The Instigator
Sagey
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Nzrsaa
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Jesus Was Buried In a Mass Grave/Tomb?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,924 times Debate No: 42628
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Sagey

Pro

I tried to lodge this under the title of History, but funnily, no such Genre exists in DdO.

According to Roman tradition, the criminals executed by them were either thrown into an unmarked grave or placed in a mass tomb where only family members can claim the bones of their loved one to take with them.

According to many religious historians, this is highly probable, what really happened to the body of Jesus Christ.
Possibly the disciples tried to get the body of Jesus, but, were not allowed to, because they were not family members and so returned empty handed or tried to rob the tomb, possibly even getting the wrong corpse in the darkness.

Very likely, because they failed to get the remains of their leader, they concocted the idea that his body had gone to Heaven and thus the Resurrection Myth was born.

So far, Archaeologically and Anthropologically, there has been no evidence that the Romans considerd Jesus as a special case, worthy of sparing his body from the mass tomb/grave.
Pilot had wiped his hands of the case, thus was not interested in what happened to the body of Jesus, and this would have been left up to the soldiers in charge of the execution, if Jesus truly executed on the cross.
Some historians proposed that Jesus may have actually been stoned to death by the Jews and not executed by Romans.

Some Christian groups claim that the Jews wanted the body of Jesus and so asked for it, though the majority of Jews were against the teachings of Jesus, so it is unlikely the Jewish leaders would even bother with him, he was only a concern to them while he was alive, dead, they had no interest in him at all.

Again, historically, there is no confirming external, verifying evidence of any consideration given to Jesus by Rome for guards, nor for any private tomb.

The entire story of the Crucifixion and Ressurrection of Jesus Christ, lacks any real, tangible historical credibility.
Using Biblical scripture to verify these events is Flawed, because they were written well after his death and do not cite any souces of real evidence, such as Roman witnesses who may have composed external verification (documents) of their own.
There are no actuall statements from impartial (non biblical) witnesses to any of these events.

Biblical witnesses, i.e, the women at the tomb, is not verification, unless those women wrote about the event and these documents are verifiable.
Unless a document can be found outside the Bible, from a verified witness to these events (crucifixion and resurrection), the events can be entirely deemed, Imaginary and at best, extremely Dubious.


Nzrsaa

Con

Hi, Pro!
I will respond to every point you make on Jesus' resurrection.

According to Roman tradition, the criminals executed by them were either thrown into an unmarked grave or placed in a mass tomb where only family members can claim the bones of their loved one to take with them.<\em>

While this was certainly true in most other parts of the Roman Empire, don't forget, Jesus was a Jew, and this was set in Judea, and so would have been buried according to Jewish customs. We have no reason to suggest that the Romans would abuse this important funeral rite for the Jews [1] - in fact, the Romans notoriously allowed much freedom for Jewish custom and practices during their rule - especially religious freedom. The last thing they wanted was to encourage rebellion by abusing the natives' religion. Although there was rebellion, this was mainly by fringe groups such as the Zealots [2]. Jewish sects such as the Sadducees were even for Roman rule, for the precise reason that they did not infringe on Jewish life. So contrary to common Roman custom, they would have allowed Jews to bury Jewish criminals according to Jewish<\em>, not Roman custom. We even have positive evidence that the authorities would have given Jesus straight to is followers for burial, who would have placed him in a family tomb before the start of the sabbath. [3]; Paul even cites an independent source in his first letter to the Corinthians in his 15th Chapter [4]. (bear in mind this was written within 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection [5])

"Possibly the disciples tried to get the body of Jesus, but, were not allowed to, because they were not family members and so returned empty handed or tried to rob the tomb, possibly even getting the wrong corpse in the darkness."

Sorry Pro, but this is just speculative nonsense, with very little evidence to back it up. However we do have very good evidence to the contrary. The opinion of most historians is that Jesus was crucified, died, was placed in a tomb, and his tomb was found empty by a group of Jesus' women followers. [6] This is the basic, historically proven backbone of events, backed up by the Gospels, Paul's letters, and many secular sources (that I will show later on in the round).

"Very likely, because they failed to get the remains of their leader, they concocted the idea that his body had gone to Heaven and thus the Resurrection Myth was born."

Again, this is wrong. To establish just why the disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, we need to look at jewish culture at the time. And to do this, we need to look at the Jewish religion. The Jews would absolutely never believe that the dead could rise again; it would be entirely against the Jewish belief about life after death (most didn't even believe that there was such a thing as life after death [7]). So to conclude that Jesus had been resurrected merely because they couldn't find Jesus' body would have been entirely irrational in Jewish culture and it just is not a sensible historical conclusion to draw. The disciples certainly did not think that Jesus rose from the dead just because they couldn't find the body - to think such a thing would be entirely un-Jewish and not worthy of consideration.

"So far, Archaeologically and Anthropologically, there has been no evidence that the Romans considerd Jesus as a special case"

Maybe not Jesus in particular, but certainly all the Jewish people. I explained this in the first paragraph - the Romans always respected the Jewish way of life and would comply with Jewish burial customs.

Some historians proposed that Jesus may have actually been stoned to death by the Jews and not executed by Romans.

Well if this is the case, then those historians are on the radical fringe, and not in line with contempory scholarship. There is no evidence to suggest this, and we have positive evidence that Jesus was crucified by the Romans. [8]

""Bilical witnesses"Again, historically, there is no confirming external, verifying evidence of any consideration given to Jesus by Rome for guards, nor for any private tomb."

Well try getting that sort of evidence for anyone who lived around that time. We don't have 'external, verifying evidence', just like there is no such evidence for most things in the past we are pretty sure happened. This is a hugely unrealistic standard of evidence that has been set. However we do have decent evidence, that historians use to conclude that yes, Jesus had a family tomb, and yes, he was buried by Joseph of Aromothea who gifted him his tomb which was guarded by Roman guards just like any other tomb in 1st Century Judea. [9]

The entire story of the Crucifixion and Ressurrection of Jesus Christ, lacks any real, tangible historical credibility."

I have hopefully shown that there is enough historical evidence to conclude that there it is near certain that Jesus was Crucified and Resurrected. There are 4 certain facts about Jesus of Nazareth: he was Crucified, he was buried, his tomb was discovered empty and he appeared to his disciples after his death [10]. The best explanation for these facts is that God rose Jesus from the dead. Pro has to prove that there are better explanations for these facts.

"Using Biblical scripture to verify these events is Flawed, because they were written well after his death"

Sorry to say, pro, but this is just wrong. The Gospels were written Probably 30-40 years after Jesus' death. Paul's letters were written about between 5 and 20 years after Jesus' death. [11] in terms of sources, these present historically sound evidence. To give an indication of theirs closeness to the actual events, amoung the biographies of Alexander the Great, the earliest we have are about 400 years
"There are no actual statements from impartial (non biblical) witnesses to any of these events."

Well of course not, just like there are no impartial, non-Greek witnesses to Alexander the Great's existence. I guess the closest we have is James, mentioned in Galatians, who witnessed Jesus' life, did not believe and was converted after Jesus appeared to him.

Biblical witnesses, i.e, the women at the tomb, is not verification, unless those women wrote about the event and these documents are verifiable.

Why would the women write about it? This is very unhistorical, Pro.

"Unless a document can be found outside the Bible, from a verified witness to these events (crucifixion and resurrection), the events can be entirely deemed, Imaginary and at best, extremely Dubious."

Again, this is very unhistorical. To get such evidence for ANY historical event is essentially impossible, and failure to provide such evidence certainly doesn't mean that the event never happened!

Haha, this turned out longer than expected! I look forward to the next round, Pro.

Sources:
[1] http://www.religionfacts.com...
[2] http://www.thorncrownjournal.com...
[3] https://bible.org...
[4] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[5] http://christianity.about.com...
[6] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[7] http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com...
[8] http://www.bible.ca...
[9] Ibid [6]
[10] Ibid
[11] http://carm.org...
[12] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Sagey

Pro

Firstly: Thanks to you Con, for accepting the Challenge!

Con states:
"We even have positive evidence that the authorities would have given Jesus straight to is followers for burial, who would have placed him in a family tomb before the start of the sabbath. [3]; Paul even cites an independent source in his first letter to the Corinthians in his 15th Chapter [4]. (bear in mind this was written within 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection [5])"

Yet: The statement "Would have given Jesus straight to his followers," is not the same as "Did Give Jesus Straigh To his Followers," the former: Cons statement is surreptitiously deceptive, in that it is not evidence that such an exchange of body did actually occurr.

The only name of a witness that Paul (Saul) gave was Peter (Cephas) whose only words don't exist in any external documents for verification, they were all included within the Biblical scriptures, which also doesn't count as evidence since Peter is an accomplice in the deception, not an impartial witness.

Saul's Corrinthians Chapter 15:

[4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures: [5] And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven.

[6] Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. [7] After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles.[8] And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time. [9] For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.[10] But by the grace of God, I am what I am; and his grace in me hath not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me.

MOn Paul/Saul: Saul was not a witness of the Death of Jesus, nor was he a witness to the Ressurrection.
In fact, Saul arrived on the scene years after the death of Jesus, so all his writings are entirely Hearsay.
Saul never saw who witnessed the ressurrection of Jesus, because he only got these from the disciples, thus his entire writings cannot truly be presented as evidence of Jesus, because in any historic or even legal investigation, Hearsay evidence is considered as invalid, unless supported by actual witness testimonies.

None of those 500 brethren wrote any external, available, documents supporting the claim.
The apostles don't count as Impartial Witnesses in any case.

In fact: All of Paul's contribution to the life and death of Jesus Christ can be completely wiped from containing anything of genuine historical value, because it is all derived from Hearsay of others anecdotes.

Con's Second Point: "However we do have very good evidence to the contrary. The opinion of most historians is that Jesus was crucified, died, was placed in a tomb, and his tomb was found empty by a group of Jesus' women followers. [6] This is the basic, historically proven backbone of events, backed up by the Gospels, Paul's letters, and many secular sources (that I will show later on in the round)."

Again: There has never been found any impartial, documention contributed anywhere by these so called Women followers. The evidence for their witnessing of an empty tomb, nor indeed any tomb at all, does not exist. We cannot accept non-existent witness accounts as evidence in any historical study.

Also, this so called evidence comes from the same person who contributed to the Bible, completely on hearsay, anecdotes he picked up from his friends, so on that ground, it reduces it's value as valid, tangible evidence for the disappearance of the body of Jesus.

Con stated: "The Jews would absolutely never believe that the dead could rise again; it would be entirely against the Jewish belief about life after death (most didn't even believe that there was such a thing as life after death [7]). So to conclude that Jesus had been resurrected merely because they couldn't find Jesus' body would have been entirely irrational in Jewish culture and it just is not a sensible historical conclusion to draw. "
Fact is: Jewish Books comprising the Torah, of which Genesis is part of, also preach about people going to (The Gates of) Heaven after death. The reason they produced the tale of Jesus physically rising, was to put Jesus above normal Jewish concepts and thus make him appear God like. Essentially it appears to be another part of the Con. Though people were still extremely naive in the time of Jesus as they believed Jesus could bring a rotting corpse back to life, which proves that they would likely believe anything if told in a convincing manner.
Heaven and life after death is written all through the Jewish texts, it is the main component used to suck them into belief in God and be good, through irrational fear, not because they want to be good normally, though that's another debate.

Con also stated: "Maybe not Jesus in particular, but certainly all the Jewish people. I explained this in the first paragraph - the Romans always respected the Jewish way of life and would comply with Jewish burial customs."

Another point that defies this is the stationing of Roman Guards at the tomb of a dead man.
Which is extremely unlikely, since as Con stated, they did not want to interfere with Jewish Customs, so if they appointed guards, then they are interfering. Sort of playing it both ways there.
It makes the entire story too conflicting to be rationally truthful.
Again, there is no evidence in Roman Chronicles, of which the Romans kept for all orders given as the Romans were extremely good at keeping records of orders given.
No such chronicles of guards being appointed for any dead man's tomb were ever established.

Also, the Jewish leadership did not appear to be the very least worried about the following of Jesus, no records of any such concerns were ever documented by the Jewish leadership of the time.
They were simply glad to have him dead and forgot he existed after the execution. Otherwise their concerns would likely be passed to other Jewish leaders in some form of letter. No such concern was ever found documented, so likely it was the followers of Jesus, pumping up the status of Jesus to make it appear that the traditional Jewish leadership took some notice of him after his crucifixion, which it truly appears they did not. It appears they thought to themselves, he's dead now, good riddance.
The assigning of guards for his tomb, appears on all historical evidence ever found as Extremely Unlikely. He and his followers did nto really appear to be any more of a concern to the Jewish authority, nor to the Romans who wiped their hands of his case.

