The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Christianity Concluded

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,619 times Debate No: 13573
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




Thank you to my opponent for allowing for an extension round. The original statements will be posted with some minor revision.

In this debate, I ask that my opposition proves the originality and legitimacy of Christianity on a factual basis, as well as whether or not the fulfillment of prophecy ever occurred and if so sources to the actual prophecy that was fulfilled and to the sources that confirm its fulfillment. Please, Excuse the simplicity of my beginnings as they are only meant to set the pace. I hope for a great debate and thank you before hand.

1. Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy.

2. Ancient Rome incorporated themselves into the religions of territories they controlled prior to Christianity and Christianity as well.

3. Christianity is a false belief system.

4. And last but not least, Jesus could not have risen in his physical form due to the testimonies of "eyewitnesses" he allegedly visited.

I will be happy to elaborate further after any opponent takes a firm stance that proves otherwise.

I corrected my grammatical error on topic (4) so it wouldn't be misinterpreted as it was before It's posted beneath here so it doesn't throw anything off. thank you again.

4. And last but not least, if Jesus resurrected in his physical form. The testimonies of "eyewitnesses" he allegedly visited shouldn't be enough to prove it.


Greetings to my opponent, I can't wait to see your finale version two. I don't really think this debate needs any definitions yet, I guess we can just define issues as they arise. My overall argument is that being a Christian is not necessarily an unjustifiable position and thus not a hoax, plus that it is not based on prior beliefs, although there might be circumstantial similarities (as would be the case with ANY belief).

My opponent brings 4 claims:

1. That Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy. The Old Testament, which is accepted by Jews to be authentic to this extent (and is confirmed by the dead sea scrolls), contains hundreds of prophecies. All of them were fulfilled by Jesus as he is recorded in the Bible (see and for lists). Thus the question becomes, is the Bible a reliable source? If it is, then Jesus did fulfill the prophecies. If not, he did not. I discuss this point in argument #4. Suffice to say that it is at least a contingent moot point until then. I challenge my opponent to name a single prophecy in the old testament Jesus did not fulfill. He can't and I win the point.

2. Ancient Romans may have installed elements of their belief system into Christianity. Or maybe Christianity influenced Ancient Rome. The latter seems much more likely given that Ancient Rome persecuted the Christians (this is well documented by multiple historians such as Livy and Suetonius) and sent them to be killed. In the later Roman empire, while it is true that Christianity was adopted by the Romans, by then it was too late to integrate religious elements from Roman religion, largely because very few Romans still believed in it anyway. The three cults of Sol, Mithra and Jesus were in fact already the leading religions. Besides which, the bible had already been codified for centuries and there is no evidence that it changed during this period. Furthermore, I'd like to cite a complete lack of similarities between the two religions. While it is true some minor details are the same, that's just coincidence. For every similarity you list, I can list ten differences. I can do the same with any other religion dominant at the time. You can't out-list me so I win this point too.

3. Christianity is a false belief (I assume that my opponent does not mean "belief system" as that would mean he claims there are no Christians). First, all beliefs, by their very nature, are subjective. Your subjective judgment of somebody else's subjective judgment does not make an objective judgment. Second, your claim is an assertion. As a matter of fact, there is plenty of evidence for God, for Jesus being God and all the other Christian beliefs - just as I know there are strong arguments against too. Extensive collections are listed at , , and at . You cannot claim that somebody who has built a belief on these arguments is necessarily wrong, nor that you are necessarily right. Christianity COULD in theory be true and thus is not necessarily a false belief. Extensions to this case are here:

4. That eyewitness accounts do not prove the resurrection (again, this is what I assume my opponent means, taken literally what he writes is that the more eyewitnesses there are the more false something is, when logically the very opposite is true). Here I must admit my opponent is right. But the statement is misleading. Eyewitness accounts may not constitute formal proof, but they are the best thing we have. I've never been to New York, but I believe the people who have and thus believe in New York. I never met Adolf Hitler, but I believe people who did and thus believe there was once a man named Hitler. I never met Einstein and yet I believe in him. Why? Eyewitness accounts. They are the single strongest form of evidence for anything historical we have. The bible is full of them. Not one of the passages of the Bible was disputed by anyone who did the research for about 100 years. Not until about 100 years ago did people start to doubt seriously whether Jesus even existed. We have more evidence for Jesus than Socrates, Confucius, Genghis Khan or Muhammad, yet people do not seem to have any trouble accepting these people as historical. Thus the Bible is a legitimate source, and the eyewitness accounts provide very strong evidence.

To win this debate I must prove the originality and the legitimacy of Christianity, as well as defeat my opponent's arguments about the fulfillment of prophecy. The latter I have done preemptively above, so I now turn my attention briefly to the former two.

1. Christianity is an original religion. I have already stated that it is different from foreign religions such as the Roman religion. I still challenge my opponent to cite their supposed similarities. Christianity, as we all know, is based directly on Judaism with the original extension of the wide-ranging teachings of Christ. These teachings were quite unorthodox and so not at all based on Judaism, as proven by the fact Jesus was killed on the cross (if we were to assume, for a moment, that Christianity is what it says it is, for the sake of separating this argument from argument #2). Besides which, Judaism itself was original, being the only monotheistic religion before about 500BC and systematically influencing all later religions which conquered the Jews (such as the Egyptian, Babylonian and Hittite-which-became-PseudoGreek (my own label) religions). All this time archeological records indicate not one scripture of the Jews was added.

2. Christianity is a legitimate religion. I have already given reasons why belief in Christianity can be sane and reasonable. I would furthermore like to know what makes it illegitimate. My dictionary says "legitimate" means legal and/or credible. Well, it's certainly legal to be a Christian, and the fact is billions of people find it credible. If my opponent does not, then surely my opponent is only appealing to one of their arguments listed above. This point in and of itself is almost tautological.

There stands my case. I am happy to clarify anything. I await your argument proper and your rebuttals.

Be you religious or not, this debate is not about religion. I'm an atheist, and I think it's OK to be a Christian. My rational is above. In my view, if people want to believe in things I think are false, that's their choice. And they can (plus do) make legitimate claims about their religion. It's an original belief, it's not a hoax, and the outside influence is very little. That is why I am most proud to propose.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks again for the continuation of this debate.

1.Pro said; "Christianity, as we all know, is based directly on Judaism with the original extension of the wide-ranging teachings of Christ. These teachings were quite unorthodox and so not at all based on Judaism,"
That is a double negative, how can it be "based" yet "not at all be based". That is also misinformation, minus Jesus 31 unique parables spread out between the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all of his teachings were paraphrased from the OT. Sparing no one including Jesus of having an outer influence.

As for a prophecy he hasn't fulfilled which is why the Jews did not accept him. Many Jewish people, to whom the revelation from God was given in the first place, believe that the prophets foresaw a different kind of Messiah. They see prophets pointing to a coming Deliverer who would rescue Israel from her enemies and establish Jerusalem as the capital of a world government (Isa. 2:1-3).
Did Jesus Fulfill that prophecy?

