he wanted to carry out a building project, so he tried to shift the blame to Christians." Here's a quote from Annals: "[N]either human effort nor the emperor"s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered [by Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts " whom the crowd called 'Chrestians.' The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate " Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular." Keep in mind that Tacitus was a historian and that he was not Christian.
A Jewish priest and aristocrat known as Josephus also mentions Jesus as a historical person. "Few scholars have ever doubted the authenticity of [his] short account." Here's a quote from his work, titled the 'Testimonium Flavianum': "Around this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who did surprising deeds, and a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place came to love him did not give up their affection for him, for on the third day, he appeared to them restored to life. The prophets of God had prophesied this and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, have still to this day not died out."
Lucien of Samosata, a Greek satirist, despite not providing a name, clearly refers to Jesus as a historical individual in his work titled 'Peregrinus'. Here's a quote: "It was then that he learned the marvelous wisdom of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And" what else?"in short order he made them look like children, for he was a prophet, cult leader, head of the congregation and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books, and wrote many himself. They revered him as a god, used him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector"to be sure, after that other whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world." Here's another: "For having convinced themselves that they are going to be immortal and live forever, the poor wretches despise death and most even willingly give themselves up. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws."
One final point I'd like to make: very few scholars deny that Jesus Christ was a historical individual. Most scholars agree that He was a historical individual. You may believe whatever you want about His divinity, but this debate is about whether he was a real historical individual or not.
All quotes that were not specified belong to this article. The article itself was written by Lawrence Mykytiuk, an associate professor of library science as well as the history librarian at Perdue University. He has a PhD in Hebrew and Semitic Studies and authored the book 'Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200"539 B.C.E.'.
1. My oppenent is referring to the Bible as "stories".
In that case, they are not debating the topic that they created for this debate: "Jesus was not real".
2. You are referring to my sources as "stories".
Let's go back to my sources:
'Annals' by Tacitus, a Greek HISTORIAN, senator, and ethnographer.
'Testimonium Flavianum' by Josephus, a Jewish priest and aristocrat.
'Peregrinus' by Lucien of Samosata, a Greek satirist.
And finally, and article written by an associate professor of library science, history librarian, and PhD in Hebrew and Semitic Studies who compiled these sources.
Furthermore, the vast majority of scholars believe in the historical existence of Jesus Christ (which does not equate to His divinity or the idea that He is the son of God).
My opponent has either gone off topic or discredited my sources without providing one of their own.
yes, the story from your historian is a story.
Of course the past matters! History teaches us so much and so much of that can be applied to today. Suppose you're an anti-war individual; you might use the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan or President Obama's drone strikes in the Middle East as examples of the destruction caused by war. Or are those just "stories"? Suppose you're a gun owner who supports the Second Amendment; you might use the Battle of Athens or the old lady who shot her attacker and saved her life recently as examples of why guns are beneficial. Or are those just "stories" as well because they did not happen in the present?
"The story from your historian is a story."
Okay, prove it! You're telling me that a renowned Greek historian, a Jewish priest and aristocrat, a Greek satirist, a man with a PhD in Hebrew and Semitic Studies and access to a historical library, as well as countless scholars are all completely wrong? You said yourself that the past doesn't matter - which I completely disagree with - however, what about the majority of scholars that believe in Jesus' existence now? Are they all dead wrong? Yet you have not provided an equal source (like that of another scholar) to back up your claim?
I'd like to thank you for debating this topic today and turn it over to the voters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by missmozart 3 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD Pro did not provide any argument throughout the debate, only statements- "just stories in books". Con does an excellent job in refuting all of Pro's "points" as well as constructing an organised and convincing argument using a good source to support his/her points. Source points go to Con because the link given enhanced his/her arguments and supported his/her points while Pro does not use any sources to back up his already unconvincing points. As for s&g points, I usually judge this in proportion to what the debater has written, eg. if they have written 8000 characters and there are five or six incorrect spellings, that is understandable. In this case, Pro had capitalization, spelling and punctuation errors in almost 10 places and considering that his writing was extremely limited, I was not impressed. Therefore, Con gets my vote in this debate. Well done.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate