The Instigator
lord_starscream
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Jesus Christ is technically a zombie

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 524 times Debate No: 75794
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

lord_starscream

Pro

Jesus Christ is technically a zombie as he rose back from the dead, did he not?
tejretics

Con

I accept. BoP is shared.




Debate Round No. 1
lord_starscream

Pro

Although the definition of a zombie is quite well-known, I shall state it in this debate-
zombie- a reanimated corpse that is capable of movement and mostly eats humans or their brains and is usually low in intelligence.
source- google dictionary
https://www.google.co.in...
Easter is basically the celebration of the revival of Jesus Christ after being crucified. Since Jesus Christ actually died, and was revived, according to Christian belief and the source below, he manages to fit the criterion for a zombie.
http://christianity.about.com...
1. Corpse
Jesus Christ was buried after his death. Therefore before being revived he would be a corpse.
2. Eating humans or their brains
Although Jesus didn't do that, chances are he is an advanced breed of zombie. He also may be sucking brainpower telekinetic-ally from his followers for them to believe he is the God, and as Christianity says he is the God or has God-like powers he may have moved over the zombie instinct of consuming humans. Also, as featured in the popular game Plants Vs Zombies, zombies can even eat plants, so Jesus may have restrained himself to remain in civilization as a God.
3. Capable of movement
Jesus was believed to be a human, so is capable of movement. He may have said he was drunk to cover up his staggered movements, if he wasn't the fast-type of zombie. Chances are he is an hybrid.
To all Christians, I am not attacking religion or anything, this debate was just created for fun.
tejretics

Con

== Rebuttals ==

R1) Definition of "zombie"

Pro's source has an entirely different definition of "zombie". The definition Pro provided is not seen in his source, thus I shall use an alternate definition. "Zombie" is defined as "a person or reanimated corpse that has been turned into a creature capable of movement but not of rational thought, which feeds on human flesh." [1]

R2) Corpse

This is under the *assumption* that Jesus was resurrected. Sociologist Reza Aslan writes, "[T]he resurrection is not a historical event ... the event itself falls outside the scope of history and into the realm of faith." [2] While historical consensus determines that Jesus' tomb was probably empty, it is unlikely historically that Jesus was actually resurrected. [3] In addition, the earliest Biblical gospel, Mark, never contains the story of Jesus' resurrection. "The 'resurrection' passages were later added to Mark, and his gospel was changed by Matthew and Luke, the Gospel writers are anonymous. It was necessary for Matthew and Luke to change Mark according to their own understanding, they also relied upon the Q source. Regarding the Gospel of John, it’s completely different and draws upon ambiguous sources. The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of these Greek manuscripts have no ending for Mark!" [4]

In addition, there is low a priori probability that the resurrection occurred, since that would contradict standard scientific facts and beliefs.

R3) "Eating humans or their brains"

Pro *concedes* that Jesus didn't "eat humans or their brains". Eating human flesh is essential to the definition of zombies, thus if something does not fulfill this, it *cannot* be called a "zombie". Pro forms a completely unjustified ad hoc explanation for this, that Jesus is an "advanced breed of zombie". But Pro has to demonstrate that Jesus *is* technically a zombie, not that he *might be*. I will even accept inductive arguments, but Pro is merely acknowledging *possibility*, which is irrelevant to the resolution.

R4) Capable of movement

Accepted, but nonetheless irrelevant.

== My Case ==

(1) Rationality

By the definition of zombies, they are *not* capable of rational thought. [1] Jesus was a great thinker and preacher, thus *was* capable of rational thought, as a sane human. Thus, this entirely refutes the idea that "Jesus was a zombie".

(2) Jesus was not resurrected

As mentioned, historical consensus agrees that Jesus was *not* physically resurrected. Thus, he cannot be considered a zombie, as Pro alleges.

== Conclusion ==

Jesus does not fulfill all properties required to be referred to as a zombie. Thus, Jesus cannot be one.


== Sources ==

[1]: Google ("define zombie")
[2]: Reza Aslan (2013). Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Random House.
[3]: http://www.garyhabermas.com...;
[4]: http://answering-christianity.com...;

Debate Round No. 2
lord_starscream

Pro

lord_starscream forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

Extend. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
I cannot stress enough the importance of definitions in R1.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
why??
Posted by lord_starscream 1 year ago
lord_starscream
ok i put it shared
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
You can't put BoP on Con, put it on yourself or shared.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
lord_starscreamtejreticsTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro, so conduct to Con. Con also refuted all of Pro's arguments, and continued to make their own, since Pro forfeited, they basically dropped all of Con's arguments, so with this in mind, arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
lord_starscreamtejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins because he highlighted how the definition of zombie necessitates eating flesh and vein irrational, yet Jesus did neither. The resolution is negated. Con gets conduct since pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
lord_starscreamtejreticsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round.