CreateDebate


Debate Info

115
113
YES NO
Debate Score:228
Arguments:108
Total Votes:302
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (68)
 
 NO (56)

Debate Creator

banned999(143) pic



WAS JESUS CHRIST A REAL PERSON?

JESUS CHRIST: REAL PERSON OR FICTIONAL CHARACTER?

YES

Side Score: 115
VS.

NO

Side Score: 113
4 points

He was very much a real person, and by all accounts a pretty cool guy. However, his divinity is in doubt! Although, if he were divine, would he be a "real" person?

Side: yes
4 points

Good point. Actually, early Christians never even spoke of the divinity of Christ, they only followed his teachings. His divinity was declared centuries after the crucifixion when Rome, basically, became the center of Christianity. That one detail, alone, should make people stop and think.

I identify myself as a Christian, though I have struggled with the divinity of Christ for that very reason. Why wasn't he considered to be divine by those who followed him while he walked the Earth? I still consider myself a Christian because I follow his teachings and believe he was sent here for a special purpose.

Side: yes
3 points

I too, am a Christian and we should doubt most doctrine and things man made. The early church and church today has done much to harm its own image and the concept of a Triune God is a difficult one. The teachings of Jesus are important regardless of a belief in a divinity and are a "best practices" manual. The mission is God passionately seeking a relationship with his children, the church exist because of "missio dei" God's mission. God's existence is not found in a church, it is found in a relationship with the Lord, a relationship that I am sure of and I treasure. Agnostics and atheists would argue that I am dilusional, unless they invite Jesus in to their own hearts they will never know.

Side: yes
Flame(52) Disputed
0 points

Hi Shelly,

First of all, I wanted to say that you brought up good questions and it is very critical to know Jesus' self-understanding of who He is as well as His followers understanding of who He is.

I. Defining terms:

1. "Early Christian": Is commonly known as the Christianity of the roughly three centuries (1st, 2nd, 3rd, early 4th) between the Crucifixion of Jesus (30-33) and the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

2. A. Jesus' Titles of Deity:

a. YHWH (Yahweh): (Exodus 3:14) Basically means "He who is," or "I am who I

am," and declares the divine self-existence" (Unger's Bible

Dictionary 409).

b. Son of God: A term used exclusively and absolute sense.

1. "His disciples and His enemies understand from their Jewish background that the real

import of the term "Son of God" was Deity. One hundred

and four times, Christ refers Himself to God as "Father"

or "the Father" (Evidence that Demands A Verdict Vol. 1,

101).

c. Son of Man: Jesus used this title in three distinctive ways:

1. Concerning His earthly ministry.

2. When foretelling His passion.

3. In His teaching regarding His coming again.

Jesus clearly believed Himself to be the fulfillment of the Old

Testament prophecies of the Messiah. In referring to

Himself He continually used the title "The Son of Man" from

Daniel's vision" (Daniel 7:13, 14).

(Evidence that Demands A Verdict Vol. 1, 102)

d. Abba, Father: "Nobody before Him in all history of Israel had addressed

God by this word...to be sure, Jews were accustomed to

praying to God as Father: but the word they used was

Abhinu, a form of address which was essentially an appeal

to God for Mercy and forgiveness. There is no appeal to God

for mercy in Jesus' mode of address, Abba. It is the familiar

word of closest intimacy. That is why He differentiated

between His own relationship with God as Father that of

other people" (Evidence that Demands A Verdict Vol.1, 102)

A. Questions/Points:

1. "Actually, early Christians never even spoke of the divinity of Christ, they

only followed his teachings"

2. "Why wasn't he considered to be divine by those who followed him while he

walked the Earth?"

3. "His divinity was declared centuries after the crucifixion when Rome,

basically, became the center of Christianity"

Introduction

Because you used the term "Early Christians" I can only assume you are referring to said definition of the term provided. In point 1, (based on said definition of term), you made the claim that in all periods (1st, 2nd, 3rd, early 4th) Christ's dual nature was not acknowledged, specifically His Divine Nature. In point 2, you made a question in regards to why His disciples (since you clearly stated that it was in reference to those who were "while He walked on earth"), considered Him to be divine. Finally, point 3, you made the claim that when Rome became "the center of Christianity", it was than that Christ's Divine Nature was acknowledged.

Rebuttals

1. Jesus' followers (in reference to point 2: "...those who followed Him while He

walked on earth ") did indeed believed His claim to Deity. Thomas, one of the

twelve apostles acknowledged Him as "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28.

