The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don"t know the actual historical Jesus)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
ILikeDebating has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,075 times Debate No: 116588
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




There is 0 proof that the jesus mentioned in the printed bible ever existed. Now I'm not saying that he didn't exist. I'm saying there is no proof he did. And there isn't. Certainly not one with awe inspiring magical powers. Now the thing that is truly terrifying is that the bible teaches that suffering is somehow a very good thing. Yep, someone's torturing though horrific pain is a very good thing. How truly demented and deranged is that? And what can children possibly learn from suffering especially children except nothing and that suffering and pain is a horrible terrible thing and should never happen if they understand even that especially when daddy is bashing their faces in while sticking his you know what into their - well you can take a wild guess. Buddhists teach the "end" of suffering. christians teach the beginning of suffering. Oh gee, I just cannot possibly imagine which one I will choose.

I only dug into "suffering". The article below and the videos dig into the mere existence of this fabled jesus character.

This is taken from The Dossier of Reason
The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don"t know the actual historical Jesus)
I. No contemporary historical evidence
A.No historian alive during Jesus day wrote about Jesus despite ample opportunity
1.The kings coming to his birth
2.Herod"s slaughter of baby boys
3. The overthrowing of money changers
4. Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem where he is declared king by the whole town.
5. Darkness covering the whole earth for hours on Jesus" Death
6.The earthquakes at Jesus" death
7.The rending of the temple veil at Jesus" Death
8. The resurrection of Jesus that was seen by 500 witnesses.
9. The resurrection of dead holy men who were "seen by many."
10. Not one single contemporary reference to any of these or any other event in Jesus' life.
B. Living Roman satirists who made fun of Jewish messiahs had nothing to say about Jesus
II. The Gospels are contradicting, late hearsay accounts
A. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written at least after 70 A.D. (referencing fall of temple) by a non-eyewitness, and makes numerous cultural and geographical errors that a Jewish writer would not have made such as locations of rivers, cultural customs regarding divorce, locations of towns or Jesus quoting from the greek Septuagint etc. (see geographical and historical errors in the bible.)
B. The other gospels all copied from Mark. Luke and Matthew contain over 70% of Mark and mainly make changes in attempts to fix blatant errors made in Mark and to correct Mark"s poor grammar.The writer of Luke even reveals to us in Luke 1:2 that he was not an eyewitness, but that the story has been passed down to him.
C. All contradict in nearly every way (see contradictions in the bible)
1.What year was Jesus born (Herod or Caesar"s tax?)
2.His genealogy
3.The day he was crucified and his final words
4.The resurrection account
D. There are over 40 gospel accounts, the earliest being written at least later than 70 A.D., not just the four in the bible.
1. Four where chosen by the church father Iraeneus because he believed the earth was founded on four pillars and so too, should the gospels be founded by only four accounts.
2. Iraenus also revealed the names of the Gospels in the late second century, without any reason to assume they where the authentic authors - no one knows who actually wrote them!
3. John was initially considered heretical by the early church because of its variation from the synoptic but was overwhelmingly popular amongst Christians and so was included.
E. What is more likely - That the natural order of the universe was indeed suspended in our favor and recorded by second hand witnesses with conflicting details, or that they were simply lying?
III. Paul, Peter and other NT writers did not seem to know anything about the historical Jesus.
A. Never wrote about any of the events taking place in the gospel
1.The virgin birth
2.His miracles
3.His baptism
4. Never references or even acknowledges Jesus" ethical teachings on earth
B. The apostolic writers only wrote about the death, burial and resurrection - and never even placed them geographically.
C They never referenced his teachings on earth or his actions in the gospels, even when it would have clarified doctrinal issues they were debating in their writings such as divorce, eating unclean meat etc... If they knew about them, why not? Instead, the gospels appear to have been written to agree with the apostle's teachings and arguments after the fact, not the other way around.
IV. The early church did not seem to know anything about a historical Jesus.
A. Huge amounts of disagreement over Jesus in the first hundred years
1. Some churches didn"t even believe he had a physical body, prompting Paul to write about that very issue.
2. There was an enormous debate between all the major early churches as to whether Jesus was divine or not, this was settled at the council of Nicea by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
2. No early church fathers referenced Jesus' own words or teachings as recorded in the gospels to settle theological disputes.
V. Proving Jesus" Claims
A. We are talking about a man who is claimed to be divine and to be the creator of the entire universe! This is quite the claim, what if I told you that I was really a time-traveler... what sort of evidence would you need to believe such a claim? Would you settle for me saying that "you can't prove that I am not a time-traveler? Yet time travel is not as bold as the claim of divinity that people believe Jesus made.
B. "What about eyewitnesses?" the Christian may ask. Why would people follow him and report his miracles if they didn"t actually see them take place?
1. Today there are Hindu Magi and Gurus in India that have been reported by witnesses to be able to perform the same types of miracles that Jesus performed during his supposed time on earth. Why do we not accept those eyewitness / first hand accounts today such as Sathya Sai Baba, who has more than a million followers and thousands of eyewitness accounts of his purported miracles including a virgin birth.
2. Why is there no contemporary record of the 500 "brothers" (the witnesses to Christs" ressurection.) Why is Paul the only one that thought it was worth writing about an event in which Christ proved his resurrection to a large number of people? What if I told you that 500 people saw me walking on water - would me just telling you that be sufficient evidence?
3. Plethora of "savior gods" that have same attributes and miracles attributed to them as those that are attributed to Jesus that we do not accept as true.
a. Mithradates
b. Krishna
c. Romulus
d. Perseus
e. Heracles
C. Another common christian objection is "Why would early christians be willing to be martyred if they hadn"t actually seen his ressurection and known without a doubt that he was actually god?"
1. The answer to this is to consider modern cults. Why would 39 members of the cult "Heaven"s Gate" be willing to commit suicide believing that the act would grant them celestial passage on a space ship that was following Haley"s Comet? The death cult bought a telescope to observe the spacecraft that their leader promised them would be there, and when the telescope revealed no such thing - they returned it angrily insisting that the telescope was broken instead of listening to reason and realizing they had believed a complete myth. They killed themselves in March of 1997.
2. What about Jim Jones, or david koresh, or charles manson? Does the commited insanity of their followers speak to the truth of their teachings as well?