Now on to the topic at hand. I will address the numerous assumptions you have made throughout your statement, so to clear things up a little. Quoting an authority is not evidence, Quoting a majority opinion is not evidence any statement that begins with "According to" and "what the majority believes" is not evidence. Authorities and Majorities have the ability of misinterpreting and have misinterpreted since the beginning of time. This being a common knowledge I feel no need to "out-list" you as it is also off topic. I have chosen to re-post your statements partially just as your sources have made the mistake of doing.

1. You said ; "All of them were fulfilled by Jesus as he is recorded in the Bible (see and for lists)."
Which is contradictory in itself as well as subjective. Prophecy is a prediction uttered under divine inspiration.
If that is the accepted definition, it clearly reveals that the absence of prediction renders it non-prophetic logically.

a) What passage predicted Jesus? surely not Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."
That is God Talking to Adam & Eve not predicting a Messiah. Gen 3:15 is directly subsequent to Adam & Eve eating the fruit from the "tree which is in the midst of the garden" and has nothing to do with Jesus in any way or form as is with ALL of the other so-called prophecies you cited. Did you even read the poor excuses for a prophecy the pages you cited used? Your rebuttal makes no point at-all.
b) I challenge my opponent to show me a Prophecy that fits a Prophecies definition, then I will take the challenge of proving it was not fulfilled. Your argument must prove first that there is a prediction uttered under divine inspiration that preceded Jesus, not a statement directed at a whole different set of people that doesn't correlate in the least bit. My point still stands until TRUE evidence proves otherwise.
c)"Thus the question becomes, is the Bible a reliable source?"
That is not this question, but basically a recant of the statement I made on topic (2.)

Since there are 365 alleged "prophecies" on the pages you cited, I will not have enough space to address each. Pick your strength and get back at me. At this current junction of time you have shown nothing solid and I would be better off to overlook any comment you made as uneducated assumption. My point stands (1) jesus did not fulfill the prophecy from masoretic texts.

2. Coincidence: an event that might have been arranged although it was really accidental.
I stated Rome as an example of one of the primary arrangers of the christianity hoax, and apologize as there are many more influences. Since you chose to use the word "coincidence" as the grounds for your argument I will address it, and we can see who will "out-list" on this topic.

a)"Queen Olympias herself credited Zeus with impregnating her. parallels the virgin birth right?"

b)""In the resurrection of Osiris the Egyptians saw the pledge of a life everlasting for themselves beyond the grave."
Just like gentiles get through jesus.

c)Khrishna of India. Thammuz of Syria. Esus of the Celtic Druids. Mithra of Persia. Quexalcoati of Mexico. All were crucified gods, and all met their fates hundreds of years before Jesus appeared on the scene.

d)Still to this very day in age the Pharisees and Sadducee's have not accepted Jesus the Greek name for Yehshua as the savior.

e)Paul of Tarsus went on to write thirteen epistles in the NT.
Hence my original statement, "The Romans incorporated themselves into the teachings of christianity" Paul of Tarsus the self-proclaimed "Apostle to the Gentiles"was a roman citizen, and was also rejected by

I could have went all the way to z)... twice over, but I believe these are grounds enough to show influence beyond natural coincidence. My point prevails.(2)

3. I contest my statement as being assertion. I do not question whether you are RIGHT or WRONG in coming to a belief and just as you stated "In my view, if people want to believe in things I think are false, that's their choice".

I only show to prove that they are false in a logical nature. If anything rather than an assertion it is a conclusion and therefore justifiable by the course of our other arguments and not in need of its own section.
But I still motion to the readers that the statement "Christianity COULD in theory be true" is not a grounds for disputing my so-called assertion or discrediting it. If that's your best argument then, I concede "the flying spaghetti monster is god" has just as much bearing on the truth. Just because my cousins, aunts, uncles wife believes in god doesn't make it credible. My point stands. Christianity is a false belief system. false defined as; based on mistaken, erroneous, or inconsistent impressions, ideas, or facts:

4. I love to see this "eyewitness" statement made, I enjoy the comedy. No one saw jesus resurrect, I repeat no human being with their own eyes saw Jesus resurrect and this is fact.
They only witnessed an empty tomb. How can I accept that as evidence? The alleged eye-witnesses engaged in assertion. Understandably as they held their friend and family member in such high regard.
I once too was an eye-witness as a child. When my grandfather died at home I wasn't there. When I got there he was gone. I was told that he had flew to heaven, The next time I saw him it was in a dream and days later I felt like I saw a ghost like form of him. So what I ask of you is, Did he resurrect?

The answer is no, but if I was not made aware of his cremation when I was old enough to understand, under your logic, if I stated he RESURRECTED I would be eyewitness to this fact. Correct?
Then you ask why didn't Rome retrieve the body, I counter, They had more to gain by the body's disposal,
The roman catholic church to this day is the worlds largest christian church.
Catholic or the Greek latter Katholikos means UNIVERSAL.
The Roman Universal Church. Christianity is and was Rome's chance to unite, by faith, all those who opposed Israel.
Hebrews posed a threat to their rule. It worked. Christianity has never been a threat to roman society and even after the fall of their empire is a help to keep their society alive.
Thank You for debating this topic with me and i await something solid


My opponent has given you 8 contentions:

1. Christianity is based on Judaism. I correct my statement. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism may have set up some of the framework, but recall all of the New Testament is original. The net result is an original religion.

2. Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy of a messiah accepted by Jews... actually, there is no prophecy for this in the Bible. This point also shows my opponent's ignorance of Psalms 69:4, Isaiah 53:1, Zechariah 13:7, Zechariah 12:10, Zechariah 11:12-13, Zechariah 11:4-6, Isaiah 53:12, Isaiah 53:5 and about a dozen other prophecies that the Jews had.

3. Jesus was not predicted by God in early Genesis, so as he wasn't prophesied once he can't ever have been prophesied.
To be honest, I do not understand this logic one bit. Please elaborate. I suspect my opponent just wanted to add that I'm illogical by adding some illogic of his own and pretending to be me. Illogical plan by the way.

4. What prophecies in the Old Testament ARE prophecies?
Let me list six that I just so happen to know a bit about, although my readers should know Jesus apparently fufilled many others:
1) Zechariah 9:9 (Messiah will come to Jerusalem on Donkey)
2) Jeremiah 31:22 (Virgin-born)
3) Isaiah 53 (pretty much sums up the story of Jesus in a chapter)
4) Isaiah 25:8 (Resurrection)
5) Isaiah 6:9-10 (Parable-speaking)
6) 1 Chronicles 17:11 (Messiah of David's line)
I will add that my opponent fails to mention any prophecies not fulfilled by Jesus.