Con stated
: "Well if this is the case, then those historians are on the radical fringe, and not in line with contempory scholarship. There is no evidence to suggest this, and we have positive evidence that Jesus was crucified by the Romans. [8]"
My short answer to this is: No, There is no historically verifiable evidence that Jesus was actually crucified on a Cross: Please Show Me The Evidence: Remember that here, Biblical passages in no way, shape nor form, count as genuine, validated Historical Evidence. Ball is in your court here!



The rest is Con stating he has evidence:
So: WHERE IS THIS EVIDENCE?


Note: Any real, valid evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, must come from outside the Bible and must corroborate what has been written within.
So far Con has not presented any impartial, external evidence.
Con has only presented internal, possibly conspired evidence from within a book (Bible) composed by Conspiring parties, and altered by Constantine to suit Constantine's political agenda around 400 years later, further obfuscating the contents of the Bible.


Nzrsaa

Con

Hi Pro, thanks for your response.

The statement "Would have given Jesus straight to his followers," is not the same as "Did Give Jesus Straigh To his Followers""
Well no, but if we are going to look at the evidence that we do have - that Jesus died on the Friday [1], and that he therefore needed to be buried before the beginning of the sabbath, we can reason that yes, the Romans would have transferred the body with some haste to Jesus' followers. This is what history is about - looking at the evidence we do have, and drawing sensible conclusions from it

"Saul was not a witness of the Death of Jesus, nor was he a witness to the Ressurrection."
Sure, but he did know witnesses - such as Peter and James.

"In fact, Saul arrived on the scene years after the death of Jesus, so all his writings are entirely Hearsay
Well this is simply not true, as Saul actually met Jesus, as described in Acts 9:1-31[2]

"Hearsay evidence is considered as invalid, unless supported by actual witness testimonies"
"In fact: All of Paul's contribution to the life and death of Jesus Christ can be completely wiped from containing anything of genuine historical value, because it is all derived from Hearsay of others anecdotes."

Well this is just not true. I don't know any historian who believes that. To go back to my Alexander the Great example, we have zero witness testimonies for his life. We don't even know anyone who knew witnesses. The first biographies of his life were written over 400 years after his death. Historians still consider this to be evidence for his life events. So are you just going to dismiss it? Because we have no witness testimonies? If you do, then that would be simply unhistorical. We have to look at the evidence we do haveif we are going to draw sensible conclusions about a historical event. You cannot set such unrealistic standards of evidence that not one historian would subscribe to, and then merely dismiss any evidence we provide as 'not enough'.

"None of those 500 brethren wrote any external, available, documents supporting the claim."
Well, none that we know of. It is likely that they did write something, but didn't last 2000 years - not many manuscripts do. Or, we simply haven't discovered them yet. But to conclude that none of them wrote ANYTHING is very unlikely. But if we are referring to history, we can use the next best evidence we do have - Paul's epistles and the sources of the Gospels.

"There has never been found any impartial, documention contributed anywhere by these so called Women followers"
Well it depends on what you mean by impartial. Historically, I would consider the sources that the Synoptic Gospels used to be impartial. But as i have already explained, each and every historical event does not require an impartial witness to write down an account, especially in such an oral culture such as 1st century Judea. This is another example of Pro setting the standard way too high.

"Also, this so called evidence comes from the same person who contributed to the Bible, completely on hearsay, anecdotes he picked up from his friends"
I assume you're talking about Paul? We also have the accounts of the Gospels, in Mark 16 [4], Matthew 28 [5] and Luke 24 [6] of the women discovering Jesus' empty tomb. I assume you know, but the synoptic Gospels used (probably impartial) sources that are dated from 0-30 years after Jesus' death (in other words, within 1 generation), giving for a generally reliable outline for Jesus' life. Put put them together with Paul's letters and you have a firm historical case.

