Christianity Concluded

Greetings to my opponent, I can't wait to see your finale version two. I don't really think this debate needs any definitions yet, I guess we can just define issues as they arise. My overall argument is that being a Christian is not necessarily an unjustifiable position and thus not a hoax, plus that it is not based on prior beliefs, although there might be circumstantial similarities (as would be the case with ANY belief). My opponent brings 4 claims: 1. That Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy. The Old Testament, which is accepted by Jews to be authentic to this extent (and is confirmed by the dead sea scrolls), contains hundreds of prophecies. All of them were fulfilled by Jesus as he is recorded in the Bible (see http://www.bibleprobe.com...... and http://www.godandscience.org...... for lists). Thus the question becomes, is the Bible a reliable source? If it is, then Jesus did fulfill the prophecies. If not, he did not. I discuss this point in argument #4. Suffice to say that it is at least a contingent moot point until then. I challenge my opponent to name a single prophecy in the old testament Jesus did not fulfill. He can't and I win the point. 2. Ancient Romans may have installed elements of their belief system into Christianity. Or maybe Christianity influenced Ancient Rome. The latter seems much more likely given that Ancient Rome persecuted the Christians (this is well documented by multiple historians such as Livy and Suetonius) and sent them to be killed. In the later Roman empire, while it is true that Christianity was adopted by the Romans, by then it was too late to integrate religious elements from Roman religion, largely because very few Romans still believed in it anyway. The three cults of Sol, Mithra and Jesus were in fact already the leading religions. Besides which, the bible had already been codified for centuries and there is no evidence that it changed during this period. Furthermore, I'd like to cite a complete lack of similarities between the two religions. While it is true some minor details are the same, that's just coincidence. For every similarity you list, I can list ten differences. I can do the same with any other religion dominant at the time. You can't out-list me so I win this point too. 3. Christianity is a false belief (I assume that my opponent does not mean "belief system" as that would mean he claims there are no Christians). First, all beliefs, by their very nature, are subjective. Your subjective judgment of somebody else's subjective judgment does not make an objective judgment. Second, your claim is an assertion. As a matter of fact, there is plenty of evidence for God, for Jesus being God and all the other Christian beliefs - just as I know there are strong arguments against too. Extensive collections are listed at http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org...... , http://www.rationalchristianity.net...... , http://www.bethinking.org...... and at http://www.godandscience.org...... . You cannot claim that somebody who has built a belief on these arguments is necessarily wrong, nor that you are necessarily right. Christianity COULD in theory be true and thus is not necessarily a false belief. Extensions to this case are here: http://carm.org...... 4. That eyewitness accounts do not prove the resurrection (again, this is what I assume my opponent means, taken literally what he writes is that the more eyewitnesses there are the more false something is, when logically the very opposite is true). Here I must admit my opponent is right. But the statement is misleading. Eyewitness accounts may not constitute formal proof, but they are the best thing we have. I've never been to New York, but I believe the people who have and thus believe in New York. I never met Adolf Hitler, but I believe people who did and thus believe there was once a man named Hitler. I never met Einstein and yet I believe in him. Why? Eyewitness accounts. They are the single strongest form of evidence for anything historical we have. The bible is full of them. Not one of the passages of the Bible was disputed by anyone who did the research for about 100 years. Not until about 100 years ago did people start to doubt seriously whether Jesus even existed. We have more evidence for Jesus than Socrates, Confucius, Genghis Khan or Muhammad, yet people do not seem to have any trouble accepting these people as historical. Thus the Bible is a legitimate source, and the eyewitness accounts provide very strong evidence. To win this debate I must prove the originality and the legitimacy of Christianity, as well as defeat my opponent's arguments about the fulfillment of prophecy. The latter I have done preemptively above, so I now turn my attention briefly to the former two. 1. Christianity is an original religion. I have already stated that it is different from foreign religions such as the Roman religion. I still challenge my opponent to cite their supposed similarities. Christianity, as we all know, is based directly on Judaism with the original extension of the wide-ranging teachings of Christ. These teachings were quite unorthodox and so not at all based on Judaism, as proven by the fact Jesus was killed on the cross (if we were to assume, for a moment, that Christianity is what it says it is, for the sake of separating this argument from argument #2). Besides which, Judaism itself was original, being the only monotheistic religion before about 500BC and systematically influencing all later religions which conquered the Jews (such as the Egyptian, Babylonian and Hittite-which-became-PseudoGreek (my own label) religions). All this time archeological records indicate not one scripture of the Jews was added. 2. Christianity is a legitimate religion. I have already given reasons why belief in Christianity can be sane and reasonable. I would furthermore like to know what makes it illegitimate. My dictionary says "legitimate" means legal and/or credible. Well, it's certainly legal to be a Christian, and the fact is billions of people find it credible. If my opponent does not, then surely my opponent is only appealing to one of their arguments listed above. This point in and of itself is almost tautological. There stands my case. I am happy to clarify anything. I await your argument proper and your rebuttals. Be you religious or not, this debate is not about religion. I'm an atheist, and I think it's OK to be a Christian. My rational is above. In my view, if people want to believe in things I think are false, that's their choice. And they can (plus do) make legitimate claims about their religion. It's an original belief, it's not a hoax, and the outside influence is very little. That is why I am most proud to propose.