5. Similarities I have to out-list (sorry, must use note form to fit)
a) Not a similarity. Queen Olympias did not claim to be a virgin (, she just didn't like Philip. Plus Alexander wasn't a God.
b) Egyptian vs Christian differences X10: Egyptians were polytheists, they built pyramids, they worshipped emporers, they used magic, they put lots of goods in tombs, syncretism, Egyptian balance/order vs Christian God-victory, Christian God comes to Earth, Creation myth very different, concept of communion different (I have more...)
c) Not similarities. None of them was crucified, they were TORTURED and KILLED. There's a big difference. In each of the religions you mention there are at least 10 Gods who are not tortured and killed so I'll use them as my answers. One of your religions was founded AFTER Christianity.
d) Not a similarity. Greek religion does not have a "savior," the word means the same thing in any language. If God chose to name himself the Greek for savior then that doesn't disprove anything.
e) Not a similarity. Paul was rejected by James on a theological issue (who could be a Christian). He was also rejected by Peter. Later he reconciled with all of the above as they saw that they were in the wrong. There is nothing he added to Christianity that can be considered "Roman".

6. Nobody saw Jesus resurrect. True. But the Bible doesn't say "And then I watched Jesus stroll out of the tomb." It says what people saw. People saw Jesus wander about, fish and fly into the sky after his death. That is in the bible, and that does tend to lead to the conclusion (coupled with the tomb story) that maybe Jesus left the tomb exactly as he predicted. Did he resurrect? That's for you to decide. You must consider the evidence for yourself - as I say, there is evidence for and against. What I oppose is you saying "it's false" because we don't know if it's false.

7. People's belief does not add credibility. Neither, apparently, does historical writing or anything else. So, I ask my opponent: does he believe in anything? Is anything credible to him that he has not directly experienced himself? If so, then this point falls to me. If not, then my opponent is a bit odd. If my opponent saw Jesus resurrect he would be an eyewitness, correct. And that would add extra credibility to the story. After all, an event seen by 1000 people is more credible than an event seen only by one. And by the way, not all of the people that saw Jesus saw him in real life like you suggest.

8. My opponent states the Christians stole the body (basically, that's what I get through his terrible grammar). Evidence, please! Besides, this theory doesn't explain how the Christians managed to steal it. Jesus body was sealed in the largest and most heavily guarded tomb in the most exclusive graveyard in Jerusalem - the tomb of Joseph of Aramatheia. The Christians could, of course, be liars and have actually stolen the body. But I think this is very unlikely. Besides which I do not claim the Christian version of events is true (I don't personally believe it is), rather that the Christian faith does have some evidence, however bad, behind it and therefore is not a hoax for Christians. You can personally believe anything is a hoax - many believe the holocaust was a hoax - but that doesn't give you the right to pass that objective judgment.

My opponent's other flaws are:

1) "I do not question whether you are RIGHT or WRONG" - then again, round 1 he said: "Christianity is a false belief." Contradiction.
2) Still using "false belief system" instead of "false belief," then arguing it's a false belief. What the hell!?
3) My opponent did not rebut the weight of evidence for Jesus compared to other figures.
4) My opponent is yet to tell us why Jesus is NOT credible. Taken against my large body of sound evidence it seems a most glaring gap in his case.

Remember, to win this debate, I need to prove three things: fulfillment of prophecy, originality and credibility. I've shown there is a credible case for being a Christian, my opponent has not yet out-listed me, and because Jesus fulfills every prophecy my opponent has found, I must win this debate. My opponent has not given any evidence for why it is a hoax influenced by prior belief. Ergo vote pro.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for having this debate with me pro, and I apologize for my grammar since it resulted in your miscomprehension of my statements.

Pro has 8 verses without parallel in topic 2 alone (wow)

1. Thank you for the correction. Christianity is based on Judaism, and moreover, its existence is contingent on a partially fulfilled prophecy. The Jewish people do not believe the resurrection occurred, and The New Testament tears the OT to pieces in an attempt to verify its genuineness.

2. I Happen to know King David wrote Psalms. King David was also praying to god for help not prophesying in chapter 69. Peter went on to misquote that in acts 1:20 declaring it to be from the holy spirit. That's no more a fulfillment of prophecy than "my son riding a donkey at the state fair".

3. You are telling me my statement is illogical, yet it comes from YOUR source in topic 1 of round 1.

You then go on to state my point, which is "he wasn't prophesied in genesis"
Your source thinks that was prophecy, so I take it that you agree. I cant possibly dispute all 365 of your sources claim in 8,000 characters. I chose the very first one to disprove but also didn't find any prophecy fulfillment on there to be validated.

4. Every point you made on here is moot, or subjective, Except Isaiah 53.

1) anyone could have rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, that's not strong enough data to prove godliness.
2) Debatable, too bad they didn't have paternity tests back then.
3) This sounds like legitimate prophecy, that I will address later
4) The resurrection is debatable, My opinion is a mistake of supernatural when it was paranormal if it happened at all. The only roman witness, allegedly passed out from shock. 2 roman witnesses, how heavily guarded could it be with two soldiers on duty? Your claims are substantial.
by the way, there were also alleged Elvis and tupac sightings :)
5) I can name 100 rock and roll vocalist, rnb singers and rappers who speak in parables. Speaking in parables makes you a poet yes, but the son of god? I reasonably question the premise
6) Joseph is "of David's line". Mary being his wife was of no blood relation. Mary impregnated by god equals a different blood line than David from a genetic stand point. Jesus did not fulfill prophecy, Maybe if Joseph had a daughter and she was the one who had the virgin birth I could begin to think about believing this.
I will add that my opponent must have overlooked my topic 1) of round 2 Isaiah chapter 2:1-3 was not fulfilled, Jerusalem did not become capital of a world government.

5. Christianity has countless similarities to astral cults of the past, i.e Easter, Christmas etc. The holidays christians celebrate closely correlate with pagan celebrations, how do you explain this?
You obviously will try to discredit the history that preceded christianity by stating the changes that christianity made to the old religions, which were made due to the growing awareness of the people.
So I wont waste my time introducing more similarities instead I will better explain my stance as I know it is a strong one.
Monotheism replaced Polytheism because it was no longer a strong enough belief system to control the masses. I don't question the differences, I question the similarities. Religion has evolved drastically over the past 4,000 years and in my opinion christianity stands between its furthering.
I'll recant one of my citations to show a very clear parallel for your resurrection, In finer detail. Krishna and The Bhagavad Gita whether accepted as myth or not, was written between 500-200 bce. Krishna or CRISTNA was shot by many arrows that attached him to a tree. At Moors pantheon, the British museum, there is a picture that so closely resembles the jesus crucifixion that no one can deny its influence on christianity. I reject many of your *evidences due to a conflict of interest shared by your witnesses" not a disbelief in mans word. When a follower, follows they are carrying out what the latter suggests.

6. Why did no writer other than Jesus close friends family and followers say anything of the resurrection? His tomb was heavily guarded(with 2 soldiers as far as I know) one of them would have told their superiors, why didn't the Romans pursue the christians for stealing the body(by the way I never said the christians stole the body)? I doubt the Romans would have just accepted the resurrection story without some sort of recourse.

O and Jesus didn't go fishing after the resurrection, that's more misinformation on your part.