"Jewish Books comprising the Torah, of which Genesis is part of, also preach about people going to (The Gates of) Heaven after death"
"Heaven and life after death is written all through the Jewish texts"

What the texts actually refer to is Sheol [7]. In the Jewish religion, this was the place where all the dead went - it was a sort of underworld, similar to the Greek concept of Hades. There were generally no references to heaven and Hell - the books of Job and Ecclesiastes explicitly suggest that all of the dead go to Sheol - good, bad, rich or poor; for example, Job 3:11-19 is a great example of this. [8]. So what this really refers to is not 'heaven' and 'hell', but rather some sort of dormant period where the person isn't really alive per se. This is massively different to a resurrection, and is certainly not the same as life-after death.

"people were still extremely naive in the time of Jesus as they believed Jesus could bring a rotting corpse back to life"
This statement is Begging the question that Jesus genuinely didn't do these things, therefore those who witnessed them are gullable... You see the assumption there? I can assure you that the Jewish people were very stuck in their ways, and would not accept anything non-Jewish. I have explained how the resurrection was not Jewish at all, and they would have every disposition to the contrary to reject it. They were most certainly not naive.

"if they appointed guards then they are interfering"
I would barely think so. How does placing a couple of guards outside a tomb interfere with jewish burial customs?

"No such chronicles of guards being appointed for any dead man's tomb were ever established."
I would doubt there would be. Matthew 27:62-66 accounts that Pilate ordered Jesus' tomb to be guarded as as a precaution. It would be such a minor event in the Roman empire that it just wouldn't be chronicled outside of Biblical texts.

Regardless, even if there were really no guards at the tomb... What does that imply? No-one could survive crucifixion, escape from their tomb, and appear to other people. Guards at the tomb are not necessary for the fact that Jesus' tomb was found empt. There is no way he could have escaped.

"likely it was the followers of Jesus, pumping up the status of Jesus to make it appear that the traditional Jewish leadership took some notice of him after his crucifixion"
Aside from having no evidence whatsoever, this theory makes no sense - if the disciples really knew that Jesus' resurrection was a fraud, then why were they willing to die for their beliefs? Peter, for example, was crucified upside down for holding true to his beliefs. [9]

"There is no historically verifiable evidence that Jesus was actually crucified on a Cross: Please Show Me The Evidence"
Well one particular piece of evidence that comes to mind is from Joseph ben Matityahu:
"Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross"

-Judean Antiquities (reconstruction by John Meier, Marginal Jew 1:61)

Unfortunately I'm out of characters how so if there is anything Pro wants me to respond to, he should request so in the final round.

I look forward to the final round!

Sources:
[1] http://biblelight.net...
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3] http://www.bethinking.org...
[4] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[5] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[6] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[7] http://www.myjewishlearning.com...
[8] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[9] http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Sagey

Pro

Con stated: ""Saul was not a witness of the Death of Jesus, nor was he a witness to the Ressurrection."
Sure, but he did know witnesses - such as Peter and James."

By the time Saul scribed the stories of Peter and James, their memories of the event had long been distorted.
They could not recall such events with any great accuracy, thus their memories could not be regarded as genuine evidence and since they were supporters of Jesus, they are not Impartial Witnesses, they are collaborators.
In fact, most humans lose most of the detail of an event, minutes after the event ends.
To recall any event in a human's life with any real accuracy, a few years later, is literally impossible, even for the followers of Jesus.
The only accurate accounts of an event are those written very soon afterwards, such as minutes, hours or days, not years. The least time between the event and it's being recorded usually means better accuracy.
There is no such accuracy in the Bible, anywhere.
You claim that Jesus died on a Friday.
There is nowhere in the Bible that the date, nor time of his death is accurately recorded.
To claim such accuracy is sheer ludicrous drivel. The Bible is never accurate for any purpose, time nor date of any of it's event.
Technically, The Bible, is the least Chronologically accurate document ever printed.

Even Christians disagree with Jesus dying on a Friday:
"By the traditional " Good Friday–Easter Sunday " timing, from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown is one night and one day. Saturday night to Sunday daybreak is another night, giving us two nights and one day.

So where do we get another night and two days to equal the three days and three nights Jesus said He would be in the tomb?

This is definitely a problem. Most theologians and religious scholars try to work around it by arguing that any part of a day or night counts as a day or night. Thus, they say, the final few minutes of that Friday afternoon were the first day, all day Saturday was the second day, and the first few minutes of Sunday morning were the third day.

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

The trouble is, it doesn't work. This only adds up to three days and two nights, not three days and three nights.

Also, John 20:1
tells us that "on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb."

