Phos Halas (PRO)Greetings. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I would like to introduce myself, I am what is known in the academic world as a trained M.W.A.C. That's man with a computer.
All joking aside, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss these very important and relevant topics with everyone today. Isn't that the beauty of the internet? Average people like me can get on a computer and become part of these types of conversations. That's also works the other way however. People without relevant qualifications also make claims that are unfortunately historically not true. I believe, and it is my argument, that one of those claims is that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. I hope in this debate to persuade my audience that such a claim is not true. That Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist
In this debate, I will not be discussing the historical reliability of the New Testament. Now let me be very clear, I believe without a doubt that the New Testament is the infallible word of God. However, I will not be defending this position today. Yes, if the N.T. can be shown to be historically accurate, then it follows that what it says about Jesus is truthful.
This being said, I do believe that is a debate for another time. Because we are defending two different claims, that the N.T. is reliable and Jesus exists. That's outside the scope of this debate, for now, I will defend one of these positions only.
As we all know, Christianity is a religion. And religions need one thing. Founders. It is the claim of me and my religion that our founder is a Man named Jesus of Nazareth. If one claims that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, one would need to bring an alternate explanation of how Christianity was founded. I want to be clear, that I expect no less from my opponent. If my opponent would like to argue that Jesus did not exist, then they must give an alternative story of how the Christian religion came to be.
So, with that out of the way, I will present two lines of evidence outside the New Testament that Jesus Christ existed, and is in fact the Founder of my Religion.
1. The testimony of Cornelius Tacitus
2. The testimony of Josephus
There is also the Testimony of Lucian of Samosata, but I will look at these two for now.
Of course, the New Testament itself is our primary and sufficient source for the existence and life of Christ, but as I said, I will not be defending it in this debate, and thus, will be using secular sources. Now let me be clear, that even if these sources did not exist, I still believe the N.T. to be wholly sufficient in it's testimony, and likewise, if, let's say, we did not have the N.T, I believe these references by historians are sufficient to establish that Jesus Christ in fact existed in 1st century Palestine.
In regards to Tacitus. Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman official writing I believe in the early second century. He wrote a total of 30 books, annals and the histories. It is Tacitus' Annals that give reference to Jesus Christ.
In Annals 15:44, Tacitus, when referencing the fires of Rome, and the persecution of Christian under Nero, writes:
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures 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 one of our procurators, 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, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted
Tacitus proves several things:
1. Jesus Christ (Christus) was the founder of Christianity (from who the name had it's origin)
2. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate
I personally believe Tacitus is referencing the Resurrection when he stated a superstition was checked but then broke out again, but we see here Tacitus is by no means sympathetic to the Christian faith, and displays the usual Roman skepticism in regards to the religion, however, makes no qualms with the existence of Christ, who he most definitely believes to have existed.
Flavius Josephus:
Flavius Josephus was a Jewish Historian who wrote the Wars and antiquities of the Jews I believe in the late first century. It is his book the antiquities of the Jews, he makes a clear reference to Jesus Christ:
Book 20: chapter nine
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions];
Jesus is listed among such people as Festus, James, and Albinus. Josephus presupposes that Jesus Christ exists, and gives a recorded history of what happened to James His brother
Josephus proves three things:
Jesus existed in 1st century Palestine
Had a brother
And was known as the Christ.
It is the testimony of these two historians who wrote outside of the N.T. that I believe firmly establish the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I would like to state in closing, that for centuries, the enemies of Christianity did not formulate one argument that Jesus did not exist, they all suppose His existence, and we do not see any dissenters until the early 19th century with the advent of German criticism
This is because nobody ever questioned His existence up until recently.
Thank you all.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-05-12 14:23:22
| Speak Round
Povski (CON) Hello Phos Halas. You bring some very convincing points at first sight, but maybe not pressed hard enough. You almost convinced me. However, let’s not settle so easily.
Tacitus was born in 56 Ad, which is 60 years later than the alleged date when Jesus was born. This means that he would have missed Jesus by a few decades. So what is his testimony worth? If somebody today were to write about Jesus of Nazareth would that imply He existed? We can't judge that based solely on this information just as we can't judge the truth in Tacitus' writings. We need the arguments which Tacitus employed for attesting His existence.
