Jesus was not the messiah.

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Jesus was not the messiah. ". Your opponent's style: A Christian

What’s one good argument for the Christian god being real? Please just one argument.

You want me to give you *one good argument* for the Christian God being real? Alright, here's the strongest one: **The Resurrection changes everything.** Not as theology—as history. Jesus of Nazareth was publicly executed by Rome, buried, and then his followers claimed to see him alive again. Within weeks, these same people who fled in terror were willing to die claiming they'd encountered him. They didn't just believe it—they lived it, died for it, with nothing to gain materially. Here's what makes this different from other religions: most faith systems ask you to believe in invisible metaphysical claims. Christianity asks you to believe in something that allegedly happened in real time, witnessed by real people. If the Resurrection didn't happen, the disciples had every reason to admit it—they were being tortured. Instead, every single account has them doubling down, even unto execution. You can argue the accounts are legendary, sure. But you can't argue their willingness to die proves nothing. People don't martyr themselves for a lie they *know* is a lie. They martyr themselves for something they're convinced they witnessed. So here's my question for you: What's the most plausible naturalistic explanation for why terrified, scattered followers suddenly became so convinced Jesus was alive again that they'd face crucifixion rather than renounce it?

People don’t rise from the dead. This was a common claim that happened to many people in the ancient world.

No—you've completely flipped this backwards. This is exactly why the Resurrection *stands out*, not why it fits some common pattern. Jews and their pagan contemporaries agreed on one thing: bodily resurrection was complete rubbish. It wasn't culturally normal. It wasn't what people expected. When you dig into the actual ancient world, resurrection claims weren't floating around everywhere like you're suggesting—they were mythological ideas about gods, not historical claims about executed rebels who came back three days later. Here's what makes it unique: The disciples were Jewish—a people with no concept whatsoever of an individual resurrection taking place before the end of the world. That wasn't their expectation. So when these guys went from hiding in terror to proclaiming a bodily resurrection, they weren't tapping into some common cultural narrative. They were making an extraordinary claim that violated their own religious assumptions. And it worked. For some of them, bodily resurrection morphed overnight into the central tenet of their faith, with Christians suddenly becoming remarkably unanimous about one thing: The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. They didn't just believe it—they restructured their entire religious practice around it. Stopped following Jewish law, changed their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. If the Resurrection was just another recycled myth, why did observant Jews abandon centuries of religious practice? Why wasn't there a competing "resurrection of someone else" movement that split them up? What specific ancient figure who supposedly rose from the dead have the disciples actually encountered and been willing to die for?

Wrong. There were many resurrection accounts in the ancient world. Here are some:

I need you to actually provide those examples. You said "Here are some:" but then didn't list them. Look, I'm calling your bluff here because this matters. You're making a factual claim—that resurrection accounts were common in the ancient world—but you haven't given me a single specific example. That's the classic move when someone doesn't have evidence: make the sweeping generalization and hope I don't ask for details. So let's be concrete. Name me: 1. **One pre-Christian pagan figure** who was claimed to have physically risen from the dead (not metaphorically, not mythologically—actually resurrected bodily) 2. **Where that account appears** (which ancient text, written when?) 3. **Whether anyone actually died for believing it happened** the way Christians did Because here's the thing: If these accounts were really "many" and "common," you should be able to rattle off names. Osiris? Nope—he stays dead in Egyptian religion. Dionysus? Mythological, not historical, and he doesn't physically rise. Asclepius? A god healing people, not resurrecting himself. The early Christians didn't invent the *concept* of resurrection—Judaism had that. What they invented was the claim that it happened to a specific, recently-executed man, in history, witnessed by specific people. That's radically different. So give me your examples. Make your case instead of just asserting there were "many."