Notice, that those who were with Thomas heard him say that directly to

Jesus (the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the disciples). None of them

rebuked him and most of all, neither did Jesus. Jesus received Thomas'

worship which can only be given to God. Secondly, the apostle John, the

writer of the this Gospel, states his purpose for writing, "But these were written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing ye might have life through His name" (John 20:31). Thirdly, the writer of Acts states that the community of believers (first century/apostolic period) "...continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine" which would include Jesus' dual nature (fully God and fully human).

2. Since the term "Early Christian" covers 1st, 2nd, 3rd, early 4th between the Crucifixion of Jesus (30-33) and the First Council of Nicaea in 325, than we need to read what the representatives said from each period right?

I. Anti-Nicene Fathers:

a. Apostolic Fathers: Traditionally used to designate the collection of the

earliest extant Christian writings outside the New Testament ( The

Apostolic Fathers 2nd ed. pg. 1)

-These were people that either were disciples of the twelve

apostles or disciples of those who had direct contact with the

apostles. These documents are primary resource for the study

of early Christianity. It is evidence that the early church

indeed "...steadfastly continued in the apostle's doctrines"

which includes the Deity of Christ.

a. Clement: "The majestic scepter of God, our Lord

Christ Jesus"

"Let us fear the Lord Jesus Christ"

"Jesus Christ, whom be the glory and majesty,

might and honor to Him, both now and forever and

ever"

b. Ignatius: "Jesus Christ our God"

"There is only one physician, who is both

flesh and spirit , born and unborn, God in

man, first subject to suffering and then

beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord"

c. Polycarp: "Our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and

gave him glory and a throne at his right

hand to whom all things in heaven and on

earth were subjected, whom every

breathing creature serves, who is coming

as Judge of the living and the dead"

b. Fathers of the Second Century.

1. Irenaeus: explained in Against Heresies (4.10) how Christ was often seen by Moses and that it was Christ who spoke from the burning bush. lrenaeus continued elaborating on Christ's relationship to God the Father: "For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom freely and spontaneously, He mode all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let us make man after our image and likeness.

2. Tertullian: Adv. Praxean 27 states that there are two natures, one human and one divine, which are joined in the one person Jesus Christ.

3. Clement of Alexandria: Exhortation to the Heathen, 1: “This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) ad of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man--that Author of all blessings to us. . . . This is the New Song, the manifestation of the Word that was in the beginning, and before the beginning.”

4. Novatian:

"The rule of truth demands that, first of all, we believe in God the Father and Almighty Lord, that is, the most perfect Maker of all things. . .' The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the Father, also in the Son of God, CHRIST JESUS, our Lord God, but the Son of God.... Moreover, the order of reason and the authority of faith, in due consideration of the words and Scriptures of the Lord ', admonishes us, after this, to believe also in the Holy Ghost, promised of old to the Church, but granted in the appointed and fitting time.”

This was written in 235 AD and this was just 100 yrs. before the council of Nicaea!

5. Hippolytus: “1. Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? 2. Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? 3. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and in the resurrection of the flesh?”

c. Fathers of the Third and Early Fourth Century:

1. Athanasius: "He always was and is God and Son"

"He who is eternally God,...also became man for our

sake"

2. Alexander of Alexandria: In reference to Jesus he said this, "His

highest and essential divinity" and that He was, "an exact and

identical image of the Father"

3. Eusebius of Caesarea: "The Son of God bears no resemblence to

originated creatures but...is alike in every way only to the Father

who has begotten Him and that He is not from any other hypostasis

and substance but from the Father"

Hence, from the very first Church leaders directly after the time of the Apostles up to the Council of Nicaea (and it was not in Rome, it was in Constantinople) in the 4th century and beyond, had consistently believed and taught that Jesus is God.

Conclusion

It is only logical with given so many evidences and testimonies, Church leaders were only declaring what was already declared by Jesus Christ and the apostles in Scripture, that Jesus was God. Therefore, it is theologically and historically inaccurate to believe that Christians never spoke of the divinity of Christ and that it was declared in Rome after somany centuries.

Side: yes
2 points

There is historical evidence that supports the existence of Jesus Christ. The only thing that can't be proven is whether or not he was divine. That all depends on faith.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/evidence-for-jesus.htm

Side: yes
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
4 points

That site is almost completely worthless and devoid of any archeological evidence for the existence of Jesus--much less evidence at all. I can find just as much evidence that The Queen of Cards existed in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

Side: No
shorty8876(13) Disputed
1 point

Ever heard of the Shroud of Turin or the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is an entire vault of ancient artifacts.

Side: yes
2 points

The only Jesus Christ that exist is the one that we create in our minds. That is why one of the reasons that there are so many religions because they are all confused.

While getting fealty rich and the poor gets poorer

Side: No body knows
DJSNuva1(78) Disputed
1 point

The bible says;

(1st John 4:2-3)

2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Side: No
Kinda(1649) Disputed
2 points

Are you stuuupidd????

That means about 4.5billion people on this planet is from the antichrist. Way to go all powerful Christian God...

Side: yes
dacey(1039) Disputed
2 points

but now i am confused. because you are saying that because i belieave that jesus did exist in the flesh that i am a spirit of god.but i dont belaive that "god" exists, so where does that put me?

Side: No
Scapegoat(29) Disputed
1 point

Ah, and what does the bible say about those bearing false witness? The truth is, you only have that book written by men to back you up. I'll see you in hell.

Side: No
0 points

I support you alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the way!! :)

Side: yes
2 points

real person.

very good talker.

we have evidence for him being hisoriclly exist, and i saying this as an israeli living in "jesus`s holyland".

he was born jewish,and died jewish.

he saw his followers as a cult within judiasm, jewis-christans.

the stories about himbeing divine and the son of god are propaganda made for more people to join this new religion filled with paganism, for, you know it, making it easier for more people to join.

the seperation of christianity from judiasm would probably turn him over in his grave, which is already found, together with his family.

real person?yes, and a very good talker and leader.

divine\son of god\prophet? no.

Side: yes
2 points

tho i believe he was NOT the "son" of some kind of "god" i do believe that ONCE a really cool dude named Jesus did exist. He was just a really nice soul with an open mind and universal love.

Side: No
2 points

Jesus is real person. He is always besides us, and He protects us from minor things, but cannot protect us from physical things. Heaven is real, but it is not on Earth, created by God. thank you. (actualy, what's really funny about this debate is that i am saying no AND yes. What's also funny is that i also debate about it with my friends. I seem to hear people talk about it wherever i go. strange.odd.)

Side: No
2 points

I belive in him because.................. if he was not on earth we would all be dead.People belive that Jesus was god that came back as Jesus.People that dont think that hes not real,but I belive in Jesus people who dont think hes real doesnt know what it is like to be loved by him.So when they dont belive in him dont get loved by him and the more they dont get loved by him the more they dont belive in him.Every one should belive in him because he is our lord the is our savyor.He will love us no matter what,and the people who doesnt belive in him will not be loved by him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: yes
zombee(1024) Disputed
1 point

people who dont think hes real doesnt know what it is like to be loved by him.

Doesn't Jesus love everyone? I thought that was kind of his thing.

Side: No
1 point

There is proof that Jesus exists in historical texts other than the bible -- Whenever we date a paper, we pay homage to Christainity with Before Christ and Ano Domini (I know it's spelled wrong)

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

... except they didn't start using AD and BC until around 500 years after this god decided to immaculately impregnate a magically holy virgin for the purpose of a human sacrifice some 30 years down the line...

and that it was the Catholic church that decided we should begin calling it AD and BC...

But sure, I suppose that's as good a justification for insanity as any other.

btw, who's we? Only Christians do that, and all scientific and non-denominational papers are dated Common Era or Before Common Era (CE, BCE)

Side: No
1 point

Indeed, there are historical documents outside of the New Testament documents. Some are Jewish sources and Roman as well.

Side: yes
Scapegoat(29) Disputed
1 point

Where? And was it Jesus Christos or Julius Caesar? What books could you site some other "proofs?" I think most anthropologists, archaeologists, historians and even theologans would love your insight.

Side: No
1 point

It is commonly known that there was said person.

He wasn't about to save humanity, but at least he tried.

Side: yes
1 point

I DO BELIEVE JESUS did EXIST and was a REAL PERSON I ALSO BELIEVE NOBODY has the right, to SPEAK FOR THE DEAD. But,b b but You say," they say, he say, what they, said he said" are so many accounts YES according to yourself and the like . im just hoping the truth be revealed and we humbly face the mysteries that yet remain concealed.Then oh what joy ,to know the truth .but til i see for myself ..the proof of proof of the truth.til then i wll not preach i will not boast the written word of another host. FOR shallow is man ,on there own head, to try to talk for the dead.DACEY NOV 2009.

Side: yes

How is ANYONE WHO IS ABLE TO TYPE AN ARGUMENT AT THIS TIME credible for saying whether they 'believe' Jesus Christ was a person?

No way, they can't.

But, based on proofs that they've TAUGHT us in schools, sure, I've learned that he was. Maybe I'm wrong.

MAYBE - just maybe - this isn't a debate, but a matter of facts and evidence.

AMEN.

Side: yes
1 point

I think he was however nobody can be sure though I do know he isn't white hehe. Where he was born they were of a darker skin tone... so yeah... .>

Side: yes
1 point

Yes, at least two contemporary "Roman" historians wrote about him: Josephus and Tacitus. Although there may be evidence that Josephus' writings were tampered with by the early Church, Tacitus also mentions him. Unlike Josephus' writings, Tacitus was very critical of Christ and the Christians (much unlike Josephus' references), leading most scholars to believe Tacitus. Moreover, although not the most accurate Roman historian, Tacitus is seen as one of the most trustworthy.

Side: yes
1 point

Honestly, history overwhelming points toward Christ being very real. Please do some research.

By the way, was Aristotle real?

What about George Washington?

Side: yes
1 point

Yeah he is. He is one of the reasons I and you are alive.

Note: disputes w/this please it's simple and do not wish to debate over it.

Side: yes
1 point

to have a valid opinion it must be based on some kind of an authority or fact. most ancient religious books ( bible,quar'an),mention Jesus,so hes existence could be easily prov en for religious people,but people who do not share that religion might disagree,so they should be asked on what they're arguments are based?(which authority?).the existence of Jesus is certainly not the problem,the issue is our concept of Jesus, is he that supernatural person? if so that would invalid his existence as a real person. thus the definition of person is a socially active human being ,which indeed he was based on the ancient texts. Jesus Christ was indeed a real person but the concept that we now share about him might the source of our disagreement.does he have a human essence or a divine one? both questions wouldn't invalid hes existence as a real person, but would create a new problematic.

Side: yes

Of course he was a real person. To compromise for other religions, i will be broad so dont get too mad. He was a real person, whether or not he rose from the dead, i dont know. But there r records of him being there and dying.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes! Jesus Christ is a real person. There are records other then the Bible that record Jesus Christ the Jesus Christ that made miracles and died on the cross for our sins.

Side: yes
1 point

Duh, even the most Christian hating atheists know that he was a real person. This is a question of historical ignorance. No offense, i'm no history buff, but if you answered 'No' you don't know the first thing about historical investigation

Side: yes
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
2 points

Not necessarily, there are a few in academic fields who doubt the historicity of Jesus, and many of them aren't even atheists.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jesus-myth-hypothesis-1

There are several historical accounts of Jesus, none of them written when he was alive. Certainly there are some grounds to doubt his historicity. While I personally believe that Jesus was a real person, I don't deny there is good reason to doubt this.

Side: No
Euroscope1(90) Disputed
2 points

Yes there are scholors that will dispute this but i'm not a fan of their inconsistancy when they do so. A lot of scholars will support the existance of people from the past who are way less documented then Jesus' existance. I think with Christianity people can't help but be all or nothing for or against it. If they hate religion they won't even give historical credit where credit is due. For instance you might as well trust absolutely NOTHING from the ancient world if you doubt the Romans crucified Jesus. But yet you'll have scholars who deny the crucifixion, then turn around and defend the validity of events in the Trojan War when it was only documented by Homer hundreds of years after the war (as an example). As for me I grew tired of denying that i'm pretty much half a christian, i see good arguements on both sides of the fence. I often find myself saying "That athiest does make a damn good point on that one" or "I can't grasp the inconsistancy in that biblical passage" etc. I wish everyone was fair and consistant

Side: yes
Srom(12204) Disputed
1 point

Yes there was Matthew Mark Luke and John all wrote what they saw and what he did on this earth. Luke was the most descriptive because he was a doctor and doctors are really discriptive.

Side: yes
1 point

It became somewhat fashionable to deny the historical existence of Jesus Christ starting in the mid to late 1960s. Little did the buying public realize, but this was nothing new. In fact, during the revolutionary period including the French Revolution of 1789, more than a few books in the exact same genre started to circulate underground due to censors. What I find fascinating are those deluded fools who actually contemplate the possibility that, except for themselves (the genius skeptic and doubter) everyone for the past 2,000 years has been wrong and Jesus never existed. Give me a break and, by the way, whatever you're smoking I'll have some too.

Side: yes

this topic is too vague we have believers and non believers is anybody really going to win this topic. Lets talk about Barney being a real dinosaur. This is not a win debate

Supporting Evidence: Austin mobile mechanic (www.moonlightingautomotive.com)
Side: yes
1 point

Yes he was because he died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead. Also Matthew,Mark,Luke,and John from four different people who saw and described on what Jesus did on this earth.

Side: yes

I believe he was. I also believe he was bat shit crazy. Its just people were stupid back then and believed him.

Side: yes
1 point

no one should doubt his existence because multiple NON religious historical texts have said he is real. it is wether he is divine which people may doubt. just out of curiosity is there any reason to doubt his existence? why would someone make him up and how could they pull off turning it into what is currently the largest religion on the planet.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes, even Richard Dawkins admitted it. Besides all the evidence whether your religious or not point to His existence.

Side: YES

Jesus Christ is real and there is historical evidence of Him in history books.

Side: YES
-1 points

yes he was christ because he was in your heart and that he the one that birth you

Side: yes
-2 points
banned999(143) Disputed
2 points

YES, SOMETHING DID CREATE US. THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. I AM ASKING IF JESUS CHRIST WAS A REAL PERSON. STRANGE, I NEVER KNEW CHRISTIANITY WAS ABOUT THREATNING TO BURN SOMEONE IN A "lake of fire" WHENEVER THEY ASK A QUESTION.

"how dare even think of that ?" sic.

I DARE YOU TO THINK.

Side: No
2 points

Though I do not know that person and I have no reason to do this, I would like to apologize on his/her behalf. Jesus Christ was about loving thy neighbor and turning the other cheek. He didn't scream at the Pharisees that they would burn in a lake of fire whenever they questioned him or his teachings. He spoke with wisdom and eloquence.

"I dare you to think"! That was a good one.

For those on here wanting to judge or condemn people for questioning the existence or the divinity of Christ, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Even Mother Theresa struggled with her faith, she admitted that in an interview before her death. If you have never questioned your faith, then you really don't have faith. What you have is called brainwashing.

Side: No
dacey(1039) Disputed
2 points

how blasphermous are you? you sound like you wrote the law itself. i believe that there was a really cool dude by the name of jesus who was somewhat of an ecentric for his time and who was not afraid to stand up for his moral beliefs and someone who was also accepting of diversity of free will .but i never imagined that he was so condemnig as you. typical christian - anything but like like the jesus you all portray.

Side: No
-2 points
5 points

Was there some guy named "Jesus"? Perhaps. There were probably many. There may have even been a number of miraculous "saviors" during that time.

Was the "Jesus" from the Bible a real person? Almost certainly not. The Bible's writers and compilers probably took a large number of stories about a number of people and shoved them together into one person. Not only do the Bible's accounts of what Jesus was and did contradictory at times, but there are large gaps spread throughout the text.

Non-Biblical sources mention people named "Jesus" from the area, but do not back up any of the Bible's claims of who Jesus was and did.

Alot of myths centered on a single person are usually condensed versions of deeds, hearsay, myths, and legends spread throughout communities and folklore. The pagan cultures did this constantly: the Greek gods (such as Zeus, Hera, or Athena) had many contradictory tales told about them, and it has been found that many are the combination of many gods and goddesses. In some cases this was a result of conquest (assimilating local populations into the empire's religion), and in others it was just a way to keep religion under control, concise, and understandable.

The Bible's god "Yahwey" is actually an amalgamation of many ancient Hebrew gods from the various tribes. This is, of course, true of almost all current popular gods from Islam's Allah to Buddha and Vishnu.

Side: No
5 points

1. "Christ" implies divinity, and most certainly was not his real last name even if that person did walk and breath and all that. And since there's no such thing as a god, and since if there were he most certainly would not impregnate a virgin and demand that person be tortured to death for our sins later, Jesus Christ certainly never did exist.

2. I hate to break it to the DaVinci Code Christians who love to mix their history and faith into some pseudo logic insanity, but there is 0 evidence anywhere in the world about this person outside of the Bible... and please believe you Christians are looking all the time, you could have cured cancer with the effort put forth to find this elusive evidence.

3. There was never anyone named Jesus from that period. It was some other word that meant salvation or the way of something along those lines which was later mistranslated to Jesus. At any rate, that name was about as common as Michael, or David, every down and out woman wanted to believe their son was divine.

4. The entire story of Jesus is plagiarized from one of the Egyptian gods, from being born of a virgin, to being a carpenter, right down to being sacrificed for other people's sins. They are equally believable. Though if I were to believe one insanity or the other, the Egyptian gods were way cooler. Maybe I should start a church.

Side: No
aedm(104) Disputed
2 points

There is proof that he was real , you walk on it ,eat on it,see it,smell it,the world, he created the world ,there is your proof ,END OF STORY!

Side: yes
dacey(1039) Disputed
3 points

you can see dog shit too, but you dont neccecarily want to see it smell it or walk on it or eat off it and if god did exist i bet hed ,like most ,would be the first to say " I didnt do it"

Side: No
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

No.

This is how the earth was created link

You believe a magical daddy in the sky created everthing, but there is no proof of that.

I mean, what you say makes no more sense than if I said a mystical giant unicorn created the earth. That theory is backed up by just as much evidence as yours is.

Side: No
shorty8876(13) Disputed
1 point

1. Talk about having your fact wrong, Christ does not imply divinity. Jesus Christ is son of God, immaculately conceived by the virgin Mary (note immaculate means "not impregnated" and a pregnant virgin).

2. Is there an argument here, do you have proof you are withholding? I believe in gravity and the sun, I don't float away and the world is lighted and warmed every day. No one has every touched the sun or illustrated gravity, it just is.

3. Unsubstantiated claim, support your claim with evidence not speculation. Do you have evidence of Alexander the Great or Attila the Hun?

4. Hieroglyphics translated much later, how could it be plagiarized. Jesus and the people of the time spoke Aramaic and few could read the written word. To further complicate the first version was translated to Greek first. Prophecy predates the bible and all predictions came true.

Maybe you should start a church, do you have anything worthwhile believing in?

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

1. Yes it does. The son of god is supposed to be divine, the christian faith believes him to be divine, and it certainly was not that person's last name even if he did exist.

2. You have proof of gravity and the sun. There's no proof of Jesus Christ.

3. Yes, there is evidence. There are multiple historical documents recording their existence. On the other hand, the only place Jesus Christ is found is the new testament, meanwhile no other historical documents contain any such person. On top of that, there is something to be gained by the religious to pretend that that person existed and to continue to insist upon his existence, while there is nothing to be gained by simply making up those other people.

4. All predictions only came true if you believe Jesus Christ was a messiah. Other than that exactly 0 predictions came true. And since even if that person ever existed, he certainly was not the son of god, then exactly 0 predictions came true. another thing to be noted, none, zero, zip, zilch of any of the new testament was written until at least 500 years after that person supposedly existed. And even these documents from 500 years after his existence, as you pointed out, have been translated and mistranslated and lost etc, many times. I mean, the religious are already trying to rewrite who the founders of this country were only a couple hundred years ago. What makes you think the religious would not have changed so much more about the guy from whom they derive their world influence?

I most certainly should not start a church. I'm against all religions, I think they do more harm than good, and they contribute significantly to the dumbing down of societies as a whole, as demonstrated by basically this entire debate.

Side: No
3 points

Jesus was not a real person, but a ficticious character developed by the playwrite Aavid in ancient Rome. Aavid wrote this play to demonstrate the folly (with tounge in cheek) of the amassed power of then Octavian Augustus Cesar. The play was put on by slaves and was turned into a movement that swept accross the middle east being told from one slave to another. At one point, Jesus had in upwards of 6 different names, performed different miracles etc. The council came together for one reason to unify these different groups into one cohesive understanding. The original manuscripts where found and destroyed by the Vatican however one was found by Hypatia of Alexandria in the Library of Egypt (also known as the library of Alexadria) to which she was murdered in the street by an angry mob of christians at the behest of Biship Cyril who was then later named a saint. Another was believed to be held by the Knights Templar as leverage over the Vatican.

The "pagan" influence is real. The birth life and death of Jesus is a story of celestial events. For example, the Three Wise men following the brightest star in the east to the birth of the son of god is something that happens every year on december 24. The three stars that make up orions belt ( known as the "three wise men" line up directly with the brightest star in the eastern sky (sirius) to point to the sun as it ends its procession at its lowest point then beings its treck back up again. The days become longer and warmer. Hence, the three kings follow the brightest star in the east to the birth of the SUN. Jesus, from a pagan perspective, represents the age of Pisces and is symbolized as the fish. Moses, Aries (the ram) etc. You can consider him a solar messiah.

Nobody who wrote any of the gospels knew Jesus, these "stories" where all second and third hand knowledge and many of them where contradictory to one another. The idea of Jesus as a person and Christianity was a movement was also fostered and fed by the Roman Elite as it made it easier to keep the slaves under control as it brought into their world a concept they had never thought of before, Fate. Think of passages as "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Side: No
2 points

Thankyou ................................................................................................ just thankyou.

Side: No
2 points

whatever it was or not, we think he was around 2009 years ago.

just take it, in such a long period of time, myths will mix with facts

you cannot seperate them.

he was there, to express his divinity, many people wrote about him differently

every gospel says different things

gospel of judas says completely different things

so at last we can conclude that

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

we cant conclude anything 'coz we dont know anything, except what is written in books

Side: No
2 points

There are too many other messiah-like figures of other religions that predate Christianity that share Jesus's story down to the very last detail. His story is of the sun and the stars.

Side: No

Please will someone guide me to real concrete evidence that suggests he was a real person at one time because I have not seen any.

Side: No
1 point

I read a chapter in the Qui'ran and there is mention of someone special was to come to earth and reveal to us of our Creator, and His love for us. I believe the Messiah was called Muhammad. The Jew didn't respect Him as a Deity. They just thought of Him as a prophet. But He was much more, whether His name was Jesus, that I struggle with, seeing that, that name is a Roman name. In case you all didn't know, Egyptian's are todays Spanish people(Mexico, Spain). The Jews mixed race with them, along with none african jews. which are todays Canaanites (Which consist of: Austria,Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Albania, Greece, Turkey, Slovenia Croatia, Bosnia, Cubans, and Latino nationalities (Which are also called Babylon). They do a lot of witchcraft because of their ancestors and they adopted a lot of rituals and beliefs. Such as, the day the Messiah was born. Along with other beliefs in the Christian faith that was made up and added from rituals celebrated around 600 BC that now we celebrate, that has no relevance whatsoever but to keep there pockets full and us filling them. In actuality, Muhammad was said to have risen over 4000 years ago, 2000 years before Christ. Why won't the Christians allow the Muslims to visit the place the Messiah has risen, and why are they fighting for the same person, yet a different name? Does that make any sense to you? In Revelations chapter 11, verse 8. Is where Our LORD was crucified.

Side: No
0 points

Sorry to correct, but Islam views Muhammed as a prophet.

Jews, Muslims and Christians all have the same Abrahamic roots. All believe that Jesus was a person not a diety, not a God. To Jews a man and perhaps a false messiah, to Muslims a lesser prophet, to Christians God's son (God in flesh), a messiah (saviour of Jews and Gentiles). The Triune God is a difficult concept to understand three in one, one God in three forms, but still a person.

You're right is doesn't make sense Jesus should be the unifying thread that connects all of these religions under one God. In one way or another we are connected, created by the same God or share the same blood as a mixed race.

Side: yes
1 point

How can one know whether or not he existed? The only documents that claim his existence are typically not accepted as reliable/credible. I do not believe there is sufficient credible evidence to support the claim "Jesus did exist" nor the claim "Jesus did not exist".

Side: Agnostic
1 point

There is no historical evidence to support his existence and the bible isn't a reliable source for it is a religious book.

Side: No
1 point

Jesus a real person? Possibly. It's highly likely these stories are exaggerated claims about a really cool person who was pretty good at tricks or was simply a great, caring person.

Jesus CHRIST, as in implying his divinity.... no.

Side: No
1 point

If jesus was a real person, Philo of Alexandria would also written about him [jesus] in his Early Jewish Writtings such as the "On the Embassy to Gaius". There is NON not even a single mention of jesus in this Writting, so jesus was never a real person, NO

Side: No
1 point

jesus was never, never, never a real person, NO, because if jesus was a real person the son of god and the Biblical accounts are accurate, then why is he so glaringly absent from the other historical accounts of the jesus time? WHY?

and / or

If jesus was a real person but wasn't the son of god but rather just an ordinary person, then how did nothing more than a "marginal Jew" become elevated to the status of god so shortly after his death and earthly burial? just HOW, can someone tell me?

