The Instigator
Oliver_Douglass
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Shanor
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

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  
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: 1/28/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 261 times Debate No: 85705
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Oliver_Douglass

Pro

Hi I'm Oliver, I've been brought up in a Christian home and would consider myself as undecided in my belief in the Christian Faith.

One topic, I see appear alot is whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, I personally hold the view that the Resurrection is the best explanation of the facts we know about Jesus that almost 100% of scholars hold as follows:

1. Jesus died by Crucifixion
2. The Disciples claimed he appeared to them
3. Paul claimed he appeared to them

I will go into more detail once someone accepts, Oliver
Shanor

Con

Challenge accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
Oliver_Douglass

Pro

When investigating the "Resurrection of Jesus" there are two basis that are necessary to produce any argument:

1. Facts
2. Method

Just to note, when I say "fact" I am saying what virtually all scholars include skeptical ones, agree on, you can't in history prove anything 100%.

In addition, I won't be defending the Resurrection for "theological reasons" such as the Bible is the Word of God, I will look at the documents we have without this premise, in matters of History, rather than theology.

Firstly, lets investigate the facts that virtually all scholars agree on the matter of "Jesus' Resurrection"

1. Jesus' death by Crucifixion

"One of the most certain facts of history, is that Jesus was crucified on orders of Roman Prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate"

Bart Ehrman 2000, 162

Notice that I am quoting an agnostic scholar, well respected within his field, so lets look at why historians take this view.

1. Early Tradition

1 Corinthians 15 3-8 has been discovered by scholars what is probably, the earliest creed in existence of the Christian faith quoted by Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, written between 50-60 AD, that will be the strongest basis of the resurrection in this debate.

The creed mentions, " that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures", the creed itself, even by skeptical scholars, has been dated to a few years after the crucifixion.

German Luderman a skeptical scholar states "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus... not later than three years"

Micheal Goulder another skeptical scholar"goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion".

Infact, some scholars have suggested literally months after the events themselves which Paul received from James, John and Peter.

Even by the skeptical scholars general date, of around 2-3 years after the crucifixion, this is far into the time of the disciples, early followers and contemporaries of Jesus himself; to state that the crucifixion legend developed within the lifetime of the disciples, is extremely improbable.

If you want evidence for the dating of this creed please ask.

2. Multiple Attestation

Another reason why Bart Ehrman holds this view, is the abundant attestation from Christian, Jewish, Greek and Roman Sources, for many events of the Ancient World, there are sometimes only 1 source dated generations after the events, however with the Crucifixion, even those who hated Christians accepted his death by Crucifixion during the reign of Tiberius, here are a list of the sources which I can go into more detail if you want.

1. 1 Corinthians Creed- 32-33 AD
2. 7 of Paul's Epistles- 50-60 AD
3. The 4 Gospels 65-95 AD
4. Josephus 93 AD
5. Tacitus 115 AD

For Josephus and Tacitus, if you want my argument for sources and reliability please ask, note also, I am taking the overall dates of the Gospels, they could be dated earlier, if you don't agree, i can argue for this, or earlier dating.

2. Appearance to the Disciples

There are many reasons why scholars agree for the disciples believing the risen Jesus appeared to them:

1. Early Attestation:

again, the 1 Corinthians 15 Creed, again states that Jesus appeared to the disciples such as Peter and his brother James, for legend to develop, during the lifetime of the disciples is highly improbable.

Secondly, sources dating 30-200 years after the events, state that the disciples were willing to suffer for their conviction of the Risen Jesus, take Tacitus; for the persecution of Christians during Nero's reign and Pliny the Younger on persecuting the Christians.

"liars make poor martyrs" now because they died doesn't mean the resurrection is true, however, it does mean that they believed in fall extent that the think that the Resurrection is true.

If you need more references, I will, but I'm trying to keep it as short as possible.

3. Appearance to Paul

The appearance to Paul is attested in various sources; Firstly, his own writings 7 of Paul's Letters are considered fully authentic, where he claims to have seen the Risen Christ, that transformed his life from persecuting Christians, to being the front leader along with Peter.

In the Book of Acts, the author presents the missionary of Paul the Apostle from the origins, now even by the later dating, this is within the generation of Paul's Followers, and some of the disciples themselves.

Early Creed within the book of Galatians, where "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy."

This multiple, early attestation is the reason why even skeptical scholars agree, the only defense that is possible is that Paul is lying.

Now that the 3 facts, that virtually all skeptical scholars have accepted, we now need a method for the explanation of these facts, one that is commonly used is the argument of Best Explanation that follows:

1. Explanatory Scope- one which can account for all the 3 facts accepted universally by scholars
2. Explanatory Power- one which doesn't need multiple theories to support its view
3. Plausibility
4. Less Ad hoc- the one which is less created or done on a purpose as necessary.