I'm going to close this up with the "copycat thesis" and show the remarkable similarities between Horus and Jesus
numbering 44 in whole.

My opponent's assumptions and flaws are as follows:
1) False: based on mistaken, erroneous, or inconsistent impressions, ideas, or facts.
Belief system: can refer to religion ... look it up
This is not about YOU. It's about christianity. The question is whether its true to its tradition and based off of real facts and truly monotheistic. I have given more reasons than my opponent to back my case and virtually dissected each of his simple theories
2) My opponent's attempts of evading the topic are weak at best, and my best guess says he practices law.
3) The people you mentioned had temples and one conquered surrounding factions, not only is there proof of Genghis from his followers, but his opposition wrote about how they feared him, jesus has no book in the Torah, but there's a book of Romans in the bible. Why respond to a moot point that bares no relation to the subject? Instead of Genghis Khan lets talk about mermaids.
4) My opponents evidence is 4 *eye-witnesses and 6-8 debatable prophecies, if that was a large body of sound evidence, consider it resurrected and off to the underworld.

I am currently winning this debate, Key points of prophecy have not been fulfilled, and Jerusalem is not the capital of a world government which was necessary for Jesus resurrection to be relevant.
The Similarities show its lack of originality and when bad outweigh good...
Until proven otherwise their still isn't a clear reason to believe christianity and lol I apologize for the casual writing but my opponent cited a page with 365 non-sensical prophecies I am beginning to think that he's joking. NONE of the evidence is solid. I'm not entertaining point (7) or (8) for obvious reasons, if your reading this I'm sure it confused you as well. pogo vote con


I'm glad this debate has settled down a bit. I have a couple of responses. For the reader's sake I will order them as I did last round.

My opponent's original 8 contentions:

1. "The New Testament tears the OT to pieces" - My first response is that this SUPPORTS my argument Christianity is original. My second is that it doesn't do what my opponent claims (and this still supports my stance), rather it fulfills things the Old Testament will say will happen later.

2. "King David wrote Psalms" - Except that this one is written from God's perspective. It's not from David's as would be expected from a prayer. Ask any Jew: today this psalm is regarded as prophecy by them. Your argument ignores the other 7 scripture verses I cited. Besides which this dodges the argument altogether: the point is that the Old Testament does not prophecy the messiah would be accepted by all Jews, like my opponent asserts.

3. Sorry, the way you wrote it is still illogical. What you mean to say is that one particular passage in Genesis listed on one of my sources is not in your subjective opinion a prophecy? That's different. I have four responses. One, there are 364 other prophecies there, and you still haven't found an unfulfilled prophecy even if you're right. Two, if it's not a prophecy that doesn't make Jesus any less prophecy-fulfilling. Third, yes it is a prophecy. It clearly states that a messiah will come, which Jesus did. That fits your definition of prophecy neatly. Fourth, when I said "he wasn't prophesised in genesis," I was paraphrasing you, not making an original point.

4. a) No, it might not prove godliness, but IT IS STILL A FULFILLED PROPHECY - if Jesus had come riding on a horse or a giant ant, there would be no claim to messiah-hood.
b) Doesn't matter if it's really true or not. The point is in the book called the Bible, Jesus fulfills all the prophecies. I have also shown that the Bible is a reliable source. Taken together this renders your point null.
c) Isaiah 53 - you said you'd come back to this one. I AM STILL WAITING... ):
d) Yes but being Elvis is cool, being Jesus gets you executed. The lack of Roman witnesses is more based on a lack of Romans than anything else. And two guards standing directly outside of your tomb 24/7 IS very substantial even by today's standards. Actually there were a troop of guards patrolling the perimeter of the graveyard as well. Grave robbery was very common back then, and the Romans knew to take utmost precaution to guard against it. Also cf my response to (b)
e) Cf my response to point (1)
f) The prophecy is not "blood relation," but rather "of the line." That includes people adopted into the line. The Jews back then had a much wider view of lineage. One could be of a different family but the same family line.
Seeing as I did overlook Isiah 2:1-3, I will respond to that here: note that this is one of the most contentious verses in the whole Bible. It does not make clear whether it refers to the first or the second coming of the messiah. However, on a strictly logical level, it seems likely that it refers to the second coming. This is because if Jerusalem is already the capital of the world and everyone is already worshiping God in all his glory, there seems little point in a second coming. So it must be the alternative. So it was not a prophecy about the first coming.

5. a) Festival similarities - none of which are actually in the Bible so I don't think they form a part of the core Christian ideology. Besides which "Astral religions" is not a single religion, which makes it impossible to list 10 points because the religions were so diverse. Indeed the book of Jeremiah mocks these sorts of rituals with their Christmas trees and so forth. Which is why you never see a Christmas tree in the Vatican. (:
b) The old monotheism controls masses argument. I find this very funny. Actually Christianity didn't control very many people at all. It seems unlikely Peter and Paul had ruling empires in mind when they worked out the finer details of Jesus' theology. Meanwhile all the polytheistic religions were happily building pyramids and huge temples without any public dissent. Clearly the masses were being controlled well enough already. There is no inherent weakness in polytheism. If my opponent wants to continue this line of reasoning, he must bring a reputable source to back it up.
c) Krishna's story is very different from Jesus because, for instance, he was not crucified, and neither did he die for the forgiveness of sins. Artistic similarities do not amount to theological similarities.
Just a quick footnote here that my opponent seems to have dropped almost all of his analysis from his last round under this point.

6. Well, Jesus did tell some fish to jump into a net - I think that's close enough to fishing.
"Why did no writer other than Jesus close friends family and followers say anything of the resurrection?" - the answer is pretty obvious. If you cared about Jesus, you were designated a follower. Therefore you were killed. Only his closest followers were so dedicated as to speak of him in public. That is why.
As to Horus v Jesus, let me cite my own counter-sources: , and . All three are excellent and I suggest voters read them.

At this point my opponent says he will not entertain my analysis any more. Sorry, you can't do that. Either ask for more clarification or respond. Otherwise the points are dropped by you. They are all things that you brought up and I had an onus to respond to. I have no intention of dropping your lack of an alternative resurrection-hypothesis or your false historical-credibility analysis.

Anyway, on my own four points:

1) "The question is whether its true to its tradition and based off of real facts and truly monotheistic." > WHOA!!!! IT IS!!?? Let's just rewind a bit to the topic: "Original belief or hoax influenced by prior belief?" Monotheism and tradition don't even play in to that. They are red herrings. As to "real facts" mentioned by my opponent, that's not in the topic either. To qualify as a non-hoax, there must be good reasons to believe in it. Again, I have shown such good reasons.
2) False "religion" and "belief" are also very different things. I admit the argument is weak, but that in itself doesn't refute it. And no, I'm not some super-genius 18-year-old who is already a practicing lawyer. Especially not a practicing lawyer still at university.
3) Christianity had temples, overtook surrounding factions, is well documented by it's followers, and the opposition wrote about how they feared the Christian sect (Nero to the rescue!). Perfect match for Genghis it would appear. Romans did not have a bible book, they had a letter addressed to them that was included in the bible. And it wasn't even the pagan Romans! This has absolutely everything to do with the subject - we have more historical evidence for Jesus than anybody else, including the mermaids you incite me to mention.
4) Actually I cite not just the 4 direct eyewitnesses, but also the eye-witnesses referred to in their writings. This numbers to about 570, if we include the 500 from 1 Corinthians. Otherwise 70. I'm not only going on 6-8 prophecies, I'm going on hundreds of them, all of them fulfilled. You asked me to focus on just a few so I did, but your answers were unsatisfactory.