Did you catch the problem here? John tells us it was still dark when Mary went to the tomb on Sunday morning and found it empty. Jesus was already resurrected well before daybreak. Thus He wasn't in the tomb any of the daylight portion of Sunday, so none of that can be counted as a day.

That leaves us with, at most, part of a day on Friday, all of Friday night, a whole daylight portion on Saturday, and most of Saturday night. That totals one full day and part of another, and one full night and most of another—still at least a full day and a full night short of the time Jesus said He would be in the tomb."
Taken from a Christian source:
http://www.ucg.org...;

Con is still citing False Biblical, or co-conspired data/writings as evidence:
Even any legal court takes a dim view of cases where the only evidence comes from co-conspirators or collaborators. Mostly such cases are thrown out of court and not even considered by the judge.
The case for Jesus's Execution by Crucifixion and his resurrection would also be thown out of court on lack of genuine supporting evidence.

Impartial witnesses that corrobborate the evidence of collaborators, makes a case more convincing.
This is why you cannot use evidence from the Bible as proof of the existence and deeds of the Bible's characters, like Jesus.
Because all documents from the Bible are strictly composed by co-conspirators, they are not indipendant nor are they Impartial.
Only Independant, Impartial evidence counts, so far Con has produced absolutely none, zilch, nudda, all are Biblical, all are from Co-Conspirators.


Spiderman Existed, why, because The documents produced by Marvel Comics say so.
1: Frodo existed, because Bilbo, Gandalf and Gollum all recognized his existence!
2: Well it's exactly the same as saying Jesus existed because Saul, Peter and James say he did.
No evidence actually existed in either statement 1 nor 2, so the are equally vague and non-presentable in any legal system as evidence.

Proof from within the document creating the character, is not proof that the character existed at all.
If the Bible is the only proof of the Life Of Jesus Christ, then, technically and legally, he did not exist at all.
There must be verified, tangible evidence supplied from outside the very innaccurate book called the Bible.

Same as some people state that The Bible and Jesus definitely exist because places in the Bible like Juruselem Exists, well in that case Spiderman definitely exists because New York exists in his books, so therefore he too must exist.

To claim historical accuracy because a place exists inside and outside the document is just being deliberately deceptive, as it is entirely Irrational, to say the least.

Though this is the story of and scope of Christian Apologetics, Irrationality explained with Lies.

Here is Christopher Hitchens's, very clear philosophical, view of the authenticity of The Life of Jesus Christ.


The Life and deeds of Socrates has very little verifiable evidence, yet many believe he existed, yet, there is even less evidence for the life and existence of Jesus, than there is for Socrates.

Many suggest that the Life of Jesus was a recreation of the lives of previous Gods, such as Horus or Zeus.

The evidence for the Crucifixion of Jesus and his Resurrection is so very thin, that it is almost non-existent.

Enjoy the Hitchens clip.
He was clearly one of centuries greatest thinkers, a sort of Socrates of the 21st Century.

Come on Con: Get your head out of the Bible, the evidence within a contrived set of writings is not evidence, because they are all part of the Christian conspiracy, and never impartial evidence.

You should by now have come to the same knowledge that every genuine historian, archaeologist and Anthropologist already knows, and as Christopher Hitchens has covered.
There is Absolutely no Impartial, Eye Witness Evidence for any of Jesus's Activities, nor for his Crucifixion or his Resurrection.

I know, I spent years researching for it and never found any.
Thus my current stance.

:-D~

Nzrsaa

Con

Hi Pro

"By the time Saul scribed the stories of Peter and James, their memories of the event had long been distorted"
Ah, this is where you are simply mistaken. there are 2 points to make:
1) The resurrection of someone you followed would have been an event that I doubt anyone would forget easily. I remember several, vivid memories from my personal childhood. I don't think that such a huge event such as the resurrection would be forgotten at all.
2) There was a huge oral tradition in Jewish culture [1]. That is how certain aspects of the Torah - such as the huge oral law used and preserved by the Pharisees came to be. There were literally hundreds of laws that were remembered purely on oral transition.

"There is nowhere in the Bible that the date, nor time of his death is accurately recorded"
Well not explicitly. But we do know that Jesus was buried on the friday either in the morning or afternoon (Matthew 27:57). We also know that Jewish burial customs stated that the person's body must be buried as soon as possible after their death. Because Friday is the day before the sabbath, when they couldn't have done any burials, we can safely say that Jesus died on the Friday, and was Buried as soon as possible on the very same day.

