Jesus is real - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Jesus is real
in Religion

Convince me that Jesus is real
George_Horse
https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Okay, we can only try to convince you. First of all, keep in mind Jesus is not a God. This universe is under the commands of one God and the concept of more than one God is a big failure of human beliefs in my opinion. Secondly, Jesus is the Prophet of God who was secured alive by God in an accident of his killing plan. So facts are facts. In my opinion, democracies or majorities are always against the facts. You can assume how people or a majority of people planned to kill Jesus. 

    I don't know is it convincing or not but I tried to share some facts with you. 
    Zombieguy1987George_Horse
  • @BonitaVanhooser

    You can't claim that those are facts since this is a purely speculative question. In addition, your argument integrates the existence of God, which is a matter of believing or not believing. It's not a "fact."

    You're misinterpreting the concept of a belief, and what you stated are not facts, but beliefs. Also, there's no evidence to support religious beliefs. Therefore, it's real to those who believe, and not real to those who don't believe.
    Zombieguy1987
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 452 Pts
    edited December 2018
    @BonitaVanhooser also your facts are wrong. If you believe what the Bible says then you would know Jesus IS God and not a prophet. Ya know, that whole holy Trinity thing? Jesus, the father and the holy Spirit are all the same God.

    I'm agnostic and even I know that.
    Zombieguy1987George_Horse
  • Convince me that Jesus is real.

    If one goes to a religious building and speaks to the (minister, preacher, or priest,) couldn't one get the answer, straight from religious individual, and maybe bypass posing the question here? 

    How many other websites have had this very question, posed on how many religious forums? 

    I can think of two other websites besides this one. 
    Zombieguy1987George_HorseNathaniel_B
  • Historical records are pretty solid on the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a real character. The records are confusing on what he was actually like - it is not even clear if he was religious or not. He definitely believed in non-violence and forgiveness, similarly to Gandhi, but it is not very clear what logic was behind these beliefs. He may have been a simple hippie; he may have been a deeply religious person with (for the time) extremely unique views; he may have been a philosopher; he may have been a cult leader; finally, he may have been a simple snake oil salesman who got caught on selling lies and died as a martyr simply because he could not find any way out of the situation. Whatever the case is, it is very unlikely that all the historical records indicating at his existence were myths.

    Is Jesus alive right now? Obviously not. There is no evidence behind the "resurrection" theory, aside from claims from several people who "witnessed" it - and even whether those claims belonged to actual people, and not something someone made up later, is not very clear. "Jesus have been reborn" is about as proven a claim as "UFO kidnappings" or "ghost stories".
  • Two questions here; 1) Was Jesus a real person, and 2) Was Jesus the son of God?
    Historically there are a lot of writers from that time that wrote of the small religious sect called Christians. Emperor Nero (54-68AD) even blamed the Christians for the fire that burned Rome. So, if your question is whether Jesus was a real person, there are many accounts, of him mentioned by name, from those times, including people who were against him and his group.

    On the question of whether this Jesus fellow was actually the Christ, the son of God, there comes in a bit of faith. The Hebrew scriptures list a slew of qualifications for the Messiah, and Jesus met them all, but so could anyone wanting to impersonate the Messiah - just read the old text, and then copy it. 

    Beyond that though, is the Bible itself, and the amazing nature of it. If the Bible is accepted as the word of God, then historical proof of the man Jesus, added to his stories being include in the Bible, gives a lot of weight to him being what he claimed. 

    Without the credit the Bible gives him, or the prophecies about his coming, we are then left with just the details of his ministry. These read as at least reasonable accounting's. If one were to write this to make a false claim on divinity, one probably wouldn't include things like hanging out with prostitutes, being unable to cure all of the lepers, asking for God to "take this cup from me". A good writer would have made him out as the saint he claimed to be, while white washing out any of the bad questionable parts. Nobody would have denied him, nobody would have betrayed him.

    Historically we have contemporary writers talk about this small rising sect, and the trouble they were causing. We hear about their persecution, and the eventual execution of their ring leader Jesus. The story in the Bible reflects very closely the politics of the time, and the nature of the people at the time. 