Debate Round No. 3


I thank you pro for this debate it has taken me on quite the journey.

1-3. You interpret as ineptly as the Greeks themselves.
"Tears The OT to pieces", MEANS : The NT has taken bits and pieces of the OT and declared it prophecy.
What right does man, follower of Jesus or not, have to declare something prophecy?

3)This is pro's source and his most mentioned defense >
The first 19 prophecies mentioned here are from the book of genesis, written by moses. As is with every false prophecy cited up to # 46 on the list pro supplied.
If you read the chapters and verses in whole, you will see not only that they predict nothing, which makes them non-prophetic, but also that they're directed at a set of people with no correlation to jesus.
The NT is a twisting of words.
The one i cited, Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."

Enmity means, hatred or hostility. The conversation is supposed to be between Adam and God, spoken by god.
So god says; I will put hatred between adam and eve, and between adam's child and eve's child, the child will bruise adam on the head and adam will bruise his child on the heel.
How is that a prediction of a coming messiah? God is telling adam what is to come as a result of them knowing the truth and being capable of death and offspring as a result of eating the "fruit from the tree in the midst of the garden".
Whats illogical about my disbelief of that as prophecy?

4. If he rode in on a GIANT RED ANT, you would tell me that maybe Moses was talking about the second coming.
The point of prophecy fulfillment, is to my knowledge, knowing who prophesied, & if that said prophecy was indeed the message the prophet meant to convey i.e "My child will come from darkness covered in blood from which i will remove him from the source of his life and replace his nutrition with bread from my own hand"(my own prophecy)
That could mean, My child will emerge from hell covered in the blood of his enemies, i will then pull him from the grave and give him my own body. Though its meaning is much simpler im sure you can see.

Now if my sons, son, fulfills a prophecy that he was meant to fulfill, has HE fulfilled a prophecy?
No, No, AND No!
It had nothing to do with him.

You can not by any means rearrange the doctrine of someone else to fit your needs.
Thats what christianity has done.

d) Elvis overdosed whats cool about that? Pro is specualting and even if supported partially by scripture, scripture is still the only support for his statements.

f) What proof do you have of the Jewish view?
As for your other statement " this is one of the most contentious verses in the whole Bible. It does not make clear whether it refers to the first or the second coming of the messiah."
How is that any less clear than say Isaiah 53. In Isaiah 52:1 Awake, awake! Put on your strength, O Zion; Put on your glorious garments, O Jerusalem, holy city. No longer shall the uncircumcised or the unclean enter you.

Jesus allows gentiles, the unclean to enter zion. Just as he fulfills part of the prophecy he denies as much of it.

THE OT, or to better explain, THE Original Masoretic, Tanakh, and Torah TEXTS formally written 400 bce, are inspired by the HEBREW GOD.
NT IS INSPIRED BY JESUS, whom christians accept as part of the trinity, THE TRINITY being regarded as the most blasphemous idea possible by MUSLIM believers.

5)a)c) By Astral Religions, I mean, Greek, Roman, Egyptian Mythology etc.
Bearing the same 12 Signs as Jesus Disciples. The same Resurrection of the Sun.
Polytheism is now on a wider scale synonymous with mythology. That is means to believe it had an inherent weakness.
Why run from the obvious similarities?

Christianity makes up 32% of world religion and is declining, I am obviously not the only one who finds it reasonable to regard it as a false belief system. see source >

Islam, Hinduism, No religion, and Atheism make up over 50% of the worlds population. There are rules of worship for 2 of the 4 denominations mentioned, making it somewhat difficult to claim Islam or Hinduism.

Christianity has the same guidelines as No religion or Atheism, all you have to do is accept that you are, and poof, You become a Christian. Making it an easier religion to claim.

76 % of the U.S. Population is Christian, which is approximately 8% of the world population.
out of that 76%, 99 out of 100 have Christian parents
and Only an approximate 10 percent of the christian population has READ the ENTIRE bible.

Only 40 percent of the American Christians can name more than 4 of the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
and 12 percent think Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.

What i am getting at is, the number of Christians are the base for your argument, and that is illogical due to the fact,
Most American christian skeptics were at 1 time functioning Christians, and became skeptical after seeing the facts and studying the book, not because of a deep seated hatred for Christianity. You say you've shown the reliability of the bible which is something no man has done in its 2000 year history and a completely ridiculous claim. If a rabbi of the Jewish Denomination cites a difference between Masoretic Texts, Torah, Tanakh and the OT, then the source is not reliable objectively.
What you refer to AS RELIABLE is APOCRYPHA >
DO THE HEBREWS KNOW THERE OWN LANGUAGE? Yes, They know it well and they still live by their writing which is different from the Septuagint translation.

2. More Misinformation, not at all written from god's perspective, did you even read the passage?

"According to the superscription, this psalm is "For the Chief Musician; set to Shoshannim." The latter term denotes "lilies" and likely suggests a particular tune to which the psalm would be sung."

As for the 7 you've cited, I read each and all have conflicting translation from the Septuagint.
I'm running out of space regrettably.

You obviously have not read up on Krishna. The theological aspect excluding atonement of sins but including CRUCIFIXION AND BIRTHDAY AND A FEW MORE THAT I WONT HAVE SPACE TO MENTION are the means i base the argument off of. My opponent hasn't formally addressed any of my contentions except to say they aren't true.

6. The first source you cite,, Your source is obviously a Christian and his analysis comes from ONE source, THE BOOK OF THE DEAD, Basic instructions before leaving earth, out of the hundreds of tombs the EGYPTIANS have, the thousands of walls covered with HIEROGLYPHS, he chooses one source for analysis which still denotes similarity.

Yet when stories in the bible contradict themselves it's somehow warranted. Example, John not mentioning the virgin birth, or 4 different accounts of the resurrection. (and he didn't fish after the resurrection, cite the passage if it's true) The existence of any story that pre-dates Jesus makes it a probability, that the story was known. Couple that with a significant amount of similarities and we have a reasonable belief to think the DOCTRINE was DOCTORED.

The Only source that you use to prove, the DOCUMENTS nature to be true, IS, THE DOCUMENT ITSELF. My evidence prevails in this case, MULTIPLE SOURCES of reference compared to ONE SOURCE of reference. Every similarity refuted by a close minded christian who cant read hieroglyphics, i have a source of reference that translates otherwise. Pro has been out-listed. His circles are getting smaller. Pro's case is full of straw men Pro presents double what i present and its only been 1 of legitimacy

Thanks for continuation i added a psalm 69 source, as i was


Con's last sentence was cut off, you can read it in the last debate's comments section if you really care.

