Debate:Should we act like Jesus is real?

!

THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

YES

Even atheists admit that Jesus was a historical figure, recorded by figures of the Roman world such as Tacitus and Pliny, not to mention the four Gospels. JohnFraiser 18:15, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

The gospels don't really fit the definition of historical source, do they. J Wilson, yours truly.

NO

Should we? He is a fairy tale after all. Made at the First Council of Nicaea. Blatantly plagiarized off of Horus and Dionysus and many others. Aren't we supposed to be unbiased as a wiki? Mannerismxk909 16:22, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

So we have to take the bias that He's a fake? I don't think so. Karajou 18:16, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

See my point under YES. Jesus is mentioned in numerous sources before the First Council of Nicaea, 325 AD, such as Tacitus, writing in 116 AD. He specifically mentioned that Jesus (referred to by Tacitus as 'Christus') was executed in Judea during the reign of Pontius Pilate. JohnFraiser 18:22, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

No, we should not act like Jesus is real. If we act as if Jesus is real, I think that we would fall on our faces. Fortunately, He is real. To have the conviction that He is real, we can refer to the above or we can take it by faith, or in most cases, a combination of both. This makes for solidity and progress and salvation. Acting like or as if can only lead to disasterBert Schlossberg 16:44, 6 July 2009 (EDT) I remember David Flusser, Professor of Talmud and New Testament at Hebrew University, and an Orthodox Jew, marveling at liberal Protestant Scholarship in their scepticism concerning the historicity of Jesus. His speciality was in the field of first century Jewish (Hebrew and Aramaic) and Greek sources.Bert Schlossberg 16:51, 6 July 2009 (EDT)