    Still, the claim isn't was he a great preacher with new ideas. The claim is that he was the actual, factual, bona fide son of God, sent down here in human form to take away our sins. What proof do we have for that? No 'proof' comes to mind, other than his word. Wrapped around that though, is the extensive history given by the Bible leading up to, and logically culminating in his appearance. 

    If you know that the Bible is what it claims to be, then you can only accept the logical addition, that what Jesus claimed to be is also true.
    Like I said, it takes a bit of faith. 
  • Jesus loves you sweetheart. Here is some evidence. He saved my life.
    Zombieguy1987George_Horse
  • Jesus loves you sweetheart. Here is some evidence. He saved my life.

    USING VIDEOS DOES NOT PROVE SH¡T. STOP IT!!!
    Zombieguy1987
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • TTKDBTTKDB 265 Pts
    edited December 2018
    @Zombieguy1987


    https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/did-jesus-exist/

    From the "Notes" section of the article:


    1. "It is sometimes claimed that the “miraculous” spread of Christianity in the early Roman Empire is evidence of an historical Jesus – that such a movement could not have gone so far so fast had there not been a real person at its inception. A similar argument could be made, however, in the case of the earlier rapid spread of Mithraism. I am unaware of any Christian apologists who would argue that this supports the idea of an historical Mithra!
    2. A profusely annotated paperback edition of Paine’s book is available from American Atheist Press for twelve dollars. (Order No. 5575, click here) [back]
    3. An apocalypse is a pseudonymous piece of writing characterized by exaggerated symbolic imagery, usually dealing with the expectation of an imminent cosmic cataclysm wherein the deity destroys the wicked and rewards the righteous. Apocalyptic writing abounds in hidden meanings and numerological puzzles. Parts of a number of Judæo-Christian apocalypses other than Revelation have been preserved, but only the latter (if one does not consider the Book of Daniel to be entirely apocalyptic) was accepted into the Christian canon – and it almost didn’t make it, having been rejected by several early Church Fathers and Church Councils.
    4. The opposite theory, often referred to as “Griesbach’s hypothesis,” that the author of Mark had “epitomized” the two longer gospels, keeping only the “essential” details, is today almost entirely rejected by bible scholars. While the arguments to support this nearly universal rejection are too involved to even summarize here, it may be noted that shortening of miracle stories is completely out of keeping with the principles of religious development seen everywhere today. Stories invariably get “better” (i.e., longer) with the retelling, never shorter!
    5. There is compelling evidence indicating that these alleged sayings of Jesus were taken from another early document known as Q (German, for Quelle, ‘source’). Like the so-called Gospel of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt, Q appears to have been a list of wisdom sayings that at some point became attributed to Jesus. We know that at least one of these sayings (“We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced…” Matt. 17:11; Luke 7:32) derives from Æsop’s Fables, not from a sage of Galilee!
    6. I say “official gospels” because there are, in fact, many other gospels known. Once people started making them up, they sort of got stuck in over-drive. Only later on in Christian history did the number get pared back to four.
    7. Even the letters supposed to contain authentic writings of Saul/Paul have been shown by a number of scholars to be as composite as the gospels (e.g., L. Gordon Rylands, A Critical Analysis of the Four Chief Pauline Epistles: Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians, Watts & Co., London, 1929). According to such analyses, the core Pauline material in these letters is what might be termed a pre-Christian Gnostic product. This material is surrounded by often contradictory material added by proto-Catholic interpolators and redactors who succeeded thus in claiming a popular proto-Gnostic authority for the Church of Rome. In any case, the Greek text of these letters is heavy with terms such as Archon, Æon, etc. – jargon terms popular in the more astrologically conscious forms of Gnosticism. It would appear that the Christ of Paul is as astral a being as the Lamb of Revelation. Like the god of Revelation, the god of Paul communicates via visions, not physically, face-to-face.
    8. Originally, this would have been the title born by a member of a religious fraternity associated with the worship of Yahweh, who in Greek was always referred to as kurios (‘Lord’). This was carried over into primitive Christianity, where we know from I Cor. 9:5 that there existed a governing class coordinate with apostles that was called “Brothers of the Lord.” Misunderstanding of the original meaning of the title led to the belief that Jesus had siblings – an error that can be found already in the earliest of the canonical gospels. Interestingly, the embarrassing passages in the gospels where Jesus is rude to his mother and brethren would seem to derive from a period where a political struggle had developed between apostolically governed sects and those governed by “Brethren of the Lord,” who claimed authority now by virtue of an alleged blood relationship to Jesus – who had by then supplanted Yahweh as “Lord.” The apostolic politics of the gospel writers could not resist putting down the Brethren Party by having Jesus disregard his own family. If Jesus didn’t pay serious attention to his own family, the argument would go, why should anyone pay attention to their descendants? This is the only plausible explanation for the presence of such passages as John 2:4 (“Woman, what have I to do with thee?”) or Mark 3:33 (“Who is my mother, or my brethren?).
    9. Latinists often dispute the possibility of the passage being a forgery on the grounds that Tacitus’ distinctive Latin style so perfectly permeates the entire passage. But it should be noted that the more distinctive a style might be, the easier it can be imitated. Then too, there is a lapse from normal Tacitean usage elsewhere in the disputed passage. In describing the early Christians as being haters “of the human race” (humani generis), the passage reverses the word order of normal Tacitean usage. In all other cases, Tacitus has generis humani.
    10. Curiously, in the present case, it would seem that such proof is in fact possible. Since Jesus is frequently referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth,” it is interesting to learn that the town now called Nazareth did not exist in the first centuries BCE and CE. Exhaustive archaeological studies have been done by Franciscans to prove the cave they possess was once the home of Jesus’ family. But actually they have shown the site to have been a necropolis – a city of the dead – during the first century CE. (Naturally, the Franciscans cannot agree!) With no Nazareth other than a cemetery existing at the time, how could there have been a Jesus of Nazareth? Without an Oz, could there have been a Wizard of Oz?"


