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

is jesus real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
doggo1221 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 432 times Debate No: 113597
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




if you are a chatholic or a christian you believe in jesus but the thing is people whorship jesus without having proof that jesus is real so can we say that he is real or he is just some made up story?


"chatholic" Catholic maybe. Or maybe you're a chataholic.

What are you against? The existence of Jesus or the possibility that Jesus is "just some made up story".

I need to be certain of where I stand.

I don't want to standing on the wrong side of the street holding your hand for 5 rounds.

Debate Round No. 1


i'm against Jesus existing. Fistt of all Jesus is said to be the messiah the son of God. How come people believed that he was the true son of God just by saying it?


Con asked, "is Jesus real". A simple question.
Maybe though, was Jesus real would be more appropriate. But let's not split hairs.
But now Con introduces another character into the debate. God.
Is God real? well that's another issue altogether.

Let's get back to Jesus.
Well, Jesus is a character in a book. The Bible.
Of course the Bible of today is real enough in form, but what we must consider is what did the original biblical texts or etchings represent.

1)An absolute record of the reality of the Universe and it's creation. If this is the case, then Jesus must have been real.

2) A completely fictional but nonetheless pseudo-theoretical interpretation of the Universe. If this was the case then Jesus would not have been real.

3) A pseudo-theoretical and mythical interpretation of the Universe, nonetheless using actual locations and people as points of understandable reference. If this was the case, then Jesus could have been a real person.

I would argue that option 3. is by far the most logical explanation for the Bible. Real locations are the obvious evidence for this assertion. The actual existence of biblical characters is harder to prove but I think it's fair to suggest that, if locations are accurately represented in the bible then there is no reason why real people should not have been included as accompanying characters. Contemporary pseudo-theory or pseudo-science is what ultimately and unavoidably, turns the Biblical writings into a work of myth. That is to say, the inclusion of illogical and magical events. Events commensurate with other similarly regarded, mythical works.

So I accept that Jesus and his mum and dad could have been real people who lived in the town of Nazareth and for some reason, they were chosen to be central characters in a mythical tale.

I would like to point out, that I could have gone into much greater detail regarding the more obvious factuality of the New Testament in comparison to the more mythical presentation of the Old testament. But I feel that this would overbear Con's simple questioning.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.