Jesus the Christ is Probaby the Result of Creative Writing.

Hello Tarzan, Thank you for taking the time to make this a well-written debate. I am going to use Before Common Era and Common Era rather than Anno Domini and Before Christ. I am also not going to use Wikipedia as a source, as it is not always accurate. With Google, I'm sure I can find some more legitimate texts. There are two ways that your argument could be rebutted and I suppose they are opposites. a) Jesus is completely creative writing, and b) everything about the stories is true. I shall try to cover both. Much of my opponent's argument has to do with the lack of tangible literary work from that time dealing with Jesus. Let me start by explaining that there was never anything specifically written about Jesus during Jesus's lifetime that has been found. The key words being, 'that has been found'. Jesus's lifetime was so long ago that not much remains from the first and second century C.E. The few written articles that have been excavated were found in dry, dehydrated places, i.e. Egypt and the Dead Sea. Both times the documents were stored in mass quantities, probably with the purpose of protecting from natural decay. I doubt that the scholar were thinking as far ahead as the 21st century but that doesn't mean that they were inexperienced in the art of preservation. However, as Jesus was, by all accounts, a modest man, he probably didn't want a library made in honor of him. Also, the Qumran Library was the result of many centuries, from the third century B.C.E. to the first century C.E. Documents from the Alexandrian Library go back as far as 300 B.C.E. http://www.ibiblio.org... I hope I have explained how writing's from Jesus's time could plausibly, even probably, have disappeared. Now, I attempt to provide reasonable doubt why his disciples did not write about Jesus at the time. Now, I am not Christian, so I may be confusing these terms but my opponent says that Jesus was a carpenter. That is stated in the Gospel of Mark. Isn't the Gospel of Mark part of the New Testament, which my opponent deems creative writing? Clearly, even creative writing has a basis in fact, but how are we supposed to know the difference? It is just as easy to make up plausible events, or events that put someone in a light that seems to humble but actually enhances. http://www.americanbible.org... Anyway, if Jesus was a carpenter, how much math did that job actually require back then? Perhaps measuring, to some degree, but most was probably measured by eye. You make it sound ridiculous that God could have made man and not given him the talents we consider essential today. However, it wasn't that common for average people (which is what Jesus's social class defined him as) to learn how to read and write. I'm going to bring in other examples, of which I am more familiar. Take the Qur'an, for example. http://www.usc.edu... According to Muslim beliefs, an angel came down and commanded the Prophet Muhammad to 'read'. Prophet Muhammad could not read or write. However, Gabriel was talking in Arabic, obviously translatable in many ways. What we assume is that Gabriel meant "Recite!" because Muhammad listened, then repeated. http://islamzpeace.com... Muhammad recited the Qur'an and spread the word, literally. After a recitation with the angel, he would tell many different people who would make it their jobs to memorize it. Then, one Caliph compiled it all. Since then, the common thought is that it has never been changed and the vast majority of Muslims believe so. Prophet Muhammad did not write it down on paper. If Muslims (who are currently considered the more religiously devout of the two) are able to be proud of the tale that their prophet could not read or write, then why should Christians feel so differently? Much of the Christian and Islamic and Jewish religion is very similar. We all have the Great Flood and the Ark, the Whale swallowing a Prophet, Adam and Eve, etc. Our prophets were similar too. Even though we don't have a truly accurate description of life back then, if those three religions can agree on common miracles, who's to say they weren't actually happening? It's not true, however, that they all had different people doing the same thing. Credit is given where credit is due, as shown above. To refute some of my opponent's other arguments, let's move on to Philo. Philo may never have mentioned Jesus Chris in particular, but he did spend a lot of time on Logos, a Greek term for the word of God. "...that in the one living and true God there were two supreme and primary powers, Goodness [or Creative Power] and Authority [or Regent Power]; and that by his Goodness he had created every thing; and that by his Authority he governed all that he had created; and that the third thing which was between the two, and had the effect of bringing them together was the Logos, for it was owing to the Logos that God was both a ruler and good (Cher. 1.27-28)". http://www.utm.edu... He is also considered one of the forerunners for Christian beliefs. However, most of his ideas stem from the Greek philosophers, people who were older than Jesus and had not been exposed to much of what he had done. Since Philo's writing is aimed at combining the two, he might have looked upon Jesus as already implicated. Another idea is that he may have been cautious to mix up classical Greek philosophy with new, outrageous by some standards ideas. How could he truly know if Jesus was from God or Satan? Perhaps Philo was wise for his time and didn't want to record something that was still being tested. For the other argument, we could say that Philo's writing testify that Jesus was completely fictional, tall tales told by the people around him to influence people. I see Philo as a better argument for the con side here. Now, moving onward. I feel like this debate is going to be a very long one, with five rounds and so much space. Kudos to the people who take the time to read it all. I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to prove in statement five, so I shall do my best to understand but I may be off completely at a tangent. Yes, Jesus's life is portrayed in the Old Testament..so what? I guess my opponent is trying to say there is no need for the New Testament? Well, I shall go with that assumption but I'll try to be brief. Yes, Jesus's life has been covered in the Old testament. However, the reasons and fulfillment are better explained in the New Testament. Most religion needs someone or some people to explain why things happened the way they did. That is probably where we get our different religions. However, this does not make it creative writing. For instance, a large part of the National Budget during Washington's presidency went toward fighting the Native Americans. If you have the journal of an American Indian and a European who fought each other, do you expect to get different sides of the story? Of course! However, that doesn't mean one is correct and the other is creative writing. http://www.abibitumikasa.com... Okay, now to explain the details. The devil's in the details, right? For number six, I assume that we are still talking about the New Testament, since that is what this debate focuses on in general. However, since the information before the New Testament refers to Mary's conception, I wish to begin there. "The oldest recorded information about Mary is believed to be in St Paul's letter to the Galatians, 4:4, written before any of the canonical Gospels. Here Jesus is stated to have been "born of woman"." implied virgin his followers the disciples, wrote about him. trusted? http://www.sundayschoollessons.com... Affirmation Denied