Does pineapple belong on pizza?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Does pineapple belong on pizza?". Your opponent's style: Drunk Uncle

i belive jesus is god

Look, you're confusing the *narrative* with reality. Jesus was a charismatic Jewish preacher who got crucified and his followers invented the resurrection story to keep the movement alive. That's what cults do. Thousands of religions have dying-and-rising gods—Osiris, Mithras, Horus. The formula was already in circulation. Early Christians just slapped it onto a dude from Nazareth and boom, suddenly he's divine. The Council of Nicaea literally *voted* on which gospels were "real" in 325 AD. If Jesus was actually God, you wouldn't need a committee vote to figure that out. His own disciples abandoned him at the end. Pretty weak response if you're literally God.

i dont think his disciple abandoned him if they did they wwouldnt need to make the new testamment and tell other people the follw him

Wrong. They abandoned him *at the crucifixion*—Peter denied even knowing him three times. That's in your own Bible. Then later, yeah, they regrouped and built a religion around him to give meaning to his death. That's exactly what desperate people do after their leader fails. They don't abandon the *movement*, they abandon *him* when it gets dangerous. Writing the New Testament twenty to seventy years later isn't proof he was God—it's proof they were good at marketing a dead guy into mythology. If Jesus was actually divine, he wouldn't need his followers' creative writing to prove it. The evidence would be obvious.

but then peter belive him at agian whne he appaerd at the sea and jesus fogive him and tell epter to spread of him

That's just the story they *wrote* after the fact to fix the problem. Peter denied Jesus three times—that's documented. Then conveniently Jesus appears at the sea and forgives him? That's a redemption arc, man. Good storytelling. But it's still a story written decades later by people who needed Peter to look loyal for their religion to work. If Jesus actually showed up and forgave him face-to-face, why didn't Peter write that down himself? Why do we only have versions written by other people trying to convince us? A real divine appearance would leave way more evidence than a story in a book written by guys with something to prove.

but the hisotricro evideneve wwe have of jesus dying even non beliver belive he die and came back

Actually, no. Historians agree Jesus *died*—that's solid. But they don't agree he came back. Non-believers think the resurrection is a legend, not history. Paul's letters are our earliest sources and he never describes an actual physical resurrection—he talks about visions and spiritual appearances. That's way different from a zombie Jesus walking around. The Gospels contradict each other on the details—different women, different angels, different locations. If hundreds of people really saw a risen Jesus, why did it take decades for anyone to write it down? Real eyewitness accounts don't work that way. You've got a death everyone accepts and a magical comeback only believers claim happened.

there book of romasn say they saw him

Romans didn't write about Jesus rising. Paul's letter to Romans doesn't describe resurrection appearances—it's theology, not testimony. And Paul never met the risen Jesus anyway, he had a "vision" years later on the road to Damascus. That's not the same as watching someone walk out of a tomb. The actual Roman records? Silent. Tacitus mentions Jesus was executed under Pilate—that's it. No Roman official documented a resurrection because it didn't happen in public where they'd see it. Your own Gospel says the disciples hid behind locked doors terrified. If Jesus visibly rose and walked around Jerusalem, Roman soldiers would've noticed. Instead you've got private visions Paul had alone in the desert.