The concern with Josephus is similar, although he lived in a time that was closer to the life of Jesus. The bottom line is, neither historians were alive to witness what they presented in writing. This means they had to gather second-source information - what historians do generally. Historians gather information about certain events and synthesize it in chronicles, but who is to analyze the accuracy of their method? Journalists today do a similar job and their publications in newspapers sometimes contain errors.
Tacitus:
From among the stories described in Annals 15:44, Tacitus was alive to record only the persecution of Christians conducted by Nero.
In the middle of the article, however, he introduces seamlessly a short account of Jesus' trial which had taken place more than 30 years before. The complete work describes a time line between 14 AD and 68 AD and yet he only mentions Christ as a recollection when talking about the fire of Rome (64 AD) for which Nero punished the Christians. He intermingles two different stories (the fire and the trial of Jesus) creating the impression that both have the same factual basis, but it may be important to make the distinction that he witnessed one and not the other. Now, Tacitus appears to have been convinced of the existence of Christ as the founder of the Christian Cult, but is his mere belief enough to justify that it is true? Perhaps yes, if we rely on his historical authority. How accurate are his records, though?
I know this is a bit short of an argument, and I apologise for that. And i should bring forth more powerful claims. However, I did raise a fair point. And for now i think an adequate step forword in the debate would be for Phos Halas to explain the following:
In light of my discussion so far, please explain your sentence “Tacitus proves several things”. How did Tacitus prove the facts you mentioned? And what proof does he present in their favor, besides merely stating them?
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-05-19 10:18:09
| Speak RoundPhos Halas (PRO)"
Greetings again, I would like to start off by making several points in regards to your first paragraph
"Tacitus was born in 56 Ad, which is 60 years later than the alleged date when Jesus was born. This means that he would have missed Jesus by a few decades. So what is his testimony worth? If somebody today were to write about Jesus of Nazareth would that imply He existed? We can't judge that based solely on this information just as we can't judge the truth in Tacitus' writings. We need the arguments which Tacitus employed for attesting His existence.
The concern with Josephus is similar, although he lived in a time that was closer to the life of Jesus. The bottom line is, neither historians were alive to witness what they presented in writing. This means they had to gather second-source information - what historians do generally. Historians gather information about certain events and synthesize it in chronicles, but who is to analyze the accuracy of their method? Journalists today do a similar job and their publications in newspapers sometimes contain errors."
The concern with Josephus is similar, although he lived in a time that was closer to the life of Jesus. The bottom line is, neither historians were alive to witness what they presented in writing. This means they had to gather second-source information - what historians do generally. Historians gather information about certain events and synthesize it in chronicles, but who is to analyze the accuracy of their method? Journalists today do a similar job and their publications in newspapers sometimes contain errors."
We need to address several things for starters, firstly, in regards to your direct question, I would say no, somebody writing today would of course not establish the existence of anyone from the first century. However, to give an analogy closer to Tacitus, if a military historian today wrote something about the Gulf War or Vietnam, which was not that long ago, I would think we both agree they are going to be fairly accurate in what they write.
You are arguing that because Tacitus and Josephus were not direct contemporaries with Jesus, their testimonies do not establish that Jesus did in fact exist. Well, if this is the case and the line of thinking we are using, we must discard the vast majority of ancient history, and that being said, Jesus in comparison with anyone else from the ancient world, is in far better shape in terms of historical attestation. Let's take a look. An good example I like to use is the Greek mathematician Pythagoras.
How many contemporary accounts do we have of Pythagoras?
Answer none.
When was the primary source document on Pythagoras written?
Answer:
"First, Pythagoras himself wrote nothing, so our knowledge of Pythagoras' views is entirely derived from the reports of others. Second, there was no extensive or authoritative contemporary account of Pythagoras. No one did for Pythagoras what Plato and Xenophon did for Socrates. Third, only fragments of the first detailed accounts of Pythagoras, written about 150 years after his death, have survived"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/
How many reputable historians question the existence of Pythagoras? None.
