The Instigator
Roasted_Marshmellow
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
loveu157
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ reliable?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Roasted_Marshmellow
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 41491
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Roasted_Marshmellow

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Additional rebuttals/arguments
Round 5: Closing arguments

I will be arguing that the historical records we have of Jesus dying and rising again are in fact reliable.
Debate Round No. 1
Roasted_Marshmellow

Pro

Both the death and resurrection of Jesus is attested in multiple independent sources including secular sources that are not a part of the book known as the bible.
loveu157

Con

your proof is non existent. you say that books explain how jesus must of risen from the dead with no citations and no list of books. These books were written by humans not divine forces. Only humans can say that jesus came back. IN this argument i will show how after death you can not come back.

1. Your body shuts down when you die. When you die your heart stops beating your brain stops working and most of your bodies main functions shut down. without any of these rings working you go brain dead and essentially become a lifeless rag doll.

2. the bible was written over 100 years after the death of Jesus. It was intact written by different authors with different views. since it was a long time after his death there was no eye witnesses and was only assumed by the writers because of constantly changing oral stories.

3. Different views. There is hundreds of people who say jesus came back to life in different ways. How do we know which one must be true? The only conceivable answer is that he never came back to life.
Debate Round No. 2
Roasted_Marshmellow

Pro

My opponent claims my proof is non existent. He writes correctly that I did not use citations in my opening argument of which I apologize for, however he ironically doesn't use them in his opening argument either. He then states correctly that humans wrote the books I was referring to. He also, writes correctly that humans are saying that Jesus came back to life. In fact I will prove in my argument that there are multiple eye witness accounts of Jesus coming back to life. I also will refute his three points with citations, and a list of books in those citations.

1. (1) "In Short, the scientific objection to the credibility of miracles is that the discovery of the natural, physical laws by which the universe operates has proved them impossible."
This is what my opponent is stating. I would hedge a question here what would believing in Miracles do? Would the belief in it destroy the integrity of miracles? What about all the things that science cannot explain using the laws of physics?
(2) "No physical principles need be violated if a new causal agent is introduced. Norman Geisler, a leading American Christian apologist, puts it this way: 'belief in miracles does not destroy the integrity of scientific methodology, only its sovereignty. It says in effect that science does not have sovereign claim to explain all events as natural, but only those that are regular, repeatable, and/or predictable' . There is an important analogy here with human behaviour, since persons, even with their finite powers, by freely choosing to start or end various actions, regularly bring about new events which otherwise would not have occurred by natural forces alone. If persons can change the physical world, how much more ought God to be able to do so!" If my opponent believed in miracles he would understand that the body shutting down, and then coming back to life is in the realm of possibility. If my opponent believed in miracles he would understand that the Universe is not turned on its head when God operates in his realm of possibility. If my opponent believed in miracles he would have an understanding of the things that science can't repeat or understand.

2.(3)"The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this. In this country a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100.4 I should be inclined to date the first three Gospels rather earlier: Mark shortly after AD 60, Luke between 60 and 70, and Matthew shortly after 70. One criterion which has special weight with me is the relation which these writings appear to bear to the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. My view of the matter is that Mark and Luke were written before this event, and Matthew not long afterwords." The point here is that scholars believe that the latest date that the books of the new testament were written is 100 AD by modern scholars in 1983 when this book was published. He however, dates them at latest 70 AD. My point is simple. (4) "This allows us to narrow down the time of Jesus' death to a very specific point in history: around 3:00 p.m on Friday, April 3, A.D. 33 "The date for Christ's death and resurrection we can figure from the bible to be A.D. 33. Not only can we know a large amount of historical data from the texts we can even transfix a certain time in history! This tells us that at latest the bible was written 67 years after Christ's death and resurrection.

The bible happens to be the best historical record we have from ancient history..(5)"
There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the well known Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early MSS in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae:, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin. Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some go years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which,and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories

of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals,

ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals." If you were to deny the historical accuracy of the bible you would have to deny the historical accuracy of The Roman Empire. Also, you have superior MSS from the bible compared to other ancient texts. With this wealth of knowledge we can say that the bible is the best surviving historical document from ancient history.


3. This point is pure conjecture. Actually the other two points were pure conjecture as well due to no citations. I am actually wondering where you are getting this argument from,because I personally have not heard of this one. So where is it from?

In summary I have proven using my citations, and sources that even though the body shuts down, and this is a verifiable fact that does not mean that it cannot be resurrected again. I have proven that the bible was not written over 100 years after the death of Jesus. And lastly I was gracious to my opponent by allowing him into my full argument instead of accusing him of pure conjecture. I hope that my opponent will give his arguments for his points in the next round.


(1)Blomberg, Craig. "Miracles." The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1987. 74. Print.
(2)Blomberg, Craig. "Miracles." The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1987. 75. Print.
(3)Bruce, F. F. "Their Date and Atesstation." The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983. 12. Print.
(4)Akin, Jimmy. "JimmyAkin." 7 Clues Tell Us *precisely* When Jesus Died (the Year, Month, Day, and Hour Revealed) |Blogs. Http://www.ncregister.com..., 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.

loveu157

Con

loveu157 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Roasted_Marshmellow

Pro

My argument stands from the previous round due to opponents forfeit.
loveu157

Con

loveu157 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Roasted_Marshmellow

Pro

Argument stands due to forfeit.
loveu157

Con

loveu157 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Roasted_Marshmellow 3 years ago
Roasted_Marshmellow
Sorry real life got me in this debate I didn't have time to do a opening argument like I wanted to. I will debate this topic again in the future with a much better opening round, again I apologize.
Posted by Roasted_Marshmellow 3 years ago
Roasted_Marshmellow
Sorry it takes a long time to come up with a good opening argument.
Posted by icjosh 3 years ago
icjosh
Well hurry up then. I don't have all day to wait for you to start round 2. If you don't have a case than just crumble you pad and get out the kitchen. Just kidding. Hope you come up with one soon though. I'm kind of waiting. ~___~
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Roasted_Marshmellowloveu157Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, thereby not responding to Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by Milliarde 3 years ago
Milliarde
Roasted_Marshmellowloveu157Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: obvious