Now lets look at a common theory :

1. Hallucinations

1. The Hallucinations can't account for the appearances to the disciples due to the fact that despite being vulnerable targets, which is definitely true, their is no account or plausibility within Psychology, that suggests that multiple hallucinations over long periods of time are possible. Secondly, it doesn't account for the appearance to Paul, who persecuted the Christians beforehand and wouldn't be a target to such a hallucination. This makes it lack explanatory scope

2. The Hallucination also relies on a full tomb theory, which presents that it lacks Explanatory Power, due to the fact that it needs other theories to support it, making it weaker and a greater burden of proof on the one who proposes it.

3. It doesn't have plausibility, because it can't account for multiple witnesses over periods of time

4. It isn't Ad Hoc however

If you want more evidence for the Psychology and Hallucinations, I can

(Also note, this is a full tomb theory, where the earliest records and many scholars agree that the Tomb was found empty, but as it isn't universally accepted, I haven't included it as one of the facts.)

Now the Ressurection:

1. Explains all 3 facts, results in Explanatory Scope
2. Has explanatory Power, due to the fact that it doesn't need support from other theories to support this.
3. The Plausibility is questionable, depending on the Worldview, however, it explains the 3 facts more strongly than hallucinations
4. Less Ad Hoc- it doesn't require a belief in infallibility, Gods Word etc to be established.

Overall, The Resurrection is the best explanation of the facts; for one to dismiss it, they must

1. Demolish all 3 Facts
2. Show flaws in the Method
3. Offer a more plausible alternative

Which I will be waiting for you to do

Cheers, Oliver
Shanor

Con

Shanor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Oliver_Douglass

Pro

Oliver_Douglass forfeited this round.
Shanor

Con

Shanor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Oliver_Douglass

Pro

Oliver_Douglass forfeited this round.
Shanor

Con

Shanor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Oliver_Douglass

Pro

Oliver_Douglass forfeited this round.
Shanor

Con

Shanor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Oliver_Douglass 10 months ago
Oliver_Douglass
Don't worry Shanor have a good day
Posted by Shanor 10 months ago
Shanor
Sorry but I did not expect the amount of time this would take, I would like to apologize and O would like to state that I forfeit. I am very sorry for the inconvenience.
Posted by ihateveryoneonthiswebsite 10 months ago
ihateveryoneonthiswebsite
Dear Sugah Jackson you are one great lady! I'm sorry to hear about your children you must miss then dearly but they are probably still alive. I just wanted to say i agree with you because of my vision i am a visionary and i can see in you future you will have 13 more kids. I feel you pain almost all my pet guinea pig have either choked or just fell over and died but they with Jesus now!
Posted by idontgiveacrap 10 months ago
idontgiveacrap
Hello Princess! My name is Sugah Jackson. I live in Nebraska, and I have 7 Children. Four of which ran away from home at a very young age. Sadly, they could not provide for themselves and I haven't heard from them in months. They might be dead.... Oh well darlin, they best be in a better place now.... They with Jesus, WHO DID RISE FROM THE DEAD
Posted by ihateveryoneonthiswebsite 10 months ago
ihateveryoneonthiswebsite
Hello my name is Princess. I am 69 years old and i live in Costa Rica with my 17 kids, my pet kangaroo, and 13 husbands. I know he did because i had a vision of it. IT WAS REAL PEOPLE JUST BELIEVE
Posted by Oliver_Douglass 10 months ago
Oliver_Douglass
Seanyboy I take your point, I did state that I was undecided, and that's why I debate.

Even if I was fully decided, I would still constantly test my beliefs, as I want to be honest to myself and true
Posted by Seanyboy 10 months ago
Seanyboy
It still astounds me, the dedication some people have to their religions. The fact that you would even care enough to investigate. The way I see it you either believe a religion is true or you don't, of your confused or unsure then through that you already have your answer. I do not mean to offend anyone in this or my previous comment, I believe people should be able to choose what religion they are part of and give their opinions on it openly. That is exactly what I am doing, giving my opinion, and if you take any offence from my opinions then, oh I don't know, go pray or something.
Posted by Oliver_Douglass 10 months ago
Oliver_Douglass
Shanor, I will take your view on Love and Philosophy, it doesn't bother me
Posted by Seanyboy 10 months ago
Seanyboy
I suppose Jesus might have rose from the dead, you know if god, Christianity and basically all religions weren't just a concept created to give the family idiot a job. Religion is a concept created and followed by people who are, deep down, afraid there will be nothing after death. The only religion i would ever think of following is Buddhism, which doesn't actually believe a higher being is controlling the world and the people who live in it like puppets.
Posted by Shanor 10 months ago
Shanor
Would you also define any words that can be thought of in different ways like, love, philosophy, etc.
No votes have been placed for this debate.