And the same can be said for several other figures. Take Alexander the great. The primary document that tells us about his military campaigns come from a man named Arrian who was writing in the late first century A.D.
You mention about Josephus not being contemporary with Jesus, well, Josephus goes into detailed account about Judas Maccabeus in his very same book. Judas Maccabeus lived 166 B.C.
So what I am getting at is if we are going to dismiss Josephus and Tacitus because they were not alive in the same decade, we need to discard their history that they wrote, and we need to discard Pythagoras, Alexander the great, Hannibal of Carthage, and what Josephus wrote about Judas Maccabeus. The problem is, no historian would dream of such. The fact is that doubting the existence of Jesus based upon these charges is to discard ancient history. If we are not going to allow for a Jesus of Nazareth, we most certainly shouldn't allow Pythagoras to be considered real either.
"Perhaps yes, if we rely on his historical authority. How accurate are his records, though?"
The fact is that Tacitus was a government official. If anyone had access to possible records regarding a crucifixion that took place under Pontius Pilate, he would have. Tacitus also writes about emperor Tiberius in his book. Since Tacitus was not living during the time of his reign, we need to discard everything Tacitus wrote about Tiberius. The problem is nobody does that. Tacitus is widely held in high esteem in historical research.
How did Tacitus prove the facts you mentioned? And what proof does he present in their favor, besides merely stating them?
Tacitus is a great example of enemy attestation. Anyone can see he has a very unsympathetic view towards Christianity. He was not in the practice of merely repeating what others said, he was a historian working for the empire, and if anyone needed to get their info correct, he would have. And Tacitus was clearly not trying to further Christianity, so he had nothing to gain by attesting to Jesus. He just states it as a historical fact. Just as he does the fires of Rome. Which, by the way, happened when Tacitus was only 8.
Ultimately, I will finish by asking you, what alternative theories do you present for the founding of Christianity?
Thank you
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-05-20 09:38:18
| Speak RoundPovski (CON)Addressing the refutation of my main point:
Doubting the testimony of somebody who was not a witness is reasonable. And if doing that raises questions about the rest of history, then so be it.
I am not going as far as "discard[ing] the vast majority of ancient history" as Phos Halas suggested. I am not even discarding the event itself, I am arguing that it isn't enough evidence. It is not the evidence that raises doubts, but the lack of evidence. However, if the rest of ancient history were recorded to a smaller extent than what was presented here in favor of Jesus of Nazareth, than I would be inclined to discard it. This is to address the claim that there is far more historical attestation for Jesus than for any other ancient figure.
I am arguing that Tacitus does not prove the existence of Jesus because he does not employ any arguments in its favor. The one who is making the arguments is Pro Halas who is using the testimony of Tacitus as evidence, making the argument that the record is valid for two reasons:
- Tacitus was a good historian
- Tacitus was a member of the senate and had access to roman archives such as accounts of crucifixions
Firstly, the first point comes from the reputation of Tacitus about who wiki says "is considered to be one of the greatest Roman historians". I would prefer not to go down this road and argue his reputation, but since the argument was made, I would like to quote some opinions.
Some "historians" regard the depiction of roman king Tiberius made by Tacitus to not be akin with reality, portraying him as more merciless than he was in reality (compared to a broader picture of historical accounts of the king). This has the consequence of questioning Tacitus' honesty of purpose to give a true account or questioning the validity of his sources, as Tiberius lived before Tacitus. (source). So there is a bit of doubt among historians with regards to the historical accuracy of Tacitus' works.
Furthermore, a more direct argument against Tacitus' reliability is the fact that he mentions roman gods in his works. I make the point that roman gods were not real so including them in the text of "The Annals" takes away from the text's validity.
Secondly, the fact that senators had access to "Imperial Registers" is mentioned by Tacitus himself in his The History (4:40). This is probably true as it was part of Tacitus' own life as a senator. Were the crucifixions recorded in the imperial registers though?
