There Is Substantial Evidence to Prove Jesus Existed
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Free_Th1nker
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 7/17/2014 | Category: | Religion | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 1,413 times | Debate No: | 59093 | ||
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)
 Con My position is that there is no substantial evidence to prove that Jesus actually existed. Definitions Jesus: The central figure of Christianity. Substantial: of ample or considerablea mount, quantity, size, etc.; of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Any evidence must coincide with the entirety of both definitions. Your evidence must pertain to Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, and must be considerable in amount while being tangible/real. We are not debating whether a messiah-like figure existed, but rather whether or not the existence of Jesus, the historical figure as portrayed in biblical writings, can be proven. Tautology will not be accepted as substantial. "Jesus exists because the Bible says so" will not be accepted as substantial. This argument would also support the existence of Harry Potter, Scylla, the Balrog, etc. Remember, that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you have any concerns with the phrasing of the debate, please leave a comment. I do not want to have any confusion once the debate has started. Debate structure: 1. Acceptance 2. Opening statements/arguments 3. Rebuttal to opponent's opening and an elaboration on main arguments 4. Rebuttal to opponent's main arguments 5. Closing statements/arguments ---Any concerns with the debate structure can be expressed in the comments. I am more than willing to restructure the debate if you have any concerns.  Pro Hello! I am a Christian, and I generally believe that Jesus may have existed. I don't knkow for certain, but it seems good to give it a try. Good Luck! |
 |
|
Con "I generally believe that Jesus may have existed" Jesus, or a messiah-like figure, very well may have existed. However, the evidence just is not there to prove that Jesus, the historical figure, who is referenced so often. I'd like to start by presenting an interesting and compelling statement on the claims of the existence of Jesus, the historical figure: No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. (Jim Walker, "Did a Historical Jesus Exist?") I'd like to argue the legitimacy of the Testimonium Flavianum, the earliest non-Christian writing that referenced Jesus, the historical figure. The first non-Christian sources of the existence of Jesus appear in Testimonium Flavianum, a portion of Flavius Josephus's Antiquities. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that these writings are not entirely factual. Firstly, Josephus was born in 37 CE, which was well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Additionally, Antiquities was not written until 93-94 CE, which means it was written after the first gospels. Furthermore, and perhaps most convincingly, it is more than likely that the text was subject to Christian interpolation and forgery at the hands of Eusebius or others (Kennneth A. Olson, Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (2): 305, 1999). I am excited to learn what my opponent has to offer as substantial evidence to prove the existence of historical Jesus. Pro qwertyman forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Pro qwertyman forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Pro qwertyman forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Pro qwertyman forfeited this round. |
 |
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 7 years ago
| Free_Th1nker | qwertyman | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 4 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
I'm guessing this debate pretty much boils down to the reliability of the Testimonium Flavianum.
Looking forward to the debate. I'm with Con.