    Zombieguy1987
  • @George_Horse With respect:
    ‘Proof’ is questionable whether it’s in a video or written here. There is nothing inherently wrong with video presentations, unless a person is not willing to pause them to verify what they say. 
    Videos also allow for a lot more explanation then a what can be provided in just a few paragraphs posted here. 10 minutes of video is equal to about 5 pages of text. That means that YeshuaLovesYou would have had to have written at least 35 pages to say the same thing as her video did. 
    Personally, I’d rather skip past a video then scroll past a 35 page post.
  • YeshuaLovesYou Thanx for the video. It broke down things similar to what I did, but added a few important conclusions. Before those though, it laid out a lot of things, which in a court of law, would be seen as circumstantial; miracles are done by magicians, prophecies can be copied and played out, and eyewitnesses can be made up.

    But then the more concrete evidence started to build up:
    1) The stories fit the historical times and are echoed by none believers.
    2) The burial of Christ was provided for by a very well known person of those times, and who is even a known historical figure.
    3) The discovery of the empty tomb was reported by the least reliable people, women. Despite this the Gospels stuck to that story.
    4) James, Jesus’ brother, didn’t believe in his divinity, Saul / Paul had been a persecutor of Christians, Judas betrayed Jesus, and Peter denied Jesus three times, there was even ‘doubting Thomas’. Despite this, after the resurrection, all of them changed their stance, and most of them died rather then recant. 
    5) The final proof for me though, was that these people were not professing what they ‘believed’, but what they ‘knew’, and were backed up by hundreds of others that were there to state that they also ‘knew’ that the resurrection was a fact. Personally, I don’t believe in God, I know God.

    So, if one were to claim the Bible is pure fiction, then the evidence is scant. If though, you accept that it is at least a historically faithful telling of those times, then the resurrection story has to be accepted along with the rest.

    Again, thank you for the video. As I said; “No 'proof' comes to mind..”, well now I have some decent proof to argue with. 

  • When it comes to if Jesus is real or was not, the best source of pro and con conversations, is the internet.

    For a while now, this device known as the internet, and some who utilize the internet and present the (For and Against) evidence when it comes to Jesus, and the working theories, the speculations, what is delusion, how science can be used to an extent in the conversation, but science can't be used to prove many things? 

    In some instances, science can't be used to prove some conversations in regards to science itself? 

    You can take either take some of  the speculations fueled by science, and agree with them on their own merits or not? 

