Vex debate: was Jesus historical II?

[Zack Williamson]

@Indrid-Cold said in Vex debate: was Jesus historical II?:

@Majestic-Catfish said in Vex debate: was Jesus historical II?:

Warning for others- They cannot participate in this debate. This debate will be pursuing between 1 vs 1. They can enjoy this debate or can comment only.

:rolling_on_the_floor_laughing: :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

Would Jesus Himself be allowed to contribute? Apparently TWS has a user called @Jesus-0 The'0' suggests he was the original.

Let me invite him :joy: @Jesus-0. But he sounds to be inactive.

Actually, forget that. If Jesus is reading this -- and he's serious about falling in with us humans --he'll probably be really strict about FOLLOWING THE RULES.

ahahahaha. I wrote that we (pet and me) will debate on this topic and he may join us in this debate. I invite fake Jesus too @jesus-is-15 . He must hold his own position though :joy:

[Indrid Cold]

@Majestic-Catfish Cool. It'll be epic like Avengers Endgame, if it had been limited to just Iron Man and Thanos, (but Rocket is allowed to look on).

[pe7erpark3r]

@Scottish said in Vex debate: was Jesus historical II?:

@pe7erpark3r wow that is some set of conditions just to voice an opinion! My own is that he was a real guy but not the son of god who doesn't, for me, exist. Charles Darwin and Bill Hicks colour my views

Hehe, you are free to voice your opinion :joy:

But Vex and I are discussing the arguments that speak for and against the existence of the real guy Jesus :yum:

Charles Darwin believed in Jesus to be the son of God, he even studied theology. Don't know Bill Hicks :shrug:

[pe7erpark3r]

@Original-Satan said in Vex debate: was Jesus historical II?:

@pe7erpark3r said in Vex debate: was Jesus historical II?:

@Majestic-Catfish said in Vex debate: was Jesus historical II?:

@pe7erpark3r

I add my rules

1. If there are some reasons given for an argument, we have to quote every reason for that argument.

I disagree with this rule. If you quote every reason for every argument, you'll have endless posts (or all posts will be 500 words long). You state your argument, you provide enough reasons for it, not every reason. Then if I can counter, you can answer my counter with more information if need be. If I cannot counter, or agree with what you write, it makes no sense to provide huge amounts of evidence.

Thanks for explaining it. I disagree with you. I can/will not follow this rule. Every reason must be answered properly. You dont answer my reasons and you always go ahead. Words limit can be 500 words approximately with your own answer. Quoted words are not included in those 500 words.

What I had in mind is that every reason for an argument can be its own argument again. Also, you quoted me 40 bible verses in the past. I just don't have the time to answer all of them. A single contradictive bible verse should be enough to make an argument. You can say that there are more, but you cannot expect me, to answer all of those as a single argument. And besides the question wether the bible is contradictive merits its own whole topic. You cannot expect me to discuss this as a sideshow under another topic. That's just blowing it up. This is what I had in mind when I formulated this rule.

I think we should just go ahead and see how it goes. You don't have to agree with this rule, but keep in mind, that I want more than just a character limit, something that limits the argument to the necessary information.

And that we cannot open a whole book in a single argument. If a single argument cannot be decided to be true, because it is too big to solve in more than 2 or 3 posts, we'll just have to leave that argument aside and live with the fact that we disagree about it. You cannot force me to write a whole book, just to answer you... We have to go ahead. Then we see if the other arguments are enough to decide the debate... If not, we can start a whole new topic about that argument if we want to and if we have the time...

So lets just go ahead and see where this goes...

I meant you will divide sources such as source no. 1 for Jesus is- Writers, second source is- their disciples, source no.3, source no.4, source no. 5 etc.

I still do not understand, but maybe we should just go ahead with this one too. If you are unhappy with the way I argument, you are free to just tell me.

• Evidence must only provided if needed. E.g. we often make assertions assuming the other side will agree and knows why. Thus in many cases evidence must only be provided if the other side disagrees.

I absolutely agree with this one.

Good :smile:

We will reply as fast as we can. However, we both are busy in our real life. We won't force/mortify each-other to reply quickly though.

Sure.

I will not agree with below rule-

since we defend our actual personal positions, change in position is possible and reasonable. If it does occur, this requires a new debate.

No we won't change our positions now. I chose this position because you misinterpreted my previous position.

The time you made previous topic, you did not ask me when you were going to make that topic. You suddenly made that topic.

This rule was not about what happened in the past. But I don't really care, I'll just delete it. Note that I defend my own position, and when I change my own position I will leave the debate :yum:

I do not agree with your one more rule-

if there are errors or mistakes (or insults), we agree to apologize and correct ourselves

Rules are rules. They cannot be called rules, if someone violates it.

People make mistakes, missunderstand things, get emotional. It happens. I can delete this rule if you want, because it kind of goes without saying, that when you make a mistake or hurt somebody you apologize. I could also leave it there, for this is what it says...

As far as I know, you were not agree with my rules. Ergo, I will debate on previous topic with you.

Why shouldn't we try to reach an agreement?

[pe7erpark3r]

@Original-Satan said in Vex debate: was Jesus historical II?:

Thanks for explaining it. I disagree with you. I can/will not follow this rule. Every reason must be answered properly. You dont answer my reasons and you always go ahead. Words limit can be 500 words approximately with your own answer. Quoted words are not included in those 500 words.

Oh, I think I got what you meant by your original rule: you want me to answer to everything you said in your argument.

Well, I will try to do my best. But sometimes this is impossible. For example debating all the contradictions in the bible merits – as I said – its own topic, if not writing a whole book. So lets say your argument is

There are contradictions in the bible if taken literally

and then you list a set of 40 contradictions.

I will answer with how the bible should be read. I will not answer to every contradiction, because if you read it the way I will explain, the contradictions disappear.

You of course will then disagree with how the bible should be read, and tell me I must answer your every contradiction.

I however do disagree with your way of reading the bible, and thus I will not answer your every contradiction, for I do not think the bible should be read this way.

This is a conceptual disagreement. You do not have to adapt my view. But you cannot expect me to adapt your view either.

Also listing 40 contradictions requires much less words than resolving them. I'd have to write way more than you wrote. I'd have to write a whole book. Then you would disagree with what I'd have written, and tell me I have not answered to all your reasons.

I will not write a whole book. I will tell you, that this is not a single argument. In the end all of this comes together in the question what constitutes a single argument.

So, I will try to answer everything you write in your argument. If I cannot do that, I will tell you why. I'll add this rule in the following way:

Everything in an argument must be answered if reasonably possible, or it must be explained why it cannot be answered. Not answering everything in an argument does not automatically cause the debate to be lost or won. If something cannot be answered, then the whole of the other arguments (plus the fact that this was left unanswered) will decide the debate.

[A Former User]

I comment, "Comment is a comment". So that's my comment.

[pe7erpark3r]

So let's start this finally :joy:

I'll use @spaceboy's analogy, to begin this debate:

There is a huge column of smoke (Christianity, the greatest column of smoke in human history :yum:). Thus it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there was a fire (Jesus). Ergo it is reasonable to assume that Jesus did in fact live a human life, unless you can provide a great enough amount of evidence, that shows clearly, that he did not.

With this in mind, please note that to say "Jesus' human existence is impropable" is an assertive claim, and requires convincing evidence. It is not enough to show that some of the evidence for his human existence can be doubted.

[pe7erpark3r]

@SunshineF said in Vex debate: was Jesus historical II?:

I comment, "Comment is a comment". So that's my comment.

I'll comment on that.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Vex-Man so we pre-debated this in PMs... and now you left apruptly, unjustified IMHO...

Since you are so sure to have won the debate, how about we have this out publically, and let users vote on who won? Because now that I know your arguments I'm pretty sure that I have the better ones. But since we cannot decide on that ourselves how about we let others decide?

[Kaneki-kun]

@Love_Jesus