And now the videos... - jesus wasn"t jesus (Aron Ra) - The True Core of the jesus Myth (Christopher Hitchens) - Did jesus Exist? - Why christianity is Unreasonable (Richard Carrier) - Biggest Lie - The fourth gospel ("The first striking revision in the 4th gospel is that the ministry of jesus has ballooned out from from one year to three. The writers not only make a reference not only from one but to three distinct passover festivals. Now was this just a tradition that some early christians held to a three year ministry and others to a one year ministry? Can anyone honestly maintain that whole dialogues could be remembered word for word for many decades and yet believers have no common agreement whether these words were said during one year or during three years?") Um duh. Do you REALLY THINK jesus existed? - The Gospel According to Carrier (Richard Carrier states jesus may have possibly existed, but scrap all the mythology) - Proving the Historicity of Jesus? Tracie and David - Stephanie Thomason vs Matt Dillahunty, or how not to debate an Atheist! (skip to the 7:00 mark!!!) Oh this one is good and Pro is the caller with his furry tongue. - What did jesus do for you?

Again the main topic from The Dossier of Reason was the existence of jesus as are the videos. But for these rules, its a bit tougher...
Prove that christ has ever existed and his suffering and pain is a "good" thing while in the mean time children's daddies are punching them in the face and brutally raping them and prove that children can somehow learn from suffering and pain.

dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.


So, I'd like to thank you for your time and dedication to this debate. I'd like to open with some rebuttal.
1. You mentioned the fact that there is '0 proof that jesus existed' yet you carry on mentioning the bible. Thats about 7 manuscripts in one book. I don't count this as 0. You haven't taken down the reliability of the bible, so how can you say there is no evidence? You mentioned Mark being a non-eyewitness and written afterwards. First off, the manuscripts have been carbon-dated, this disproves this. Also, you say there are mistakes. Good! If it was perfect, i would think that someone meticulously sifted through information to make sure the 'cult' lived on, but no.
2. You asked for the meaning of jesus suffering. Ever heard of a sacrifice? If i had a gun and i could either shoot you or myself, and i shot myself, i took away the suffering from you and inflicted it on me. How then, do you not understand the concept of sacrifice? In modern society, that doesnt mean suffering is good, it means that our sins are forgiven. Our sins were put on jesus and he took the punishment for it

unfortunately i have run out of time now so i will have to complete the argument next round
Debate Round No. 1


See? That's why I truly hate debating christians. Especially 14 year old dribbling (no its not driveling so please do not get the two mixed up) glasses filled with peanut juice who think that they know all the answers to 0% of nothing.
"1. You mentioned the fact that there is '0 proof that jesus existed' yet you carry on mentioning the bible." Did it ever dawn on your teeny bopper brain that your jesus was fictionalized, just like you god and your bible actually got it WRONG? And had you watched the videos, in which you clearly didn't, rather than bumbling your babbling baby brained worthless intellect of tinkertoy blah blah black sheep have you any bull, then you would have realized this. But nah, you opened your maw without thinking, reasoning, rationalizing, using common sense, and using logic of any kind in which YOUR god has none as you cannot even prove even exists. So why shouldn't I dump you right now and end this debate? YOU ANSWER ME THAT!
"I don't count this as 0." Right now when you cannot show the world any truth to your jesus ever existing, then you do count as 0. "You haven't taken down the reliability of the bible," Words printed on a page from 2,000 years ago, and because YOU haven't watched the videos shows your bible to be quite unreliable. OK you really want it? Since you deaf, it must mean that you cannot listen to what people have to say, but can only read, thus all TV and movies (unless closed captioned are completely out for you) no exceptions, none, well here you go...
Taken from Dossier of Reason and it only covers a minute portion as to why YOUR god would never choose text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible) Which Bible? A. Over 450 English versions of the bible B. All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts C. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain, and how those verses read. D. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts. II. Availability - current estimate is that 2,251 languages, representing 193 million people, lack a Bible translation.