Through my opponent's veil of poor structure, we have been contending three issues, which seems a better structure than having to deal with eight.

"[Astral Gods] bearing the same 12 Signs as Jesus did Disciples. The same Resurrection of the Sun."
First, let me demonstrate the point that these so-called "Astral religions" you name (I would dispute that title, but anyway) are diverse because Greek/Roman religion doesn't have a sun resurrection. The "signs" in the different religions represent very different things (ie 12 Olympians vs Zodiac). Just because the number 12 appears in different religions doesn't really mean anything. Neither did the disciples represent anything to the early Christians. It's like me claiming Christianity was plagiarized from Greek because a portion of the New Testament was written in Greek. As to the Sun resurrection, that vocal similarity to "son" doesn't exist in Egyptian. Resurrection of the Sun, by the way, happened daily in Egypt. Resurrection of God happened once in Christianity.

Actually I am rather versed in Hindu myth, my uncle is a Hindu. Krishna was shot and killed by a hunter ( This is a very different manner of death to crucifixion. The birthday thing I have already dealt with last round.

"MULTIPLE SOURCES of reference compared to ONE SOURCE of reference [of Horus]." Well, OK, if you're not using the book of the dead as your source, what are you using? It's the only work cited in your only source (which compares rather favorably to my three). It also refers to "The Pagan Christ; Recovering the Lost Light," but that book also only cites the book of the dead. Do your own research, I think you'll find the temple walls agree with the book.

"You can not by any means rearrange the doctrine of someone else to fit your needs."
It's not a rearrangement, it's the original text. The Tanakh is the Old Testament.

"Christianity has the same guidelines as agnosticism or atheism"
Your source, whatever it is, must be counting China as 100% atheist or non-religious. There's no other way you can arrive at your figures. If so (which it is), then this statement is a lie.

"You say you've shown the reliability of the bible which is something no man has done in its 2000 year history."
Woo hoo! I'm the first! But I do think many wise men have claimed the bible is correct and reliable before me (Damn! I thought I could make history). Everyone from St Augustine to the present Pope has made the claim. What you mean to say is "no skeptic has done...", I think, but that's a statistical fault because all those that have claimed the inerrancy of the bible are called Christians, not skeptics, no matter how hard they try to convince.

"[Jewish] writing is different from the Septuagint translation." and also "What proof do you have of the Jewish view?"
That depends on which version of the Septuagint you use. I guess for the ultimate in checking which of us has more reliable Jewish friends, one could go back to the dead sea scrolls. Most modern bibles use the dead sea scrolls when the bible and tanekh are in conflict, unless there is a very good textual reason to doubt them (which, very rarely, does happen). While I do not claim to be able to prove every Jewish rabbi will agree with every prophecy, in general all those I have ever spoken to acknowledge the prophecies but deny their fulfillment. Wikipedia ( states that Isiah 2:4, Isaiah 9:5, Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 53:5, Zechariah 12:10, Zechariah 9:9, Micah 5:2, Haggai 2:6-9 and Ezekiel 37:26-27 are all prophecies generally agreed on by both Christians and Jews.

"[Contradictions like] John not mentioning the virgin birth, or 4 different accounts of the resurrection."
This is a major topic that you probably should have brought up earlier. Suffice to say that John mentioning the virgin birth means that John assumed people already knew about it, or perhaps that he had insufficient evidence of it. The four accounts of the resurrection actually agree on many details, but the difference can be ascribed to different witnesses saying different things, and the authors attempting to fill in the blanks. We can still claim that he was resurrected even when the details are unclear.

"What right does man, follower of Jesus or not, have to declare something prophecy?"
Every right. Just as the judiciary declares certain documents contracts every day, we can judge certain documents to the prophecy every day. What's the difference?

"If you read the verses in whole, you will see not only that they predict nothing, but also that they're directed at a set of people with no correlation to Jesus."
Both of these claims are your subjective opinion. I repeat - your subjective opinion combined with a subjective belief of a writer does not make an objective opinion.

"How is this a prediction of a messiah: God telling Adam what is to come as a result of them knowing the truth and being capable of death and offspring..."
He said man will strike down the serpent. Serpent is Satan. Son of man does in fact come in human form to defeat Satan. That makes a prophecy in the eyes of many. Jesus fulfilled said prophecy.

"How is Isaiah 52:1 any less clear than say Isaiah 53?"
Isaiah 53 clearly refers to the first coming as it deals with the messiah's death. For a better discussion of this complex theological issue see here: and

"According to the superscription, this psalm is 'For the Chief Musician; set to Shoshannim.' [and is thus not from God's perspective]"
Your conclusion does not follow. Churches sing hymns from God's perspective all the time - gives me horrible nightmares of being forced to sing "Here I am Lord" for all eternity.

My opponent's case has so far been all over the place. In every single round he has been using different arguments from the ones he was using previously. He has barely touched my case at all, preferring to talk about the legitimacy of my sources and begin wholly new contentions without ever backing his old ones up. That won't win him the debate. I've given you cogent and consistent analysis from both Biblical and extra-biblical sources to show the originality and prophetic nature of Christianity. I've also shown that a legitimate case can be constructed for Christianity. Thus I have fulfilled all my roles, and should win this debate. Can you make it happen?
Debate Round No. 4


Pro has stated his challenges as follows;

a)"I challenge my opponent to name a single prophecy in the old testament Jesus did not fulfill."
b)"I still challenge my opponent to cite their supposed similarities."
c)"Ancient Romans may have installed elements of their belief system into Christianity. Or maybe Christianity influenced Ancient Rome."
d)"there is plenty of evidence for God, for Jesus being God and all the other Christian beliefs"
e)"Eyewitness accounts do not prove the resurrection", "Here I must admit my opponent is right."

Pro stated as follows;
f)"Christianity is a legitimate religion."
g)"Judaism itself was original, being the only monotheistic religion before about 500BC"
h)"I'm an atheist, and I think it's OK to be a Christian."
i)"In my view, if people want to believe in things I think are false, that's their choice."
j)"This point also shows my opponent's ignorance of Psalms 69:4, Isaiah 53:1, Zechariah 13:7, )Zechariah 12:10, Zechariah 11:12-13, Zechariah 11:4-6, Isaiah 53:12, Isaiah 53:5 and about a dozen other prophecies that the Jews had."
k)"Not a similarity. Greek religion does not have a "savior,"
"Egyptian vs Christian differences X10:Creation myth very different"

