The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Jesus Christ never existed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 234 times Debate No: 94562
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Some people believe Jesus is the son of God and/or God himself. I don't belief this, and I will go a step further and say that Jesus never existed at all. That way atheists and non-Christians who believe Jesus existed, but was an ordinary man can participate.

Due to the difficulty of proving a negative, the burden of proof must fall upon my opponent, Con. Therefore, I make no further argument for the first round.


Thank you for making this argument.


I will argue that Jesus has existed! Jesus existed because there was many documents from the Roman government that showed his existence ( and pieces of his crucifix were recovered ( There is a lot of evidence that shows he did exist, but I will say, not documented evidence he was the son of god (But I am a Christian myself, and I will admit).
Debate Round No. 1


First I want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

The evidence of Pliny and Tacitus has been called into question. As for the livescience, it says the Bible is the most reliable source.

In fact, your own livescience link shows the problem with the wood chips.

"In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big shipload. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it.""

My problem with the Bible, is that there is so many extraordinary stories, that it makes it hard to figure out if there is any credibility at all. Jonah and the whale, turning water into wine, walking on water, parting the red sea, a virgin birth, resurrection, and so forth.

To boot, the bible has been translated a bunch of times. It took 1,600 years to write the Bible. [2]

I just can't see the Bible as a historically accurate piece of literature. Then, some of the historical facts of the bible have been disproved, like the exodus from Egypt.

"Similarly, although some of the events in both the Old and New Testaments are recorded in history, the Biblical writers make a hash of it. Historians generally believe that there was no exodus of Jewish slaves out of Egypt as described in the Bible, " [3]

Impact, the Bible credibility seems questionable at best.




You did not refute the Roman documents that was in the sources. I also did admit in the last round that some stories of the Bible aren't very credible (but I believe they are fables for learning).

I think the problem with your argument is that you kept tackling the Bible too much because there was other pieces of evidence in the other sources. I won't make statements for the next arguments you made because they only repreat what I admitted.

Thank you for your arguments!
Debate Round No. 2


Why should I believe roman documents from so long ago? They could have been corrupted in any number of ways. Latin is a dead language you know.


Documents are documents and documents don't change. I don't know how they could be corrupted in a number of ways if they were written in ink.

Also, just because Latin is a dead language doesn't mean the documents are false. I hoped the rebuttals would have been stronger but I was glad to have this debate in the first place.

Thank you and good luck in the voting stage.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
>Reported vote: Skinnyp// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Easy win for con

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
Posted by zenobia 2 months ago
I use to be like ya'll but then I saw magic and it cannot be proven, its like trying to get a blind man to see colors. Some people are just blind and cant see with just 10% of their brains, there has been phenomenons that cant be explained and cover up due to human fear of that they cant understands. science even explains you cannot see the fourth dimension with feeble minds. anything is possible
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
chrrrrriiiiiiiist there is clouded in here
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
Jesus Christ=rainbow colored smoke from a unicorns but
Posted by adamc 2 months ago
Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians" (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history.
Posted by joshuroar 2 months ago

You've misunderstood the idea of burden of proof and proving the negative. That has to do with making an affirmative claim about the non-existence of something. It doesn't matter whether you select the "pro" or "con" position. Otherwise, you could have simply flipped the statement "Jesus Christ existed," selected the "con (against)" position, and now the burden of proof would be flipped, even though nothing has actually changed.

Imagine a different argument, like "black swans don't exist". To prove this, you may literally need to travel every inch of the universe in search of a black swan, to verify that there isn't one hiding, tucked away in some distant corner galaxy. To prove that a black swan does exist is very simple by comparison, we could simply find one. We don't need to exhaustively search the entire universe.

The situation is similar here. Even if you reject whatever evidence the WKOJ is able to come up with, that just leaves you remaining uncertain as to whether or not Jesus Christ existed. If WKOJ is able to come up with really compelling evidence, you'll be convinced. But, how on earth are you going to *prove* that Jesus Chris did not exist? You would need evidence of absence!

You don't want to box yourself into needing to prove your side, because that's going to be nearly impossible, but that's pretty much where we're at. You need to start making arguments *against* his existence. Mere rejection of the positive evidence is a losing fight because at best we remain neutral. If the claim being made was really extraordinary, then maybe you could make the argument that we should disbelieve until we have really solid evidence, but this claim isn't very extraordinary.
Posted by Stupidape 2 months ago
"Of course Jesus existed! XD
rip stupidape"

What are you implying that Jesus is going to kill me for posting this debate?
Posted by benshapirohero 2 months ago
Of course Jesus existed! XD
rip stupidape
No votes have been placed for this debate.