I hope I do not offend to many people that is not my intent on this matter don't debate if you can not take anything against your religion I have met many like that other than that I think this should be fun.
argument: No I don't believe in the story of Jesus. Why because There is to much in common with the myth of Horus I think?
Even Horus's tale is untrue. It is all based on astrology.
Jesus was "born" in Bethlehem which means House of Bread which is another name for the Virgo constellation. Virgo is the virgin as in Jesus was born of the virgin. Jesus "birth" was followed by the Three Kings which are actually the three stars of Orion's Belt. Orion's belt pointed to Bethlehem on the night Jesus was said to have been born. And the reason I believe this story more is because also the fact Jesus "birthday" was Yule which was the old holiday about the birth of the SUN and it was then turned into the birth of the SON. ill leave it at this point I hope to see someone's counter argument soon.
Let me start by saying, yes I AM a Christian. Do I believe Jesus was real? Yes. I don't see how anybody can deny Jesus actually living on this Earth. Whether He was really the Son of God is what is in question. Even most Atheists don't deny that Jesus was on the Earth. They just don't believe that He was who He says he was. My point is this. If Jesus really did even one or two of the things in the Bible, He obviously had divine powers that nobody could have unless they were a "Supernatural" being. Since there IS scientific evidence that some of the things that happened during New Testament times did happen, I don't think that there is any denying that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah.
If I am reading what I think you are saying the Jesus is real based on the fact that the old testament (the part of the bible that Jesus is not nor ever will be apart of) were found of of MAYBE happened so long ago, I am sorry but I see no proof of your argument being true beyond the fact that the bible says it to be true. Please back of your facts more. Now back to the old testament part Jesus had no part in the bible until after the old testament, also while some say he may of existed, I say it is possible a man named Jesus MAY of existed but I truly do not believe that he could of been the son of god. For one thing walking on water hello we do that now it's called ice, boats hell shallow water, any of these may be confused with a so called mystical power.
I said absolutely NOTHING about the Old Testament in my argument. I only mentioned the New Testament. You would know that if you actually read my counter. Therefore, I don't really have anything left to defend from your previous statement.
ill give you that one for somereason i saw old but let me ask you this what if ur parents didnt tell you that jesus was real that your grandparents or any of your family for that matter would u believe in jesus. say you grow up in a jewish home can you say that you would believe jesus to be the son of god? I bet you would not. you see many agree that how you are raised will determen your religion more so than anything else in the world.
You're right. The way people are raised does have a lot to do with their religion. The thing is, people CAN change. Is it likely? No. I do know of a lot of people that have changed because they have seen the light. First example I can think of, is Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty. When he was in his 20's, he owned a bar. He had never even thought about being religious. A man from a church came in one day, and Phil kicked him out. He kept coming back and Phil was kicking him out. Finally, Phil listened to what he had to say, and he understood a little. He went to church the next Sunday. Soon, he sold his bar, was Baptized, and opened Duck Commander in his back yard. It doesn't always matter how you were raised.
There were four prominent historians living around that time, and three of them never mentioned Jesus's existence once. The one that did mention him has been discredited many times before which makes his testimony far less believable. this is my final agruement on this one I thank you for not just saying because the.bible says so i cant tell you how many times I heard that now your own thoughts of the existance of Jesus is the fact that your holy books says he exist right? well how about the other holy books none of which have jesus as the son of god not an one. but even if we look at the holy book called the bible, my question (and therefore argument) is who worte the bible? of course it was humans and what do humans do they make mistakes always now for I was once told that god wrote the bible though humans which of course takes away the humans free will so on the base that the christian god can not over ride our free will we must assume that the bible can only be a guideline at beat for if written by humans it must be full of mistakes, have holes, and every other type of mess up a human can make then we must accept that humans would also change parts to help them more so than others for humans, while prone to mistakes, are powerhungry and greedy. Now if my base is wrong and your god controled these people to write the bible than we must accept that we have no true free will and can and will be mere play things now back to jesus (dont worry i am going somewhere with this im not just taking cheapshots at the bible) if we must accept that the bible can and most likely is wrong we may assume jesus the son of god may be a mistake a part added by greedy people for a way to control others for if you look at history more people have been killed in the name of the christian god and jesus than any war in history. The greed is more likely than a mistake since jesus takes a big part in the new testament. i shall leave my arguement there. O and if you are wondering I am wiccan though im sure you guessed im not christian. thanks for the debate.
What was the question of the actual debate? Is Jesus real? The question wasn't if he was the Son of God. It is if he is real. I don't know who the 4 historians are since you did not have a source, but I'm sure that they didn't all live where Jesus was and preached. That could be one explanation as to why they didn't mention him. Now to the other Holy Books question. I know very little about other Holy Books, except for the Jewish since that is the Old Testament. Of course Jews wouldn't mention him since they don't believe he was the Son of God. They are still waiting on the Messiah, who has already come and gone. And from what I know about the Koran, Jesus is mentioned in it. Even Muslims believe that Jesus was a person. They just don't think that Jesus is the Son of God. They DO think that he was a great prophet though. The Bible was not directly written by God of course, but it is as close as it could be. It was written by people that were inspired by God and He told them what to write basically. Now, before everyone casts their votes, I would like to say again, the question was, Is Jesus Real? Yes. Even most Atheists don't deny that he was real. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to be a part of this debate.
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to counter napoleon's likely misjudgment on that (neither had sources... but con really needed them, I'm a little confused on this ATM).
The question was is a guy real, the round 1 debate con used was it's confusion with astrology. In round 2 he forgets his round 1 debate, and argues with an unseen third debator that talked about the old testiment (pro caught him). Pro managed to make a case, which con never shot down.
Reasons for voting decision: Just as pro said, even people who do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah will say that he was real. The argument to this was "Is Jesus Real." I believe (and I am a Christian) that there is substantial evidence that he was real no matter what side you take. Con's argument was often off topic and he often tried to make points that didn't even make sense.
Reasons for voting decision: I am an Atheist. I went with the Pro side because it seemed to me as if the Con was arguing a point not in the debate, "was Jesus a messiah." I myself think that it is entirely possible a criminal in the eyes of Rome/ Pharisees named Jesus existed, although there is not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. Given its plausibility, I would still hold that there were no supernatural powers, any divinity or even that he did any at all of the things brought up in the bible. I simply think there may have been a rabble rouser named Jesus, he was a pain in Rome\ Pharisees? ass and he was persecuted for it. I see that as totally plausible and have no reason to deny the existence of such a person named Jesus or otherwise. I would have preferred if the Con had presented the lack of evidence for his existence rather than focusing on the question ?was Jesus as the messiah real??
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.