My contentions; Old & New
(arranged alphabetically by sub-topic)
a)Isa. 2:1-3, Zechariah 13 went unfulfilled, if one Isaiah prophecy is unfulfilled then all are objectively and I've excluded Psalm 69 as it is not a prophecy of a coming messiah but a prayer by david to god.
b)I Have shown a multitude of similarities throughout this debate, Pro discredits none, but instead brings up differences. This is like pointing out the differences in a deformed identical twin, the differences are many as the twin is deformed, but the blood is still the same.
c)I have cited the canon of the NT to refute your comment. Marcion 140 ad put together the Antitheses, 110 years after Jesus, it's safe to say all adults alive at Jesus crucifixion were dead by then."By his period, considerable confusion was arising among gentile", which gives reason for the religion of Jesus to be adopted by a falling empire."Marcion edited Luke to conform with what he believed was the truth", "Marcion who coined the expressions "Old Testament" and "New Testament.", "Other Christians reacted to the teachings of Marcion with harsh disagreement.", "In particular, his treatment of the nature of God (as two separate beings)", The nature of God that he created is still followed *the holy trinity "They attacked his tampering with Paul's letters","By the beginning of the fourth century, numerous new writings (mostly gnostic) were being circulated." The rest of the document will be cited as I am sure you'll find it interesting>

Christianity was not legalized until 313 AD ample time for the scriptures to be doctored.
"The early converts to Christianity in Ancient Rome faced many difficulties. The first converts were usually the poor and slaves as they had a great deal to gain from the Christians being successful. "
see the source for finer detail>
d)Saying there is evidence of God is subjective. God is a possibility, not a definite.

e) Regarding his *Eye-Witnesses; His witness legitimately pose a conflict of interest which by definition occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.

G)Regarding his claim that; "Judaism itself was original, being the only Monotheistic religion before about 500BC". With factual evidence I confirm that Hinduism is a even older Monotheistic religion than Judaism hereby discrediting his claim.
"The earliest evidence for prehistoric religion in India date back to the late Neolithic in the early Harappan period (5500–2600 BCE).", "Modern Hinduism grew out of the Vedas, the oldest of which is the Rigveda, dated to 1700–1100 BCE." Therefore Judaism was not the only Monotheistic religion and i also have cited Monotheism to show it includes Hinduism>

J)Mohammed Prophesied centuries after Jesus was crucified. My opponnent claims the prophecy in Zechariah 13 was fulfilled by Jesus my following citation of Zechariah based on the way that Mohammed died, "He died on Monday, June 8, 632, in Medina, at the age of 63.[161] With his head resting on Aisha's lap he murmured his final words soon after asking her to dispose of his last worldly goods, which were seven coins" shows otherwise. In verse 2 of The Book of Zechariah chapter 13 it says;"I will remove both the prophets and the spirit of impurity from the land. 3 And if anyone still prophesies, their father and mother, to whom they were born, will say to them, ‘You must die, because you have told lies in the LORD's name.' Then their own parents will stab the one who prophesies. Mohammed was not stabbed by his own parents. My case rests.

K)I am dedicating this to the similarities. Pro points out ridiculous partial differences in an attempt to get away from the initial likeness 1st Pro says Greek religion did not have a savior. I will substantiate that they did indeed.
"Timoleon was called savior; he set up a shrine to Fortune (Automatia) in his house; and his birthday, the festival of his daimon, became a public holiday."
"the priests of Alexander also worshipped Ptolemy and Berenice as the Savior Gods"
"the Athenians revered Harmodius and Aristogeiton as heroes, as saviours of Athens from tyranny"
I have also cited a page of 9 Savior Gods 1 of which is Jesus.>
Pro says Egypts creation theory is different, when the NT has no creation theory, And Moses the writer of the creation theory was an Egyptian Citizen, That definitely had some influences though debatable. I apologize that i can not cite the documentary videos I have seen with my own eyes with walls filled with hieroglyphs being translated by Scholars and Archaeologists. The Book of the Dead is not the bible of Egyptian belief. "Although the Egyptian religion found only a small audience among the Greeks themselves, her popularity spread under the Roman empire, and Diodorus Siculus wrote that the religion was known throughout almost the whole inhabited world."
"Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian who lived in the 1st century BC" which proves that right before christ came around the Egyptian Religion had spread through the whole inhabited world and for the Greeks "Change came from the addition of new religions from other countries, such as including the Egyptian god(esse)s of Isis and Serapis"

Conclusion. I have concisely compared each statement and challenge throughout this debate, Hence proving my original statements to be ,reasonable at the least and absolute truth at best and, I conclude that the Christians' Old Testament is a deliberate adaptation of the Original Jewish Scriptures. Christians have not only read and quoted these deliberate adaptations of Jewish origin without discerning the prior but often even quote Old Testament passages out of context, foolishly rephrasing them, or even deceitfully changing them to match their agendas. Hopefully you understand, nonetheless, "true faith is based neither upon trust in men" (Ps, 146:3) "nor even upon occurrences of the supernatural" (Deut. 13)(Corinthians 15:17)" And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sin" The similarities of Christianity with the religions that I have cited are indubitable and apparent beyond reasonable doubt. I am one man opposed by an army of straw men but in this case my factions far out number the pro's sources. Pro has went from a self proclaimed atheist to christian apologetic, going as far as stating "AMEN" at the end of one of his postings in attempt to sway the readers. (Isaiah 2:22)"As for you, let man alone, in whose nostrils is but a breath; for what is he worth"?


I'm very impressed with the way my opponent tries to use ever more ridiculous structure to confuse people. Barely any of his quotes of me are matched up to the correct argument, so I rather suspect he's confused too. Let's keep this simple.

This debate should be decided on three questions, which I have extrapolated logically from round one.
1. Did Jesus fulfill the Jewish prophecies?
2. Is Christianity original?
3. Is belief in Christianity legitimate?

Under the first question, my opponent slowly began to point out some prophecies he thought might not have been fulfilled in Jesus. I answered them all. My opponent failed to respond to any of my answers. I gave clear examples of prophecies Jesus did fulfill, and after some initial rebuttal, my opponent dropped this part of his case also. By this round, my opponent has only two arguments of the more than a dozen he has begun in this debate left to salvage. The first is Isa. 2:1-3 and Psalm 69 disproving me. That's a downright lie and I've proved it already. I'm rather upset that my opponent has paid so little attention to my rebuttals and will thus not grace him with a response for a second time. The other argument is a brand new one, saved for the final round. My opponent claims Zechariah 13:3 disproves me. That refers to when the Lord opens up the fountain of Jerusalem. Not when the messiah comes. This is telling because this passage is FAMOUS for not being about the messiah's coming ( So really my opponent has nothing left at the end of this debate, and given that my opponent did not engage with my rebuttals which answered his points, I'd say I won them. Therefore this point falls to me.