    So if some agree unto themselves that Jesus was real, and others believe just the opposite, there would appear that maybe when it comes to proving Jesus, and disproving Jesus, that a stalemate of sorts, for a long time to come, is at hand? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @George_Horse I have the right to freedom of speech.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @BonitaVanhooser ; Yes Jesus is God, and He loves you.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 265 Pts
    edited December 2018
    @Zombieguy1987

    Why is the below a fallacy? 

    When it comes to if Jesus is real or was not, the best source of pro and con conversations, is the internet.

    For a while now, this device known as the internet, and some who utilize the internet and present the (For and Against) evidence when it comes to Jesus, and the working theories, the speculations, what is delusion, how science can be used to an extent in the conversation, but science can't be used to prove many things? 

    In some instances, science can't be used to prove some conversations in regards to science itself? 

    You can either take some of  the speculations fueled by science, and agree with them on their own merits or not? 

    So, if some agree unto themselves that Jesus was real, and others believe just the opposite, there would appear that maybe when it comes to proving Jesus, and  disproving Jesus, that a stalemate of sorts, for a long time to come, is at hand? 

    Where is your counter argument? 
  • TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    Why is the below a fallacy? 

    Because, you've yet to make a compelling argument to convince me Jesus is real

    When it comes to if Jesus is real or was not, the best source of pro and con conversations, is the internet.

    For a while now, this device known as the internet, and some who utilize the internet and present the (For and Against) evidence when it comes to Jesus, and the working theories, the speculations, what is delusion, how science can be used to an extent in the conversation, but science can't be used to prove many things? 

    In some instances, science can't be used to prove some conversations in regards to science itself? 

    You can either take some of  the speculations fueled by science, and agree with them on their own merits or not? 

    So, if some agree unto themselves that Jesus was real, and others believe just the opposite, there would appear that maybe when it comes to proving Jesus, and  disproving Jesus, that a stalemate of sorts, for a long time to come, is at hand? 

    Where is your counter argument? 

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987

    "Because, you've yet to make a compelling argument to convince me Jesus is real."

    Same answer below:

    Is there a religious building near you, or within the same city that you live in? 

    If you see adults and kids going to, and then into the religious building, your question, without any effort, is and has been, already answered.  

    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987

    https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-17/dickson-ill-eat-a-page-from-my-bible-if-jesus-didnt-exist/5820620 ;

    Some excerpts from the article: 

    "Contrary to recent atheist claims, Jesus did live. I will eat a page of my Bible if someone can find me just one full Professor of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament in an accredited uni who thinks otherwise, writes John Dickson.

    There may be good reasons to give up on traditional Christian belief, but today's overreaching sceptics haven't yet stumbled onto them.

    Brian Morris, the director of Adelaide's sceptical society "Plain Reason", recently provided a case against Christianity that was neither plain nor reasonable. I don't just mean his pastiche of lines out of the atheist playbook - the barbarity of the crusades, the Inquisition, etc.

    As a longtime student of ancient history, my interest was piqued by his enthusiasm around an apparent "wave of contemporary historians" who "question the authenticity of Jesus", who reveal "an endless seam of pious fraud in the Gospels", and who conclude that "the entire Jesus narrative is factually flawed".

    Even allowing for a little rhetorical flourish from the head of a club for atheists, almost everything Morris says is either grossly exaggerated or plainly false.

    The inspiration for Morris's piece is the recent publication of Richard Carrier's book On the Historicity of Jesus. Carrier is well known to atheist apologists and Christian apologists alike - the two groups are often the mirror image of each other - as the man who earned a PhD from a good ancient history department and has since devoted himself to debating evangelical Christians. His new book is a first (at least for a while): a publication in a peer reviewed context arguing Jesus never lived.

    Carrier's thesis is that Jesus started out as a "celestial figure" of religious visions, only to be dressed up in historical garb by the later Gospel writers, after which people began to believe he was a real person. This, too, would be a first. Scholars are used to the myths of, say, Romulus and Remus, the "founders" of Rome. Their legends first appear around 300BC, three or four hundred years after the actual founding of the city."

    I saw this article, and thought that Mr. John Dickson could maybe be of help to you? 


    Zombieguy1987
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch