Did Jesus Christ Rise From the Dead?
Debate Rounds (3)
Let me explain...and to be clear, we need to understand what religion is. for, the hitiites, the sumarians and a bunch of other ancient civilizations all believed that Christ rose from the dead...or the blackness of the dark...ALLL before Christianity.
In antiquity and ancient times, the story of a virgin birth and a son of god rising from the dead is so common it has happened many times before Christianity came to bear on Earth.
In ancient times, people looked at the stars and found patterns and pictures looking at the stars at night. They used stories or "parables" to "remember" where these constellations were and when they will come back into view, This was important for ancient civilizations to monitor things like summer, winter and spring, which lead to the important practice of "farming" so people could eat and plant things like wheat.
These important stories provided ancients with a way to remember and maintain their understanding of when the cold will come and when the food bearing months will be coming, these stories were created to remember where stars are positioned in a sky that allows tribes to remember their place in the cycle of the year (spring, summer, autumn, winter)
These stories, of stellar constellations became ingrained in culture but the one that was most ingrained....was that the son would rise again and come across the sky...or rather...the SUN...which is one of the main stars. The Sumarians believed and worshiped the Sun itself and this ...the constellation of the stars and the stories created by tribes and passed down for generations is how the bibles story was actually "minted" even though it is not a factual story and the Sun itself is the one that rose and rises every day.
To put my case plainly...Jesus Christ is actually our Sun
With my evaluation I have concluded that our debater for this moment has clearly not answered the debates topic whether Jesus rose from the dead or not it appears that his statement concerns it s connections to the antiquity of human civilization and that I suppose that my opponent regards a physical, finite, and observable entity as in oneness with the character of whom all religions abide. Now for this moment I shall first discuss briefly the case of my opponent's before proceeding to my conviction that Jesus did not rose from the dead. first as philosopher my main concern is building a framework for commonality of different schools of thought and in this case religion, itself, How can this be possible?
One way to solve is by treating that a singular idea cannot be solely and completely true that is weakness and criticisms held by other camps need to be considered and that two schools should be made compatible by attaching their points in one ground and make commonality to distinct ideas which are otherwise contradictory, Now in terms of religion to solve this I propose, That all religion are personal, by which I mean that its ones way of characterizing his own God, There is only one God , but with many attributions done by man which cannot be proven wrong nor justified correct for it is ones way of giving his knowing to that God, because if all religions claim to be true then all of them are false and that no religion which are clearly organized by man can best explain the nature of god, religions only give a personal knowing of this Pure being. with regards to my opponent's view he regard Jesus Christ as the sun, by which it only means that Jesus is God and that Christianity is no longer a personal religion but the truth one should accept.
Now let me proceed to my point that Jesus s is not A god and he remained dead.
The evidences presented are third hand or here says and is a subject to proof of authenticity, such that what proof can one give that that tomb was really empty? what proofs can one give that the witnesses have not fabricated the stories? and what proof can one give that this miracles have really happened, all the evidences seems to have existed in numbers but the problem is the evidences are also subject for evidence, just like a tree having roots connected to a more complex pattern of another sets of roots, Proving Jesus, the primary, requires evidences, roots, it also requires evidences, which makes it more complex and all of them approached history that no one can unfold, in other words all of this evidences are one in essence, and asserting truth requires cross examination of the said witnesses in a proper interrogation, but nothing of such kind can be done, it means that one, in this case, should be agnostic or uncertain, however if one is to present evidences such as this then it supports reality and if the evidences presented are vague and not capable of being examined then one's position hangs on a slim thread and if that is cut none is to be the basis for such case. Suppose that a group of people claim to have witness Virgin Mary and has blessed a particular body of water in that area, saying that those who drink from it regardless of his moral standing will go to heaven and all who have said to witnessed it died instantaneously the next few weeks after, is one to believe immediately? of course no, one is to examine the evidences, even those of the opposing side would be doubtful about its claims since it is established to nothing but here says and its desired effect of cleansing is far from reach, anyone can say that. All evidences which is said to support the claims are writings of a poetic expressionism of a writer thus none of you can unlock the real meaning of the author's mind when he was writing it, notice that all biblical analogy has its own way of interpretation.
The second contention, as I have included in my introduction is that, as a philosopher I have noticed the grievances in all philosophical schools, if all ideas claim to be correct then all of them are wrong. A thinker may ask is my Philosophy correct if it is somehow opposite to that of the others? to solve this I propose that all schools of thought are focused on different incompatible matters such that Idealism and Nihilism would be, both of them are focused to different area but at some point other or this mentioned ideas won't escape that it is really contradictory to each other to solve this, all ideas may be correct at some point but not completely so that its weakness should be a place for the establishment of the common ground to the other, one should find it to make a stronger idea out two schools that are otherwise distinct, in this case I am sewing commonality in all religions stating that they are personal thus cannot be proven wrong nor considered correct for it is ones way of knowing his God personally, but to assert that Jesus is God removes freedom to choose a belief since all that is left is to accept and follow that particular religion which holds the divinity of this being.
Now all of those debates concerning the divinity and Resurrection of Jesus tend to lie on the bedrock of faith and writings and here is my contention: Zeus is the supreme god, Greek Mythology assures it, here is a particular line saying it- 'Tie a rope that all of you might pull let all other gods aid in this but all of you combined cannot bring me down but I, with my own will can", Therefore Zeus is the supreme God in this MYTH- all of you makes complete dependence to this writing knowing the fact that you are not only referring to the correct sequence or happenings in this story but to its reality and connections to this universe or in other words you are not only proving that he is considered God in that book but with this universe that you can observe the moment that you finished reading this and look around at your environment, thus one needs to make a logical bridge connecting the two, making the bible not only a story but with complete assertion of reality, but none of you did this, what if, one reader is of a different faith such as Islam, and uses different lines in the Koran against Jesus, what have you? I hope you can completely grasped my point. All your arguments, if it is, are based on faith alone, what if someone is of a different standpoint, what proofs have you? You may attack this stating that mythology of Greece is with complete distinctness to that of the Bible and that it is clearly untrue, but with your own word "Myth", it refutes your own claim, if it is that Jesus is divine with reference and complete dominance to this world. It only proves that Jesus is a character in oneness or the sole greatest being in that particular book, the bible, but not of this universe. I hope that the next wave of debaters would make arguments , not totally depending on this texts.
And one last paragraph, all of you assumes that all participants here are Christians and that we only need to use the bible since all of us have faith in it, and that nobody shall contend it. all your proofs are confined, lacking vital substances, as a Philosopher none of your statements are satisfying or convincing, you all think that all participants here are Christians in such a way that all of you can make reference to one book subject to criticisms, what if one is of a different religion can you use the bible or could you pinpoint the errancies in theirs to pursue your claim. Big claim, vague evidence. Proving that there exists a God of a scientific sense priming the first cause is easier than proving that a being which is central figure to a religion thus making it personal is true and is oneness with that being and so that religion best describes the nature of God" - this is what I have included in my essays as a Philosopher. evidences you have provided are documents subject to different criticisms.
Cilekaj forfeited this round.
philippines1946 forfeited this round.
Cilekaj forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.