Under my second question, my opponent has presented a somewhat more comprehensive claim. I have in fact discredited almost all of them, meaning I've only had to list differences once. Again this is a downright lie of my opponent, does he not remember how I destroyed his false Krishna myth for instance? It is as though my opponent is claiming a Boeing 747 is a copy of the Wright Flier, because they have the same general shape and both fly. In fact, my opponent has only been able to list ONE SINGLE true similarity. To compensate for this I have shown that there are more differences than similarities, a point my opponent now seems to agree on. I think somebody got out-listed! (;
This is, however, complicated by a previously mentioned but only now substantiated claim of my opponent that the scriptures were doctored by Romans. He then links to sources that confirm my earlier assertion that in fact, the Romans wanted to have nothing to do with the Christians and killed them. This is hardly a good way of convincing a religion to change their holy text. The slowness in codification of the NT is more due to the fact the later books had only been written a decade or so beforehand, which is an un-surprising time scale.
My opponent also claims (and this is a bit of a red herring, but anyway) that Hinduism was the first monotheistic religion. He then cites a source that says Hinduism admits the existence of many divine beings. If it were monotheistic it would be Sikhism, not Hinduism. So my opponent cannot have read his own source and be telling the truth!
Other supposed similarities brought up in the last round include Greek religion having "saviors" (being called "the savior" and actually saving someone are very different things), Moses being an Egyptian citizen (you don't mean oppressed slave, do you?), and temple walls. I so happen to be on very good terms with the University of Auckland's Egyptology department, my best friend has an MA in Egyptology. He has translated thousands of temple walls. He, and all the Egyptology staff I have ever spoken to about Egyptian myth, confirm that the story of Horus and Osiris is just as I have relayed it. It is one of the earliest Egyptian myths and had little legendary development. Any video can purport to be a documentary - read the originals yourself! Check up on these supposed facts! You can't even name the temple, yet alone the wall! Why should anyone thus believe you!? While it is true that the Book of the Dead is not a complete Bible as such, it is the spell-book which contains this particular myth.
So despite a very vain last-ditch attempt to salvage his case, my opponent has brought forward no good reason to believe Christianity is not original. Thus, logically and rationally, Christianity must be original.

Under my third question, a belief is legitimate if there is some reason to believe in it. My opponent said in the last round that God is a possibility. Great! He concedes this question. Given that's the only analysis he offers, this is the only analysis I will offer too.

Why did I accept this debate? Because I am not closed-minded enough to refuse to accept the possibility that the Christians might be right. Therefore one must not pass one's subjective value-judgment on others conclusions (remember, I justified this: two subjective views don't make an objective one). It's also because Christianity is an original (in my Nietzschean tradition, I would say more dangerous) religion. I think far too many videos and books focus on the similarities, listing perhaps half a dozen, without listing the millions of differences. While I have not had the oppertunity to list many of these in this debate, I encourage voters to do their own research and come to rational conclusions to check that what I say is true. Finally I'm doing it because I think the bible is a coherently enough written story-book to actually have the messiah fulfil the prophecies it mentions. My opponent has not been able to come back to any of my beliefs, as my analysis above shows. Thanks to my opponent, it was an enjoyable debate, and please vote pro!


P.S. Amen doesn't mean "I'm a Christian apologist," it means "May it be so." It's a traditional Hebrew way to close something spoken in truth, such as a debate, meeting or prayer. Please don't call me a Christian apologist ever again. I'd rather be an apologetic for any other religion. This debate had nothing to do with apologetics.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
GORGIAS - stop trying to bring up new material. That's not fair and even worse conduct. Leave it for your straw men debate.
Posted by GORGIAS 7 years ago
its funny how this turned into a thing about my conduct, when throughout the whole debate, from the beginning to close, Larz called me a liar questioned my grammar as being correct and accused me of ignoring his rebuts when i obviously didn't. case closed from the beginning, He said in his beginning and ending comments that he believes CHRISTIANITY to be false. I have proved that prophecy in the same chapters he cited went unfulfilled and Macieon the roman who coined the phrases NT AND OT was oppossed by tertullian among others for changing LUKES words to match PAULS. Thats every topic in my favor. I can admit simple grammatical error in the beginning 2 rounds, but believe it to be more of a dramatization by my opponnent in attempt to win. The only unreliable comment i made was on hinduism, an honest mistake, which i apologize for. I've done more defending my grammar in this case and my pov than actual learning, i started this topic to have an honest debate. Pro has turned it into an argument.
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
All I will say is leave it for
Posted by GORGIAS 7 years ago
(Your source) in (ROUND 5) That refers to (Zechariah 13) is a link to (Zechariah 1)

You say ("This point also shows my opponent's ignorance of Psalms 69:4, Isaiah 53:1, Zechariah 13:7, Zechariah 12:10, Zechariah 11:12-13, Zechariah 11:4-6, Isaiah 53:12, Isaiah 53:5 and about a dozen other prophecies")

(ZECHARIAH 13) is ( which is (NINE VERSES LONG) not a (LONG CHAPTER).



Lying won't win this for you, ( I )
I didn't call you a (LIAR) during the (DEBATE)


VOTE FOR LARZ since this is about winning and not (CLARIFICATION)

IF (ANYONE) wants to debate honestly, the facts and case i stated in this DEBATE, just set it up and send me the challenge.
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
Oh for God's sake, do you really have to have a second conclusion GORGIAS? If you think it's really that obvious then surely let the voters decide. I think this hasn't been a one-sided debate, but you address my points selectively and calling the rest "straw men" if those words magically invalidate my argument. Oh, and the Zachariah 13 is a long chapter, some of it is messianic and some isn't.

Bringing up new arguments in round 5 is bad conduct, and even this post-debate conclusion my opponent has written is annoying.
Spelling and grammar should be obvious.
Arguments-wise read my conclusion. Despite my opponent's claims I've lied and mislead, cross-reference our conclusions with our debate rounds and you'll see that I haven't lied either.
I may not have cited as many sources, but my sources have not been contradictory to my case and far more reliable.

Thus I cannot see why my opponent is making these vain last-ditch case defenses!?
Posted by GORGIAS 7 years ago
lol @ the last round like people forgot what i wrote, this has been a one-sided debate, anyone who has read my comments and checked my sources should know to vote con. Pro must have expected me to spend every round including my conclusion responding to straw men. Think Again. Below is section H AND I, all his statements and challenges were rebutted in order, My opponnent will do anything to win, on the other hand i could care less, just look at my writings and my sources and you'll see i've done everything i stated in my conclusion. Every round i ran out of space, dedicating more than 50% of my space, to refuting my opponent every time, whilst my opponent pointed out differences rather than discresditing the similarities. In his final round he goes as far as Citing Zechariah chapter 1 and claiming that 13 wasnt prophecy, after claiming in Round 3 and 4, that it was indeed. Beneath this comment are my sources for Round 5 in order of section, all my sources reliable to back up my statements. and also my responses to two statements he made.
Posted by GORGIAS 7 years ago
Section H and I in my conclusion weren't spoke on Pro is an Atheist who believes something to be false in christianty as he confirmed in H and I. Saying christianity is a faIse belief sytem is warranted by that alone. With faith, one falsity negates. Historically it has been human nature to move on to the next belief when its found to no longer be a 100% probability, it is human to question, this you have to agree on. sorry for the addition i didn't want pro to think i forgot to mention those. I needed space so I'm ordering some of the sources here. The arrows at the end of paragraphs refer to citations and are arranged by the order they come up in the sections. Section K :
Section C:,,
Section G:
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by launilove 7 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04