Side: No
1 point

jesus was never, never, never a real person, NO, because if jesus was a real person the son of god and the Biblical accounts are accurate, then why is he so glaringly absent from the other historical accounts of the jesus time? WHY?

and / or

If jesus was a real person but wasn't the son of god but rather just an ordinary person, then how did nothing more than a "marginal Jew" become elevated to the status of god so shortly after his death and earthly burial? just HOW, can someone tell me?

Side: No
1 point

jesus was not a real person because the only source of his story is only the gospels nothing other than the gospels, how is this possible? why did other historians not write about jesus if he was a real person?

Side: No
1 point

There is no historical proof, physical proof nothing that proves Jesus's existence. That is fact.

Side: No
1 point

Jesus, as a human being, probably existed.

Jesus Christ (implying divinity) as the question specifically states Jesus Christ; probably not.

Side: No
0 points

i think if this topic is at all unclear to anyone you should go to anywhere books are sold, buy an NIV bible (easier to understand) read it, and find a good bible church to regularly attend.

Side: NO
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
3 points

that's ridiculous.

I would suggest that if anyone is unclear about this, the last thing they should do is grab a bible or go to Church.

Instead, read a history book. That time period is well documented. All kinds of people are mentioned in that time and in that area,

none of which were Jesus Christ.

And since History books don't take donations, sway political opinion, or give individuals a means of power over others,

I tend to think history books are more honest about the whole thing.

Side: No
2 points

(You're on the "no" side, just so you know- you could edit your argument and tag it as "yes", if you're like. Just so you know =) )

Side: yes
0 points

TO FLAME---Where did you go , just after you chose not to forgive , but instead cast me out as an enemy ? I just happened upon a very good argument posted by a debator named "caged" in your debate about Jesus being a real person.Caged posted this 24 days ago. Why did you not bash this person with sections from your bible , considering his argument is so controversal to your damned beliefs ? What frightens you from taking on the truth ?..ENLIGHTMENT ...........(YES i know i called it Flames debate , thats because you took it on board like as though you was this "GOD" himself ! ) Blasphomy in the highest form!

Side: PLEASE EXPLAIN
2 points

And now instead of any reply , you just act like a terrorist and point bomb me . Well i know you didnt forgive me for not having the same oppinion as you , so why should i be suprised.

Side: No
-1 points

If Jesus Christ was a real person where did all those magical powers came from that's talk about in the bible and why we humans today don't have that power?

Side: No body knows
Flame(52) Disputed
0 points

Hello Savant,

I. Define Terms:

1. History: By its most common definition, the word history now means "the past of mankind." Compare the German word for history -- Geschichte, which is derived from geschehen, meaning to happen. Geschichte is that which has happened (Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, 41).

2. Historical Method: The process of critically examining and analyzing the records and survivals of the past is here called historical method. The imaginative reconstruction of the past from the data derived by that process is called historiography (the writing of history). By means of historical method and historiography (both of which are frequently grouped together simply as historical method) the historian endeavors to reconstruct as much of the past of mankind as he can (Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, 48-49).

3. Scientific Method: ...related to measurement of phenomena and experimentation or repeated observation (McDowell, More Than A Carpenter, 33)

II. Your points:

1. "If Jesus Christ was a real person where did all those magical powers came from that's talk about in the bible...?"

2. "..why we humans today don't have that power?"

III. Refuttal:

I believe that you misunderstood that the debate deals with the question of "Was Jesus Christ a real Person?". That is, it is a question of the past, hence history. In order to know if Jesus of Nazareth from the Bible was indeed a real person, than you have to do it by "examining and analyzing the records and survivals of the past" (Gottschalk 41). You can not measure an historical event because it is the "past" and therefore not repeatable. Thus, you can not prove that a person existed in the past by using the scientific method. For example, you can not even prove to me that somebody attacked you physically with the scientific method. You would have to prove that historical event by historical method. That is you have to gather evidences such as, fingerprints, blood samples, eye witness, etc.

IV. Conclusion

Therefore, your argument is self-refutting and makes no sense at all.

Side: yes
-1 points

There are no other humans that had God for a father. Maybe the world would be a better place if God fathered more sons and daughters, too. Jesus was sacrificed so that you and I could talk about these things.

Side: yes