Disclaimer: I mentioned in the past round that Tacitus only mentions the crucifixion of "Christus" as a recollection when talking about the Fire of Rome. Since then, I found out that some parts of "The Annals" are missing, including the chapters which potentially referred to the period when the crucifixion took place. Thus, there is no way to deduce that Tacitus did not write about the event in the relevant chronological position.
There is another argument which needs to be addressed. It can be said that, in a way, Tacitus also employed this argument in the main cited passage that was cited in favor of this debate's resolution. This is the argument that Christianity could only have arisen if Christ had led the course. I still need to consider this more thoroughly -admittedly, it is a strong point:)
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-03 09:32:28
| Speak RoundPhos Halas (PRO)Thank you to Povski for quite a debate. I am glad to see how many views this debate has enjoyed, I think this is a very important issue so it's always nice to see people engaging themselves in these types of things. In response to Povski's first paragraph:
"Doubting the testimony of somebody who was not a witness is reasonable. And if doing that raises questions about the rest of history, then so be it."
I am glad to see my opponent being consistent, there are many who will accept ancient history and the historical methods employed but will not believe in Jesus Christ's historicity. In response to this, there is nothing I can really add. I cannot change any person's level of skepticism. What is accepted by professional historians is satisfactory for them, I might add though, that it should be no different for lay people.
"I am not going as far as "discard[ing] the vast majority of ancient history" as Phos Halas suggested. I am not even discarding the event itself, I am arguing that it isn't enough evidence. It is not the evidence that raises doubts, but the lack of evidence. However, if the rest of ancient history were recorded to a smaller extent than what was presented here in favor of Jesus of Nazareth, than I would be inclined to discard it. This is to address the claim that there is far more historical attestation for Jesus than for any other ancient figure."
I would respond to this with a question and an analogy. First, what would you consider enough evidence? You have yet to define what your standards of evidence are in this debate, and why they need to be higher than what is accepted by historians. If Tacitus claimed to have met Jesus, and went into detailed stories about Him, one could claim Tacitus was secretly a Christian and was trying to further the religion. If Tacitus said he came across detailed documents regarding the crucifixion, one could claim those documents were forged by Christians. If Tacitus said he was good friends with Jesus' brother, one could claim he was being influenced by the Christian movement and gave way to it's persuasive sway. If Tacitus said he was present during the crucifixion and was an eye-witness to the event, one could still doubt the trustworthiness of his testimony and look at other factors such as missing books in his works or that he wasn't 100% accurate in everything he wrote.
The point is, is that anyone can take skepticism to any level that suits their worldview.
For the sake of this discussion, I would seek to create an analogy of why it's perfectly reasonable to accept the existence of Christ based upon these historians. Let's say we were trying to determine if a man named Povski existed. This is the year 3092. People in this age are trying to establish the existence of Povski, but let's just say there were no accounts of you written by people who were eyewitnesses. Now let's say there was some edeb8 archive we came across, and an internet historian from 2057 made brief mention of you, about how you smoked some guy in a debate about Jesus. Now let's say another historian from 2040 who was a forum archive specialist made mention about a user from Romania named Filip who frequented a long out of use debate forum.
Do any of these historians have to make persuasive arguments for your existence? Do they need to go into any amount of detail regarding your personal life? Do they need to even convince anybody? No, your existence would be established based upon the fact that these people who mentioned you did just that, mentioned you, and they were professionals at what they did, even though they were not infallible.
I understand the limits of this typography, but I think the major point has been put across. The merits of their testimony are that they do just that, testify.
You mention Tacitus might have misrepresented Tiberius. Well for starters who questions that Tiberius existed? And secondly, the historical reliability of anyone's testimony does not rely on their being perfect, it relies on them being reliable, and Tacitus was.
"Furthermore, a more direct argument against Tacitus' reliability is the fact that he mentions roman gods in his works. I make the point that roman gods were not real so including them in the text of "The Annals" takes away from the text's validity.
All the more reason a skeptical Roman such as Tacitus would not give credence to any Jewish God or Messiah or person saying they were such unless he had real reason to believe that person actually walked the earth. Again, Tacitus was not a Christian and only had hatred for the religion, so he had every reason to disregard mere tales about a Jesus. But he didn't. I would also state that this is not a problem for historians. Which leads back to the problem of unjustified skepticism.
Ultimately, we still have Josephus to deal with, and not only Josephus, but there are many more. I for the sake of brevity only used Josephus and Tacitus, but I did not mention:
Thallus
Seutonius
Mara Bar Serapion
Pliny the younger
Lucian of Samosata
The Jewish Talmud
All these give reference to Jesus Christ as well. Of course, to debate these would take an entirely new debate.
I understand you not addressing the origin of Christianity, I can see no other option than the obvious, that Jesus Christ existed and started the movement. I perhaps might hear more from you on that topic in future debates
I would like to close with a sincere thank you to Povski, ultimately, I believe that Povski is right, if we are going to doubt the historicity of Christ, we must doubt the historical method itself. Whether we should is not the scope of this debate however. Thank you all
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-03 12:43:41
| Speak RoundPovski (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-10 12:44:02
| Speak RoundPhos Halas (PRO)My opponent has forfeited his last round, I would like to leave the audience therefore with a simple request to examine the evidence, which is historically abundant. If there is anyone in viewing this debate who would like to continue this debate with me separately please let me know and we will do so, if Povski would like to continue he is more than welcome to do so. Thank you all.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-10 23:32:34
| Speak RoundPovski (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-06-17 23:34:01
| Speak Round
Judge: GuitarKirby
Judge: Imbster
Judge: Penrose stairs
Judge: WCS7
Judge: dsjpk5
Judge: miavv
Miavv, Pythagoras himself wrote nothing and left nothing behind. His theorem could easily be attributed to someone else, just as you attribute the founding of Christianity to someone else besides Jesus, in this case, the psychological need to explain the process of death. In regards to that, there was already Judaism to explain why humans die, nobody needed to create an entire new religion, and furthermore, if you study the social factors which Christianity faced, you would quickly see it was not anything anyone would have ever dreamed of preaching unless they had an outside motivation. Secondly, you must show that this actually WAS the case with the formation of Christianity, not that it might be possible.Posted 2018-07-30 07:57:26
Oh, and also, the answer to the question Phos Halas poses with so much significance: how and why is Christianity created if not with Jesus.
Just like every religion in the world, beginning with the ancient religions - even the first human being weren't able to process the truth of people they love dying and their own mortality, so religions sprang up to answer their questions of purpose and ease their minds.
Despite what he claims, a religion doesn't need a founder (as in a higher being to guide the sheep) - it needs only believers.Posted 2018-07-17 11:32:48
While this is an admittedly fascinating defense of the claim that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and Phos Halas has offered a fresh perspective for us all, I do not believe that some of his arguments are as convincing as they are well-structured and well-researched.
The participant Povski could have relatively easily taken apart certain analogies, such are the Pythagoras one - the relevance of it fades when you consider that: a) there is remaining proof in the work that he has left (he or it was someone's but credited to him - however, someone existed to invent this theorem), which cannot be said for Jesus, as it was other people that wrote of him what could be mere imaginings . Therefore, the identity, not the existence of Pythagoras can be debated, but it makes no difference, because the theorem is still here. b) Pythagoras himself doesn't hold so much weight here, because it is not if an entire religion bases itself on his existence, his existence is not as important. Even if we were told today that it was proven he didn't actually exist and that it was someone else who created his ideas, we wouldn't be that shook. But same cannot be said for Jesus, as it would severely and negatively impacted if it was proven he did not exist. In conclusion, we would need much more solid evidence Jesus exist, in comparison with Pythagoras.Posted 2018-07-17 11:28:49
"an internet historian from 2057 made brief mention of you, about how you smoked some guy in a debate about Jesus"Posted 2018-06-03 21:23:38
Thank you twice
Time extension granted. Best of luck on your examPosted 2018-05-25 22:36:07
I would need a bit of time to read up on Tacitus more. I need to delay my post as I am preparing for an exam on the 30th. I could also grant you an extra week in the next round to make things fair.Posted 2018-05-25 10:07:54