"If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors" how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can"t distinguish between the law of Israel and god"s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take figuratively. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn"t make any sense. It doesn"t matter how its translated. It doesn"t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well." Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn"t be written at all. What"s wrong with your god comin" down and talking to people? "Hey you know some of that stuff that"s in the book? I"m here to correct it." Matt Dillahunty

"We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there"s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that"s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn"t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?" Matt Dillahunty

"If jesus and Muhammad and abraham and moses had never been born, which in any case I tend to dabble, if all their stories were untrue were suddenly found and everyone had to admit it some people I know would show panic. Now what would we do? We"d have no morals suddenly. What could be more nonsensical than that? As the matter of fact the position that we occupy would---be---precisely---the---same as it is now if none of these texts had ever been written, as if none of these lacerations had ever been made. We would still have to reason together about how how to treat one another, about how to build a just city, and about how to have irony and a sense of humor." Christopher Hitchens

Now do you as a complete idiot and moron that you clearly are want more as to why YOUR god would ---never use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible? There's so much more to completely squash you that won't fit into this 10,000 character argument.

"so how can you say there is no evidence?" Once again, YOUR bible IS NOT evidence. Its a book. That's all it is. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I didn't mention "Mark" at all. See that's another reason why I truly hate christians for the most part, not all, is because they like you, CAN'T READ. What is so fricken difficult about simpleton READING? What did I say? I said "This is taken from The Dossier of Reason" DO---YOU---UNDERSTAND? Sheesh!!!!!!!

"You mentioned Mark being a non-eyewitness and written afterwards." I didn't mention it, The Dossier of Reason did. So if you believe its wrong, then you take it up with the person who wrote it, you got it? First off nothing because it happens to be correct if in any possible way you were to have done ANY research whatsoever. And there's verses like that happen ALL THE TIME throughout YOUR bible.
"First off, "the manuscripts have been carbon-dated, this disproves this." WHAT MANUSCRIPTS? OK not I am REALLY p**sed off at you, you punk kid who knows ab-so-lu-te-ly NOTHING about his, god, bible, and religion. Since there IS NO ORIGINAL to trace anything back to how can there be "the manuscripts that have been carbon-dated that disproves this"? And since you mentioned absolutely nothing to support your utter B.S and you know its pure crap that you invented, I'm now ending this debate. DO NOT even dream about posting me back again as no matter w=hat you say, it will be completely ignored. I truly do not deal in any way with those who MUST lie and invent excuses in meager attempts to gain attention and get their way especially to those who know better, and I do know better, a lot better.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Debater2018 3 years ago
ILikeDebating posts that the New Testament manuscripts have been carbon-dated, but that would not take them back far enough. The best evidence we have in getting any of them back into the 1st century is that at least one Koine Greek word used in the book of Mark, was found to not have been used in extant literature past 40 A.D.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
I will see if I can find the show you were talking about that goes into evolution and I will tell you from a scientific point of view, why I believe it to be false. Evolution seems to do a lot of fill in the blanks.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Oh and btw, I have left it at that, that you are completely ignorant to believe in your god without any proof whatsoever. It is you that enters my debates and leaves your snide remarks.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
No, no matter what anybody says you are completely brainwashed. Even if somebody were to completely and utterly agree with everything you were to thing and say, you would still manage to find fault with that person. Now I'm sorry that I lost my cool with you earlier. But you really p**s me off. You dish out your crap, you cannot back up what you state or say without being totally slaughtered on the other end because you do not pay ANY ATTENTION to what the opposing side has to say. YOU are right and EVERYBODY no matter who it is, is wrong. I have YOUR emails to prove it. Did you watch One Strange Rock earlier tonight in which proves ---EVERYTHING--- you believe in to be crushed and completely false and is proved? Yeah National Geographic knows one helluva lot better than you. That this planet is governed by life, was formed by life, and that this planet does not need man by any means and will be here at long longer once man is gone with life sill abounding? Why no of course not. Get---a---life.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
I think we should just conclude that I believe in God and you don't and just leave it that. We clearly aren't convincing each other of our beliefs.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Did you watch the videos AND THE ARTICLE from Dossier of Reason you f--king 15 year old arrogant prick who ONLY pays attention to himself and no one else that knows one helluva lot better than you? I am really sick and tired of your s--t.

Oh and oh yeah at 7:00pmEST tonight National Geographic's masterpiece series One Strange Rock will be coming on, on Fox which flatly proves evolution and Mother Earth and doesn't mention a single word about YOUR god because YOU have no proof whatsoever that this superior egotistical terrorist god complex in which your bible is entirely about and nothing else even exists. The program is about life and life shaping this world. You have absolutely no excuse for missing it. Bye.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
Another thing, the Bible does not contradict itself. When you take things out of context, they seem contradictory when they really aren't.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
There is actually evidence that Jesus exists.

Another thing, a lot of Jesus's disciples were martyrs, meaning they were killed for what they believed. I think we both agree that they existed, just to clarify. They were killed because they believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Why would they die for something they didn't believe??
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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