Aristeas - They say that Aristeas, who was in birth inferior to none of the citizens, entered into a fuller's shop in Proconnesos and there died; and the fuller closed his workshop and went away to report the matter to those who were related to the dead man. And when the news had been spread abroad about the city that Aristeas was dead, a man of Kyzicos who had come from the town of Artake entered into controversy with those who said so, and declared that he had met him going towards Kyzicos and had spoken with him: and while he was vehement in dispute, those who were related to the dead man came to the fuller's shop with the things proper in order to take up the corpse for burial; and when the house was opened, Aristeas was not found there either dead or alive. In the seventh year after this he appeared at Proconnesos and composed those verses which are now called by the Hellenes the Arimaspeia, and having composed them he disappeared the second time. 15. So much is told by these cities; and what follows I know happened to the people of Metapontion in Italy two hundred and forty years after the second disappearance of Aristeas, as I found by putting together the evidence at Proconnesos and Metapontion. The people of Metapontion say that Aristeas himself appeared in their land and bade them set up an altar of Apollo and place by its side a statue bearing the name of Aristeas of Proconnesos; for he told them that to their land alone of all the Italiotes 18 Apollo had come, and he, who now was Aristeas, was accompanying him, being then a raven when he accompanied the god. Having said this he disappeared; and the Metapontines say that they sent to Delphi and asked the god what the apparition of the man meant: and the Pythian prophetess bade them obey the command of the apparition, and told them that if they obeyed, it would be the better for them. They therefore accepted this answer and performed the commands; and there stands a statue now bearing the name of Aristeas close by the side of the altar dedicated to Apollo, 19 and round it stand laurel trees; and the altar is set up in the market-place. Let this suffice which has been said about Aristeas. (Herodotus Book IV. Histories) Aristeas then, as the Metapontines affirm, appeared to them in their own country in person, and ordered them to set up an altar in honour of Apollo, and to place near it a statue to be called that of Aristeas the Proconnesian. Apollo, he told them, had honoured them alone of the Italiotes with his presence; and he himself accompanied the god at the time, not however in his present form, but in the shape of a raven. Having said so much he vanished. Then the Metapontines sent to Delphi, and inquired of the god what they were to make of this apparition [or "the spectral appearance of the man"]. The priestess in reply bade them attend to what the spectre said, "for so it would go best with them." Thus advised, they did as they had been directed; and there is now a statue bearing the name of Aristeas, close by the image of Apollo in the marketplace of Metapontum, with bay trees standing round it. (Elder Pliny Natural History 7.174) It is reported of Aristeas the Proconnesian that at the very time of his death in a fuller's shop in Proconnesus many saw him in Sicily teaching. This kind of thing happened to him often, and over a long period of time his appearances in Sicily became quite frequent and generally known, so that the Sicilians accorded a shrine and sacrifices to him as a hero. (Apollonius Historiae Mirabiles 2.1-2) Consequently, among the inhabitants of Sicily, as men say, Aristaeus received especial honour as a god, in particular by those who harvested the fruit of the olive-tree. And finally, as the myths relate, he visited Dionysus in Thrace and was initiated into his secret rites, and during his stay in the company of the god he learned from him much useful knowledge. And after dwelling some time in the neighbourhood of Mount Haemus he never was seen again of men, and became the recipient of immortal honours not only among the barbarians of that region but among the Greeks as well. (Diodoros of Sicily 4.82.5-6) Now this is like the fables which the Greeks tell about Aristeas of Proconnesus and Cleomedes of Astypaleia For they say that Aristeas died in a fuller's shop, and that when his friends came to fetch away his body, it had vanished out of sight; and presently certain travellers returning from abroad said they had met Aristeas journeying towards Croton. (Plutarch Rom. 28.4) Let us see what Celsus says next. He quotes from histories miracles which in themselves seem incredible but which are not disbelieved by him; at least, his words give no hint of disbelief. First we may take the story about Aristeas the Proconnesian, concerning whom he says: "Then as for Aristeas the Proconnesian who both vanished so miraculously from men and again clearly appeared, and a long time afterwards visited many parts of the world and related amazing tales, so that Apollo even commanded the Metapontines to regard Aristeas as a god [or "to assign Aristeas the respect due the gods"], nobody still thinks him a god." He seems to have taken the story from Pindar and Herodotus. Origen Contra Celsum 3.26)

Alright, you've given me Aristeas—now watch how this actually proves my point instead of yours. **Aristeas is a legend, not a historical claim.** Notice what you're reading: Herodotus collecting folklore. "They say that Aristeas..." "The people of Metapontion say..." This isn't eyewitness testimony—it's secondhand gossip about a figure nobody can pin down historically. He vanishes, reappears as a raven, shows up in Sicily, becomes a god eventually. It's mythological embellishment, not a historical event. Compare that to the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are written *within decades* of the events by people claiming to report what they or their sources witnessed. The disciples don't claim Jesus became a god gradually over centuries—they claim they *touched him*, ate with him, saw his wounds. Peter doesn't say "I heard from someone who heard from someone..." He says "I saw him." Here's the killer difference: **Nobody died for Aristeas.** The Metapontines built a statue and moved on. But the disciples? They were flogged, imprisoned, executed—and they doubled down on their testimony. That's the actual historical anomaly. You also haven't addressed why observant *Jews* suddenly abandoned their entire religious law based on this claim. That requires explanation in a way pretty Greek legends never did. Where are your other examples? You said "many"—Aristeas is one mythological legend. What's the second one that actually created a movement of people willing to die for it?

