The Instigator
JesusChrist4Ever
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
thicc_bob
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Was Jesus Christ a real historical figure?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2019 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 120061
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

JesusChrist4Ever

Pro

First round is acceptance

Rules:
-This argument is purely for historical purposes only; any arguments on the basis of religion will be nullified
-backwardseden is disqualified from the debating process, And will not be allowed to vote or post comments
-no profanity, Insults, Or ethnic slurs please. Keep this a professional, Formal debate in which everyone is respectful.
thicc_bob

Con

No, Jesus Christ was not a real historical figure. He was simply a man made up by the creators of the bible in order to tell their tales. He is about as real as Spongebob.
Debate Round No. 1
JesusChrist4Ever

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. When making your arguments, Make sure to remember your sources.

Point #1: Evidence from Tacitus
One historian points out that this piece written by Tacitus was "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside of the New Testament. " Tacitus wrote in a report on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the destruction of Rome by fire in 64 AD "Nero fastened the guilt. . . On a class hated for their abominations, Called Christians by the populace. Christus, From whom the name had its origin, Suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of. . . Pontius Pilatus, And a most mischievous superstition, Thus checked for the moment, Again broke out not only in Judaea, The first source of the evil, But even in Rome" (Tacitus). One historian here suggests that Tacitus is "bearing indirect testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave. " This interpretation may seem hypothetical, But it sure does help explain the otherwise random occurrence of a rapidly expanding religion based on the worship and praise of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.

Point #2: Evidence from Josephus
The first century Jewish historian Josephus, Who was and is still known for his many works, Mentions Jesus twice in his book "Jewish Antiquities". The first was in a section entitled "Testimonium Flavianum" where he wrote, "About this time there lived Jesus, A wise man, If indeed one ought to call him a man. For he. . . Wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate. . . Condemned him to be crucified, Those who had. . . Come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared. . . Restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians. . . Has. . . Not disappeared" (Josephus). But did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think that the core of the passage originated with Josephus, But it was altered eventually by a Christian between the 3rd and 4th centuries. Keep in mind that Josephus was not a Christian, And that it would be difficult for anyone but a Christian to make some of those statements. However, Even if we were to remove the questionable parts of this passage, We still are left with a great deal of essential information about the Biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed amazing feats, And that he was crucified and killed by Pontius Pilate. A detailed picture emerges, Which is increasing evidence that the biblical Jesus and the historical Jesus are the same person.

Point #3: Evidence from Lucian
The next piece of evidence comes from the 2nd-century Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata. In one of his works, He wrote of the early Christians and said, " The Christians. . . Worship a man to this day "" the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, And was crucified on that account. . . . It was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, From the moment that they are converted, And deny the gods of Greece, And worship the crucified sage, And live after his laws" (Lucian of Samosata). In this passage, It is obvious that Lucian is hating on the early Christians, He does make some significant comments about their founder. Even though Lucian did not mention his name in the passage, It is obvious that he is referring to Jesus. He also mentions that Jesus taught that, From the moment of conversion, All people are brothers and sisters in Christ. Although Lucian does not say this explicitly, The Christian denial of other gods and the acceptance of Jesus Christ meant that he was more than just human. Whether or not this is true is for you and I to decide, And will not be a topic of this debate.

Point #4: Mara Bar-Serapion
Sometime around 70 AD, A Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, Writing to encourage his children, Compared the life and death of Jesus Christ to that of other famous philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The passage where he wrote this states, "What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, The people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king? "After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men"The wise king"Lived on in the teachings he enacted" (Mara Bar-Serapion). The reference to the "king of the Jews" is undoubtedly referring to Jesus. Bar-Serapion gives us another consistent response in that he was a wise man who lived and died for his beliefs, And spurred a following of many people who claimed him as the "son of God".

Point #5: Celsus
The last non-Christian report before several centuries passed was Celsus, Who was known for his hostility against Christians and criticism of the Bible. However, He provided evidence in one of his works, Where he wrote, Jesus had come from a village in Judea, And was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, Who was a carpenter by trade, On being convicted of adultery with a soldier named Panth"ra. Being thus driven away by her husband, And wandering about in disgrace, She gave birth to Jesus, A bastard. Jesus, On account of his poverty, Was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, And on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god. " While this account does not line up with the commonly accepted story of Jesus and his family, He still proved that Christ existed, And claimed himself as God.

More proof and rebuttals are ahead. I"m very anxious to see what your claims and evidence are. Back to you, And may the best debater win.

Sources:
https://www. Bethinking. Org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources
https://coldcasechristianity. Com/writings/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/
thicc_bob

Con

thicc_bob forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
JesusChrist4Ever

Pro

I"m assuming that my opponent has forfeited this debate, Since he last logged in on the same day he created his account.
thicc_bob

Con

thicc_bob forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JesusChrist4Ever

Pro

Still Waiting. . .
thicc_bob

Con

thicc_bob forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
JesusChrist4Ever

Pro

JesusChrist4Ever forfeited this round.
thicc_bob

Con

thicc_bob forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by JesusChrist4Ever 3 years ago
JesusChrist4Ever
This debate is about whether the man called "Jesus of Nazareth" existed. Whether or not he was the son of God is another debate for another time.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
In other words, The host of this debate has no ability to prove his points, Thus debate at all.

Oh darn. I just noticed in his "rules" that I cannot post comments. Sorry. I do know the rules well enough teeny bopper, That those stipulations 100% don't apply. But very well, I shall live by his wishes and I shall not post here again.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
What the host of this debate should do is revise his debate before someone accepts before he further confuses himself.
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
Surgeon
Is this debate about whether:

1) such a character existed but may or may not have been a demi-god or a god; or
2) simply that there may have been someone (historically) who the Bible character was based on but that they could have been some ordinary Jewish bloke with none of the claimed
3) I take it the Bible and any extra biblical source (Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus) are potentially in scope?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@JesusChrist4Ever

"religious bias"
Aren't you biased in the Religion you follow and the person opposing you biased to his/her point of view?

Basically is this a debate about truth or another debate to confirm my biases.
Posted by JesusChrist4Ever 3 years ago
JesusChrist4Ever
@omar2345
Yes, It can be used for historical proof only. I meant to say any religious bias will nullify that particular argument.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"This argument is purely for historical purposes only; any arguments on the basis of religion will be nullified"

Is the Religious text historical? If so it can be used as historical evidence for either side.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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