The Jesus of the Bible Probably Existed

I argue that the resolution, while not explicitly referencing Jesus the Christ and Jesus of Nazareth as two separate persons, inherently makes the claims that (first) Jesus of Nazareth existed, and (second) that he was the Messiah. Jesus of the Bible can only be understood to mean Jesus the Christ, who happens to cohabitate the body of Jesus of Nazareth. I fail to see how any reading of the resolution can refer to ONLY Jesus of Nazareth, considering the Bible explicitly states the Jesus is the Christ. My opponent calls my interpretation of the resolution "egregious," a "failed trick of semantics." I ask the reader - who is mincing words now?? ****************************** >> "My opponent admits the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and has therefore conceded the debate. " False - unless my opponent contends that the Bible only gives an account of Jesus of Nazareth. ****************************** 4. On Time for a Legend. Actually, from what I have read, the first of the Epistles was Thessalonians, then Phillipians, and THEN Galatians, all written in the early 50's (BTW - your source says LATE 40's). However, all the Epistles are slightly suspect because no original copies survive - we only have copies from the second century that have been edited by history. However, the "original" versions of the Epistles contain very little information about Jesus' life and ministry - they focus more on how to follow his example, how to be "Christ-like" with love and such. Also, some of Paul's comments such as Rom 11:26-7 call into question why he would say things like "Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob" without actually mentioning Jesus, who is mentioned in the Gospels as being the fulfillment of these prophecies. So basically, the Pauline epistles are a collection about the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, but do not indicate that this person is the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Old Testament - which would have been one of the MAJOR themes following Jesus' death and supposed Resurrection. 5. On Parsimony. Again - I contend that Jesus the Christ did not exist. It is strange that my opponent would make this distinction now, given his earlier zeal to collapse the two persons into one concept. Is it so strange to believe that people would end their lives for a mere belief? Suicide bombers take their own lives on a misinterpretation of the Qu'ran. Why is it so strange to believe that people would stand up and die for a misinterpretation of stories they've been told? Weighing the strong belief of some against the impossibilities of miracles and the nebulous presentation of the New Testament... seems more likely to believe a grand hoax. >> "we should assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable" You mean with things like contradictions concerning the same events? ************************ On Horus... Actually, the legend of Osiris and Isis is a combination of several different Egyptian legends. The notion that Isis was a virgin is somewhat based on her not touching Osiris' actual penis, but in any event, legend has it that she was a virgin until she conceived via a God. Glancing around the sources you so kindly provide, it is revealed that Horus was also called "Harakhte: two gods of the morning sun." Thus, it would be easy to see how Horus' birth could have been heralded by a conjunction of Venus and Sirius. The murder plot against Horus is simply a piece of the story that is relevant given the appearance of the same element later in the story of Jesus... It's not highly compelling on its own, I'll agree, but it adds to the totality of the circumstances. My opponent holds that Horus may have performed miracles, but that this carries no force. Thus, the miracles of Jesus carry no force in this debate... which goes to the consideration of parsimony. If miracles carry no force, then we have massive irrelevancy in the gospels... (I must apologize concerning the weather... I had read that Horus was the Sky God and misread another passage concerning weather that was indeed about Set. ) >> ""Jesus walked on water" Yes? And Horus didn't." I never pretended he did - I noted that Horus attained power and standing via a boat race where his boat stayed afloat and his rival's boat sank. This could easily be interpreted as a parallel to the power of God enabling Jesus to walk on water, and the rival to that power - lack of faith - causing someone (Peter) to sink. >> ""Horus had a collection of devout followers" Not 20. Many of them were semi-gods too. This means nothing." Horus had a close following of 4 demigods and 16 blacksmiths. A close following of dedicated individuals means nothing? It seems like my opponent is discrediting the close followings of the disciples of Jesus. If the disciples of Horus mean nothing, what about the 12 Apostles? Also, were not some of the Apostles and early church figures far more important than others? Peter, the "rock" for example? >> "My opponent then must explain how this myth was promulgated in light of the fact that Christianity was a rapidly growing movement so quickly after Jesus' death, with eyewitnesses still alive." Considering the myths of Egypt and Mesopotamia had pre-existed Jesus' birth by hundreds of years, it is not inconceivable that common elements would be woven in. Consider the ease of which a new idea would spread if it incorporates commonalities between cultures. For example, in many cultures, the winter solstice (or Dec 25, the day that is noticeably longer) is a day of celebration. Christianization replaced some of these elements with new things concerning Christ. >> "these parallels were acknowledged by early Christian writers like St. Justin and St. Ireneaus" Wikipedia article on the Epistles... I will track down the quotes from their actual works and put them in the comment field - they are too long for here. Also, this is not irrelevant - it goes to the application of Christianization and how the message was spread. ********************* A response to the Conclusion: I have not conceded anything other than a man named Jesus of Nazareth probably existed in the past. However, the resolution concerns the Jesus of the Bible. The Bible calls this man Jesus the Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah. Pretending that the Jesus of the Bible is merely a man from Nazareth is a weak way to weasel out of an argument. I would like to point out that while my opponent is debating the historical existence of Jesus, the resolution states Jesus of the BIBLE, not Jesus of the historical writings of the time period. If this is what he wished to debate, the resolution should read: "Jesus of History probably existed." ******************************* One of the most interesting things to me in the whole debate concerning Jesus is that NOBODY wrote anything about Jesus while he was alive. Two immediate problems strike me. First, why would Jesus not write anything? He could clearly read, as evidenced by his reading of scrolls in the temple... Second, one of the close disciples of Jesus was a former tax collector who was surely literate. Why did he write nothing? Furthermore, a writer named Philo (http://en.wikipedia.org...) wrote extensively on Jewish politics and activity throughout that region between 20 BC and 50 CE., but makes no mention of Jesus the Christ. However, he does reference the mocking of a "Jewish King" in 39 CE. I shall delve into this more in the next round, for I am running out of characters, and the similarities between Philo's writing and the Gospel of Matthew are UNCANNY. Another small point - the name "Yeshu'a' was a very common Hebrew name at the time as evidenced in the writings of Josephus... and it is exactly the same translation for Jesus and Joseph - both are "Yeshu'a." And there were a LOT of those...