Instigator / Pro
1
1468
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#1801

Was Jesus of Nazareth a real historical figure?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
0
6
Better legibility
1
3
Better conduct
0
3

After 3 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

No information

-->
@fauxlaw

You're welcome.

-->
@VonKlempter

Thank you for voting

Lest any question my resolve in conducting this debate in taking the contrary view, I remind readers to review my commentary in post #10, accepting this debate. I took the debate knowing I was arguing against my own conviction that Jesus was and is an historic figure. The proof of that is in my heart, where no man can assail and no man deceives. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, as was so eloquently repeated by Peter upon the question from his Master, "Whom say ye that I am?" There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he is the Christ, the Lamb of God.

I wonder if my opponent has abandoned the debate; profile indicates has not been on the site in a month...

-->
@JesusChrist4Ever

A reminder to my opponent that just 5+ days remain for a round 3 argument, and avoidance of forfeiture, having already forfeited round 2.

-->
@BiblicalChristian101

Sorry to disagree, but none of the three historians you mentioned were contemporaries to Christ. The closest to fitting that description was Josephus, who was born in 37 CE, in Jerusalem, within the decade [third of the century] of Christ's crucifixion. The others, Tacitus, was born in 56 CE, and Sueetorius, in 69 CE.

-->
@Barney

Thanks for your suggestions on definitions. I suppose it would be good to use the "Full Description" section when launching a new debate to offer definition. Too late now. However, I think a counter argument of Jesus being multiple figures might just confuse matters. On the other hand, I have accepted this debate being a firm believer in Jesus Christ, so the whole effort is contrary to my sensibilities. Nevertheless, There are 5 argument sessions, so I might need an added argument depending on the course my opponent takes, and "clones" is as good as any.

Cited references from argument #1:
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/scientists-finally-read-the-oldest-biblical-text-ever-found-a7323296.htm
[2] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Flavius-Josephus
[3] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tacitus-Roman-historian
[4] https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/bible-basics/what-are-the-earliest-versions-and-translations-of-the-bible

I am going to engage this debate from a Con perspective, even though I am a confirmed believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as well as a common man of Nazareth. It is engaged strictly as a personal challenge to take an opposing view, and I accept the challenge to keep any religious aspect of my argument out of the argument, but for Biblical reference if deemed necessary. I do consider one definition of the Bible as historic and literary text, of value on these considerations, alone.

I'm interested by the idea of his debate. I might accept is, but I'm not sure how well I would do (and I'm also religious).

And also, the reason that the Bible is not included is that it only applies to those who believe it is true (such as myself) and not to everyone, plus it is kind of a given.

The title has been fixed after constructive criticism to Jesus of Nazareth. While this debate might be hard to argue from the con side, I would like to see a valid argument for it

-->
@zedvictor4

Christ is a title, not a last name. The Bible can be used as evidence if proven that the Bible is a historical books with historical events (the New Testament, of course).

-->
@JesusChrist4Ever

Was Jesus Christ the son of Mary Christ and the adopted son of Joseph Christ. Otherwise, why use the title of Christ in a totally non-religious debate setting?

And for similar reasons the Bible should not be permissible as evidence.

In fact the more one thinks about it, the more ridiculous the proposition becomes.

-->
@JesusChrist4Ever

This debate would be too easy. Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all mention Christ. One of these men is a Jewish historian that lived during the time of Christ. The others are Roman historians who mention that Christ was killed by Pontius Pilate and the other mentions an event found in the book of Acts, namely the expulsion of Christians from Rome due to tumults about Christ. Though, these accounts don't describe the life of Jesus they treat Him as a historical figure.

-->
@JesusChrist4Ever

You should probably pre-define your terms a little. A valid counter argument right now would be that Jesus was several people, thus not "a" single historical person.

Here's a handy guide: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt

-->
@Alec

Cool. I am Catholic, but would like to understand evidence outside of the Bible for Christ's existence.

-->
@JesusChrist4Ever

I'm agnostic, but Jesus probably did exist as a person.