The Instigator
killshot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InfakeWars
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Is it Reasonable to Conclude Jesus Wasn't Real?

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 1 vote the winner is...
InfakeWars
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,174 times Debate No: 120405
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (72)
Votes (1)

 

killshot

Pro

I would argue yes, Because:

1) There are no credible extrabiblical sources to support his historical status, Or first hand accounts of his teachings and miracles. The very limited extrabiblical sources, Such as Josephus or Tacitus, Are obviously errant and discredible. Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence.

2) There is no record of his execution.

3) In addition to this, His story is very similar to other surrounding mythologies with the adaptations of miracles, Death and resurrection.

4) So many things in the Bible itself, Such as the Genesis account, Are entirely disprovable and this alone renders the entire collection of books discredible.

5) Acts credited to him require the use of magic and this is entirely unsupported by reality.

Because of this, I would conclude it is reasonable to accept the Jesus mythicist view
InfakeWars

Con

Today, I can prove that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Jesus existed in the time of his life. I can prove this in Many different ways:

1. Outside Biblical Sources
2. Human accounts of seeing him
3. The Bible may not be proven true, But that has nothing to prove that Jesus Didn't Exist
4. His text is original and not close to the opponents belief of "His story is very similar to other surrounding mythologies with the adaptation of miracles, Death and resurrection.

I shall begin with the Outside Biblical Sources.

I can prove that outside the Bible, There was a very high chance of his life outside of the Bible. We shall begin with the records. Records have been proven to be dated since Cuneiform from the first civilization! These were dates from what and when trades existed. Not soon after, Scribes had many purposes, Such as births, And positions people had in jobs. The same applies to Jesus. If Jesus was supposedly born after Mesopotamia (he was), He would have been recorded, And was.

Second, My opponent states there was no record of Jesus Crucifixion, But a known historian named Edwin Yamauchi, Found Tacitus writing stating Jesus death, Proving my opponent that there was already a record of his execution. Tacitus wrote referencing the Latin word, "Christus". Which may sound like a coincidence, But is translated to "Christ. " I have already proved that Jesus does exist, However my opponent will most likely want more proof, So I shall continue.

Third, There were many of his 12 disciples reporting from the executors (which we can prove existed and crucified Jesus) that they found and even conversated with Jesus before and after the crucifixion. I am not a religious man, So I will not say that after Jesus was crucified, That it would be possible to conversate, But BEFORE is much more possible.

Fourth, In the context of magic, I can not prove that he did magic, However I can say that he could have possibly done medical practices such as surgery (it had been known for years then) or nursed the person back to health. It could have been considered "bringing people back to life" then, When it was just nursing a person back to good health.

Fifth, I may ask to what mythology does Jesus even compare to?

Sixth, My opponent may say that Tacitus is not a valid source, But then acknowledge that there WAS a claim in the first place. Tacitus talks of the punishment issued to Christ and the person to which he references, Proving his First AND SECOND wrong.

For these reasons I can prove that Jesus did exist, Regardless of whether he was a prophet, Deity, Or just another person in this world
Debate Round No. 1
killshot

Pro

I can prove that outside the Bible, There was a very high chance of his life outside of the Bible. We shall begin with the records. Records have been proven to be dated since Cuneiform from the first civilization! These were dates from what and when trades existed. Not soon after, Scribes had many purposes, Such as births, And positions people had in jobs. The same applies to Jesus. If Jesus was supposedly born after Mesopotamia (he was), He would have been recorded, And was.

Cuneiform was created by the Sumerians in approximately 3500 BC. I'm not sure how you think they were writing about him 3500 years before he was allegedly born. You said Jesus's birth was recorded, Please provide evidence. Jesus was a common name back then so you will need to provide evidence that it was "the Jesus". Considering no historian has ever done this, My expectations are low here.

Second, My opponent states there was no record of Jesus Crucifixion, But a known historian named Edwin Yamauchi, Found Tacitus writing stating Jesus death, Proving my opponent that there was already a record of his execution. Tacitus wrote referencing the Latin word, "Christus". Which may sound like a coincidence, But is translated to "Christ. " I have already proved that Jesus does exist, However my opponent will most likely want more proof, So I shall continue.

Yes, You definitely should continue as you haven't started yet. I already tried to head off the Tacitus thing in my opening statement to avoid you the obvious mistake. There are a lot of problems concerning the authenticity of Annals 15. 44 as a valid extrabiblical source. There is a lot of information around this and why, If you'd like to dive into it further, We can. Long story short, Tacitus's account does not line up with known contemporary historical accounts (Nero and Christian persecutions for burning Rome). In addition to this, Tacitus, A secular historian, Refers to Christ as a Christian would, Not a secular historian. This is very unlikely and it's more likely that it's an interpolation. Even if Tacitus wrote this, It in itself is not in any way evidence Jesus existed. He lists no sources for his material, And he wrote it approximately 100 years after Jesus allegedly died. This was not a firsthand account.

Third, There were many of his 12 disciples reporting from the executors (which we can prove existed and crucified Jesus) that they found and even conversated with Jesus before and after the crucifixion. I am not a religious man, So I will not say that after Jesus was crucified, That it would be possible to conversate, But BEFORE is much more possible.

Unfounded assertions, Where is the proof? Anyone can just barf out nonsense and unfounded conjecture.

Fourth, In the context of magic, I can not prove that he did magic, However I can say that he could have possibly done medical practices such as surgery (it had been known for years then) or nursed the person back to health. It could have been considered "bringing people back to life" then, When it was just nursing a person back to good health.

This is only speculation on your part and it is not what Christians believe, Or what the Biblical works describe. God speaking things into existence is clearly magic.

Fifth, I may ask to what mythology does Jesus even compare to?

Any of the other dying/resurrection deities. This was a common theme around this time in local mythologies. Mithras, Adonis, Osiris and others.

Sixth, My opponent may say that Tacitus is not a valid source, But then acknowledge that there WAS a claim in the first place. Tacitus talks of the punishment issued to Christ and the person to which he references, Proving his First AND SECOND wrong.

No respectable historian uses this as an argument for obvious reasons. I was only trying to save you the mistake. If you want to hang yourself on your own narcissism, That's up to you.

For these reasons I can prove that Jesus did exist, Regardless of whether he was a prophet, Deity, Or just another person in this world

Absolutely nothing you have said so far is in any way evidence for a historical Jesus. I really hope your next round is a little less personal and a little more compelling.

Please provide ANY objectively verifiable piece of evidence to suggest Jesus was a historical figure. ANY. We'll start simple.


InfakeWars

Con

My opponent begins with how Mesopotamian people were writing about Jesus in 3500 B. C. But this is a very large misinterpretation. I am proving how if they were recording births in 3500 B. C. They definitely had record of Jesus birth over 3000 years later. This birth is in form of writing in-guess what- The Bible. Although there are illogical fallacies in the Bible, These have naught to do with his birth. I will take it to a non-religious point to say that despite the Bible praising him, Whether or not it is false he is the Son of God isn't changing the fact that it DID record his birth.

Second, My opponent attacks the validity of Tacitus account by talking of how it is different from Nero's historical accounts. However, This makes absolutely no sense, As Tacitus was a historian and a senator. He can't list sources for his material, For there was none to cite. Before you refute the attack, Let me explain: Even the Dickinson College agrees that Tacitus had "trustworthy oral testimonies". This makes his work not a Primary source, As Kill (if you mind I call you that. . . I don't want to lose my work and I can't remember your username) wants, But a Secondary source, One coming directly from a Primary Source. This proves his validity in the argument, As it shows that he has had multiple "trustworthy oral testimonies" TestimonIES being the emphasis, Referencing multiple extra-biblical sources.

Third, On my opponents attack of the 12 disciples, He asks Yet again for proof. He attacks saying that Firsthand accounts are enough for Tacitus, But evades the attack by saying "anyone can just barf out nonsense and unfounded conjecture. " However, Keep in mind, That lying in this case would take much more effort than them telling the truth. Had they merely stated they would conversate with Jesus before his death, It would take much more effort than them saying that they didn't talk to him, But they still did know him. It would ruin their validity, And ruin their faith. We can put the trust into the 12 disciples, And many of the original believers of Christianity

Fifth, I attack my opponent by proving how Christ is MUCH different from any mythology proven.
1. Adonis had no historian proof, Just proof from gods, Being even more faith-based than Christianity!
2. Mithra is a deity, Not like Jesus. And Mithra had no holy text to speak of
3. Osiris yet again should have no valid reason for attack, As it is not a prophet like Jesus, But yet again a Deity.

Sixth, Name your source where historians don't use Tacitus as a valid source, As there are many that do quite the opposite of ignore his readings and judging of Jesus. Also, Tacitus has perfectly valid sources outside this, As he called upon public records (proof of his existence) and proves my ballot for today's debate. Including his source, Josephus was another source that you have not attacked in your constructive speech. Josephus, A man by many historians to be found credible, Was found in his writing to reference Jesus existence and his torture, Again attacking and disproving your second and first attacks on Jesus existence.

I would like to conclude with one more attack in mind. This attack proves I have won this debate.

The Constructive (first) speech my opponent has valued in today's debate is very important, As his debate requires him to prove all his contentions (reasons for why Jesus doesn't exist) right. If I can prove that his execution, His birth, Or there were extra-biblical sources of his existence that were credible, I can prove that I have won, As I have given evidence, Regardless of how true the other 2 attacks are, That he Does exist, Therefore proving the debate toward the Affirmation (Pro).

P. S. Outside of the debate, Are you a professional debater? I have never had an unprofessional prove them-self this well in a debate! I'm a 9th grader and I'm a one year debater.
Debate Round No. 2
killshot

Pro

The Bible is NOT a historical record of birth for Jesus. It is not a historical account for anything, Because it is largely mythology, Unverifiable, Contradictory and false. In addition to this, The Bible cannot be used to prove itself, Because that is called circular reasoning. You need extrabiblical sources. It's not enough to have one or two sources, Because this is not a typical historical figure. No credible historian will agree with you that this is a valid source for proof that Jesus was a historical figure. Even most apologists do not use this argument.

Yes, I, Like many others, Attack the validity of Tacitus because it's not sufficient. I would argue the account was interpolated and not even written by him, But, Even if it was, It does not prove the existence of Jesus. Have you read the passage? This was not a firsthand account, And no sources were listed, Which makes corroborating his statements impossible. Tertullian quotes a lot of things from Tacitus and even he seems to know nothing about this. A firsthand account would not prove the existence of Jesus, But it would eliminate the need for sources, Which is what I was originally alluding to. If historians agreed this was sufficient evidence, We wouldn't be having this debate, Jesus would be a proven historical character. As for sources, Here are a few by credible historians/authors:

1) On a Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier
2) The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S
3) The Case Against the Case for Christ & Deconstructing Jesus by Robert Price

Christ is not much different from the deities I listed. They all came from the same geographical area and overlap each other in many ways. Borrowing ideas from neighboring religions was a very common thing during this time. A lot of concepts in Christianity came from Zoroastrianism after the Persian conquests. Jesus was supposed to be God's self/son incarnate, Which makes him a messianic figure like the rest. Of course they have their differences as these were adaptations to existing theologies, But the similaries are strikingly obvious. He performed magic tricks and everything.

Once again, Yes, anyone can just barf out nonsense and unfounded conjecture. You have provided absolutely no proof for anything. Your tangents and circular references are getting you nowhere. I gave my reasons in the beginning of this debate as to why I find it reasonable to conclude Jesus was not a historical figure. You would need to offer up some actual real evidence to debate this. Proving Jesus was a historical character will take multiple independent extrabiblical sources, And they simply don't exist. If you don't have anything to offer, Why did you accept this debate?

InfakeWars

Con

Thank you for questioning my ability to debate! Abuse and personal attacks toward debaters is against conduct, And should be used as a reason as to why the contender won on the ballot from voters; as for why I chose it, I found a reasonably challenging topic that was unfairly biased toward one side, And I love challenges, So I had to accept!

As for the attacks against me, I have the following rebuttals:
My opponent attacks the validity of Tacitus, Yet completely ignores the writings of Josephus, As Josephus wrote two books with Jesus included in the text (one was considered to be influenced by Christians, However, The other is without bias). And I will continue the validity of Tacitus. As for historians, There are historians that use Tacitus work, Ronald Mellor (a very well known historian on religion [praise! <3 love your work Mellor! ]) used his work and wrote an entire essay on impact and his important work to society, Especially PROVING JESUS EXISTENCE.
My opponent constantly attacks the same way without listening to what I say in the debate as of status quo: His source was not primary, But came from Primary sources. Unless secondary sources are not of use to my opponent, I can list even more primary sources that contain evidence for Jesus, But I will leave that up to my opponent, May he/she wish to continue attacks.
Tacitus is a valid source of evidence. As a historian, He called upon birth records, And PRIMARY SOURCES to use for his evidence. My opponent says he has no sources cited, But those are his sources. These government imprints and primary sources that I constantly list are considered cited sources. As for the philosophers that don't use him, They can't deny the writings of Josephus. It seems a little more than coincidental that two people that wrote of Jesus more than 100 years apart would both be considered fake.

Next on the attack that Christ is not much different from deities listed, I say that this is true to extent, But none to the extent that proves Jesus didn't exist. Yes, There were deities and there prophets in these religions. Take Odysseus, For example. This man was proven to be a real person, And there is proof he fought (if you want to debate that, Leave that to a different debate to do so). However, His actions were not all true. We can not prove that he killed a cyclops, Tormented him to make Zeus angry and kill his crew, Obtain a bag of winds, Use the wrong winds, Get captured, His wife commit suicide, Etc.

It is the action that you can prove false, And this is what I will not debate. However, You can not prove that the person behind the action is non-existent. The analogy of Odysseus and Jesus proves true here, As both were highly revered and turned to Legend, Which changed their actual actions into impossible feats, But the one thing that always stays the same no matter how hard you try to change it is that the person. As Odysseus legend was passed on, His actions became lies, But his person didn't. The same applies to Jesus; I will not refute the fact that he did magic in the Bible, And that is impossible; I'm not a Christian, So I will not say he was God's spawn, But I will say that he did exist.

Continuing on the attack of mythology, I must say that the concepts of Zoroastrianism are used nearly EVERYWHERE. However, This is not for the reason that you attack for, It is for the reason of its morals. It believes in one god (fairly common-place), A destruction of evil (commonplace, Even found in Buddhism, Which had little to do with this religion), Judgement after death (again Buddhism, But also in Hinduism, Aka Karma or the Dharma), The Supreme Being (a prophet that holds power for Enlightenment is extremely known and common in religion, The Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Etc. ). Yes, I agree that very many of these concepts are known in Zoroastrianism, But it is not the people and the religion that is influenced by Zoroastrianism, But the structure and morals by which it stands upon that are influenced.

Now, I begin Attacks.

Yes, Anyone can just barf out nonsense and unfounded conjecture, But not all can do this with proof. I have given proof from historians who wrote entire essays and books about the validity, And the Instigator refuses to accept these points. Why? Because he has very few attacks toward these. And this isn't personal abuse, This is fact. My opponent repeatedly ignores Josephus work, And again refuses the Absolutism of our debate. If I can prove that Jesus was born, Any record of his life, Or can prove his execution, I will have won today's debate. He refused to refute this in his speech, Which assumes he agrees with the statement. Now, I just have to prove that there was record of his life outside biblical sources.

Next, He attacks saying that because I mentioned the Bible ONCE, That it doesn't count as evidence and therefore makes my evidence circular, Without pointing out evidence outside the Bible. However, I provide evidence from Scholars, Historians of modern-day, Historians of ancient Rome, AND philosophers. However, As I said, My opponent will not use these evidences and instead focuses on the validity of Tacitus, While ignoring Josephus and other sources. Because he has ignored these sources, He therefore agrees with them, Meaning I have won today's debate.

And continuing further into the debate, I will attack my opponents speech. He (I assume you are, Sorry if I am wrong, And tell me if you are a girl or whatever you classify yourself for confusion relief) would constantly bring in new evidence, Without backing previous evidence, Showing a flimsy case that the opponent does not understand them-self. This proves on top of me being better sourced and debated, I am also better prepared for this debate.

For these reasons, I stand firm over my opponent in the debate of Resolved: It is reasonable to conclude Jesus wasn't real
Debate Round No. 3
killshot

Pro

killshot forfeited this round.
InfakeWars

Con

First, I would like to begin with the question: Is it Reasonable to Conclude Jesus Wasn't Real?

From this, I can propose the counter-question I debated: Is it Reasonable to Conclude Jesus WAS Real?

From this counter-plan that I have proposed, I can conclude that it is a debate of Reasonability. This means, If I can prove that it is reasonable to conclude beyond-a-doubt, That Jesus existed, I have won. I don't even have to prove Jesus existed, I just have to prove the counter-plan to an effect is true.

I have proved this in many ways:

I proved it through the validity of Tacitus, Bringing forth new evidence to further back the previous one every speech my opponent attacks it

I proved it through Josephus, Which, Despite my opponents "warning" never consulted further toward the attack.

And through how Jesus has been recorded in his Death, And has records of his life, Directly attacking my opponents constructive Speech.

I proved Tacitus had evidence. He did not provide sources, Because the sources he had were proven to be "trustworthy oral testimonies". If they were Trustworthy, How can my opponent deny Tacitus? He says it was 100 years after Jesus supposed death that Tacitus began writing. However, He then does not respong when I talk of the trustworthy first-hand accounts. If he had first-hand accounts outside those of the Bible, How can he possibly be denied validity?

Second, My opponent had not attacked the validity of Josephus. By formal debate rules (which some like 21stCenturyIconoclast seem to deny in an informal debate), If the opponent provides no opposition to a Contention, Piece of Evidence, Or counter-argument, They have no true attacks, Meaning the "moot point" stands true. This means that my opponent has already lost because of the lack of attacks to my case.

Finally, My opponent can not prove his side stands better than mine, Through the fact that I thoroughly attacked 3 of his 5 original points (2 of them I agreed with, But to an opposing counter-argument):

1. I proved his existence outside the Bible, And had records of his life.

2. I proved his execution

3. I proved his life is different from mythologies

4. I agreed that there are some Bible fallacies, But used Extra-Biblical sources

5. I proved that the action was fake and illogical, But the person behind the action was real

For these reasons, Voters, I suggest a strong ballot towards the Negation (Con) in today's debate. My opponent may consider himself "stuck with a kid. " But I have proven myself better than my opponent in today's debate in all spectrum
Debate Round No. 4
killshot

Pro

See comments section. After seeing that you're just a kid, And how immature you act, I have no interest in debating you any further as it's a waste of everyone's time. I made the points I needed to make in my opening statement, All of which you have failed to properly address. You have failed to make any solid points or provide any real evidence. I don't even think you understand what evidence actually is. Being that you're only 14, You also have no formal education or structure and this was intended to be a serious debate.
InfakeWars

Con

InfakeWars forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
72 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InfakeWars 3 years ago
InfakeWars
Lol I came back after 4 weeks of trigonometry and Circles in math, And I won! Sry if I was gone for so long, Miss me?
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Vorodor,

Your totally misguided quote relative to InFakeWars: " I appreciate your intellectual honesty" should read; "I can"t appreciate your assumed intellectial honesty, " which would be a truer situation for the runaway InFakeWars!

As explicitly shown, InFakeWar remains MIA within this thread because he was easily made the fool upon the threads topic. At least InFakeWars knows when to disappear and to go forth licking his wounds to "try" and debate once again in the future.

InFakeWars and you are birds-of-a-feather in RUNNING AWAY when the kitchen gets to hot! Lol
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Vorador

"Supposedly, There are moderators, But they don't moderate. "
I can't do anything if I even contact the guy/gal. I do know who he/she is but doesn't reply back. Can't do anything without a reply.

"*Omar2345 I am not saying this because I am mad about our debate. I am also not accusing you of being uncivil. Unlike many other users on this site, You were polite and challenged me intellectually. And to be fair, I also am stubborn and don't like to admit to being wrong. "
Hey it was you. I thought you were a random guy I didn't know.

"There are many other debating websites that have good moderators, Fewer trolls, And more civil debaters. Although you can do what you like, I would suggest that you switch to a better website. "
You can try debateart. Com but I didn't like it.
Posted by Vorador 3 years ago
Vorador
InfakeWars I appreciate your intellectual honesty, But don't waste it on this site. I was a member of this site very briefly and quit because I didn't have the time for it (Plus it seriously aggravated my carpal tunnel). But even if you have the time to debate, You should leave this site and take your talents to a better site. As you have already learned, DDO is filled with trolls like 21st Century and backwardseden. Supposedly, There are moderators, But they don't moderate. Even smart people like kvng, Omar, And thoht don't admit it when they are losing a debate* (at least not that I've seen. I apologize if this isn't the case. ) The voting on this site is very low quality. With very few exceptions, The few members that actually take the time to vote don't vote for who won; they vote for who they agree with. There are many other debating websites that have good moderators, Fewer trolls, And more civil debaters. Although you can do what you like, I would suggest that you switch to a better website.

*Omar2345 I am not saying this because I am mad about our debate. I am also not accusing you of being uncivil. Unlike many other users on this site, You were polite and challenged me intellectually. And to be fair, I also am stubborn and don't like to admit to being wrong.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@21 "14 year old modus operandi". . LOL

Legal/law enforcement background? I don't see many people use this phrase outside of particular fields or Latin studies.
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
InFakeWars,

Huh, You are still breathing? Do you really want to continue and stick around so we can watch your very last gasps with this topic at hand?

You were made the "kid fool" with the debates topic by myself and backwardseden in showing you to be the utmost of ignorant hypocrites. Your problem is the blatant fact that you do not have the intellect to realize this fact. Except this outcome and just try and move on, Okay?

Your silence is deafening upon the FACT, As it should be to save yourself further embarrassment, That I ended your child like position in showing you that you do refer to the BIBLE JESUS, Whereas your stated foundation is that you didn"t!

Now, Wipe the proverbial egg from your face and leave this thread to ply your 14 year old modus operandi to other threads on DEBATE. ORG.
Posted by InfakeWars 3 years ago
InfakeWars
As the great Kill Shot once said in a debate:

"Why does everyone on this site enter a debate, Get wrecked and then run away?

You sir, Yes you, I'm pointing at you. "

Why call me a kid, And stop debating if you totally "wrecked me"? Never stop attacks against your opponent, Especially when it comes to learning debate styles.
Posted by InfakeWars 3 years ago
InfakeWars
And keep in mind, Killshot, You DID debate this with me. For 3 rounds you debated this with me.
Posted by InfakeWars 3 years ago
InfakeWars
Being stuck with a kid is bad? I debated well, And I could reason I did better than you, KillShot. But, That is up to voters
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
I have nothing further to add to this debate. I wanted to actually debate it, But instead I got stuck with a kid. I'm done lol
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
killshotInfakeWarsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con "immature". That's poor conduct.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.