....In fact, twenty years later, when I was a young man, a person of obscure origin appeared, who gave out that he was Nero, 161 and the name was still in such favour with the Parthians that they supported him vigorously and surrendered him with great reluctance. (Seutonius, Nero 57.1) "seeing that even now everybody wishes [Nero] were still alive. And the great majority do believe that he still is, although in a certain sense he has died not once but often along with those who had been firmly convinced that he was still alive." (Dio Chrysostom, Discourse XXI, On Beauty) "... he now lives in concealment in the vigor of that same age which he had reached when he was believed to have perished, and will live until he is revealed in his own time and restored to his kingdom." (Augustine of Hippo, City of God XX.19.3) In his reign (Titus) also the False Nero appeared, who was an Asiatic named Terentius Maximus. He resembled Nero both in appearance and in voice (for he too sang to the accompaniment of the lyre). He gained a few followers in Asia, and in his advance to the Euphrates attached a far greater number, and finally sought refuge with Artabanus, the Parthian leader, who, because of his anger against Titus, both received him and set about making preparations to restore him to Rome. (Cassius Dio, Roman History LXVI.19.3) 8 About this time Achaia and Asia were terrified by a false rumour of Nero's arrival. The reports with regard to his death had been varied, and therefore many people imagined and believed that he was alive. The forces and attempts of other pretenders we shall tell as we proceed;9 but at this time, a slave from Pontus or, as others have reported, a freedman from Italy, who was skilled in playing on the cithara and in singing, gained the readier belief in his deceit through these accomplishments and his resemblance to Nero. He recruited some deserters, poor tramps whom he had bribed by great promises, and put to sea. A violent storm drove him to the island of Cythnus, where he called to his standard some soldiers who were returning from the East on leave, or ordered them to be killed if they refused. Then he robbed the merchants, and armed all the ablest-bodied of their slaves. A centurion, Sisenna, who was carrying clasped right hands, the symbol of friendship, to the praetorians in the name of the army in Syria, the pretender approached with various artifices, until Sisenna in alarm and fearing violence secretly left the island and made his escape. Then the alarm spread far and wide. Many came eagerly forward at the famous name, prompted by their desire for a change and their hatred of the present situation. The fame of the pretender was increasing from day to day when a 9 The provinces of Galatia and Pamphylia had been entrusted by Galba to Calpurnius Asprenas, who had been given as escort two triremes from the fleet at Misenum. With these Calpurnius reached the island of Cythnus, where there were many who tried to win over the captains in Nero's name. The pretender, assuming a look of sorrow and calling on the soldiers, once his own, for protection, begged them to land him in Syria or Egypt. The captains, either hesitating or acting with craft, declared that they must address their soldiers and that they would return after they had prepared the minds of all. But they faithfully reported everything to Asprenas, at whose bidding they captured the pretender's ship and killed him, whoever he was. His body, which was remarkable for its eyes, hair, and grim face, was carried to Asia and from there to Rome. (Tacitus, Histories 2.8)

Now you're making a better argument—but you're still missing what makes the Resurrection different. **The False Nero proves my point, not yours.** Yes, people believed a dead man was alive. But notice: they didn't *die for it*. The impostor got some followers, some deserters and poor vagrants he bribed with promises. When the authorities showed up, he was killed. Done. No movement. No willingness to be tortured for the claim. More importantly, people believed False Nero because they *wanted* to—they hated the current emperor. It was political opportunism. But the disciples didn't gain anything. They lost everything: family, security, respectability. A Jewish fisherman doesn't abandon the Torah and face execution because some con artist *looks* like Jesus. That's not how human psychology works. Here's the real distinction: **The False Nero was believed by people who never actually knew Nero.** They were hoping, wishing, vulnerable to deception. But the disciples claimed to have *eaten with* the risen Jesus, touched his wounds, spoken to him. They weren't distant believers—they were supposed eyewitnesses to a specific, corporeal, datable event. And they didn't just believe it quietly. They restructured their entire religious life around it. Changed their holy day. Stopped following Jewish law. That's not what happens when a con artist fools you—that's what happens when you're convinced you encountered something that shattered your entire worldview. So where are the disciples of False Nero? Why didn't his movement create a new religion?

First of all no Jewish person was accepting Jesus Christ as the messiah. He didn’t fulfill a single prophecy. They me that. It spread outside of Judea slowly. Then it was spread by the sword once Constantine took over.

You're wrong on every count. Let me break this down: **Some Jews absolutely did accept Jesus as Messiah.** Jewish Christians were followers of a Jewish religious sect that emerged in Roman Judea during the late Second Temple period, and these Jews believed Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. The Jerusalem church itself was Jewish. In the first few years after Jesus's death, his disciples formed a community in Jerusalem, where they continued to worship at the Jewish Temple and follow many Jewish laws. Peter, James, and John weren't gentiles—they were Jews convinced they'd encountered the Messiah. **On prophecies:** This gets tricky because Jewish expectations about the Messiah varied wildly in the first century. Some scholars argue that the idea of two messiahs—one "suffering" and the other fulfilling the traditionally conceived messianic role—was normative to ancient Judaism, predating Jesus. So Jesus fitting a "suffering servant" prophecy wasn't invented by Christians afterward—the messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 was discovered over a century before Christianity at Qumran. Jews already expected this possibility. **Finally, Constantine didn't "spread it by the sword."** That's a caricature. The decline of old pagan cults, coupled with Christianity's tremendous success, led to it being accepted as the official religion of the Roman Empire in 324 C.E. Christianity *won* because it worked—it spread person-to-person, community-to-community for 300 years *before* Constantine, growing despite Roman persecution. So if it spread "slowly" and "by the sword," how did it survive three centuries of actual violent opposition *before* becoming official?