"So where do we get another night and two days to equal the three days and three nights Jesus said He would be in the tomb?"
Well Jesus predicted that he would rise again on the third day (Luke 9:22) [2]. Friday=the first day, Saturday=the second day, Sunday=third day. It is really simple. By 'third day', Jesus would not have meant after 72 hours exactly he would rise again. At no point did Jesus say that he would rise again after 3 days and 3 nights. He only ever predicted that he would rise again on the third day.

"He wasn't in the tomb any of the daylight portion of Sunday, so none of that can be counted as a day."
Again, Jesus never said that he would rise again after 3 days and 3 nights. Find the scripture that says this. It is unimportant whether Jesus was in the tomb for any daylight portion of Sunday - The Jewish day would begin at sunset [3], so Sunday would count as the third day.

"Con is still citing False Biblical, or co-conspired data/writings as evidence:"...
"1: Frodo existed, because Bilbo, Gandalf and Gollum all recognized his existence!
2: Well it's exactly the same as saying Jesus existed because Saul, Peter and James say he did."

At no point do I think this. I think that Jesus existed not only because Saul, Peter and James said so; I also think so because of multiple other people and sources - such as: Thallus, Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Phlegon, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus, Joseph ben Matityahu, The Talmud and The Toledot Yeshu. [4] (all non-Biblical sources) if you put all of their writings together, you get a firm, historical case for not only Jesus' existence, but also his teachings, crucifixion, post-Mortem appearances, and Christian following in the following decades.
To give examples: Lucian of Samosata, Tacitus and Joseph Ben Matityahu write about Jesus' Crucifixion:
Lucian: "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day"the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account" - The Death of Peregrine. 11-13
Joseph: "Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross" -Judean Antiquities
Tacitus: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus" - from 'Annals'

Phlegon, a Pagan historian, writes of Jesus' Post-Mortem appearances:
"Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails." (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)"

All from [4]

So the assertion that there are no non-biblical sources for Jesus' life events is simply wrong. We have many sources to chose from.

"The Life and deeds of Socrates has very little verifiable evidence, yet many believe he existed, yet, there is even less evidence for the life and existence of Jesus, than there is for Socrates."
I can assure you that there is much, much more evidence for Jesus than there is for pretty much any other figure in the ancient world.

"Many suggest that the Life of Jesus was a recreation of the lives of previous Gods, such as Horus or Zeus."
I don't have the space to reply to this, so I will instead refer you to a short talk by Mark Foreman. It starts at about 5:00 . It is a response to the 'zeitgeist' movie, which makes pretty much the same claims you do.

"The evidence for the Crucifixion of Jesus and his Resurrection is so very thin, that it is almost non-existent."
I have shown the non-biblical evidence requested.

"He was clearly one of centuries greatest thinkers, a sort of Socrates of the 21st Century."
Hitchens was a tool. He had no academic credentials, knew very little history or philosophy, and was mainly just an angry marxist against the social structure of religion. I struggle to take him seriously. To call him a 'socrates of the 21st Century' is doing a great disservice not only to so many great minds of the 21st century we have today, but also to Socrates himself.

"Come on Con: Get your head out of the Bible, the evidence within a contrived set of writings is not evidence, because they are all part of the Christian conspiracy, and never impartial evidence."
Yes, my head is in the Bible, because my head is where the evidence lies, which is coincidentally in the Bible. You claim that there is a 'Christian conspiracy', and yet there is no evidence for these claims.

"There is Absolutely no Impartial, Eye Witness Evidence for any of Jesus's Activities, nor for his Crucifixion or his Resurrection."
Well no, just like there isn't for practically every historical figure in the ancient world we are pretty sure existed.

"I know, I spent years researching for it and never found any."
You have obviously been looking in the wrong places.

I would encourage you to watch the first video if you have the time, N.T Wright talks us through the resurrection and the evidence surrounding it.

Conclusion
The debate appears to have moved into a debate about the existence of Jesus. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Pro sets seriously unhistorical standards of evidence that simply cannot not be met not only for the life of Jesus, but for pretty much all of ancient history. He simply dismisses the accuracy of the Bible and the evidence provided without giving any reasons to do so, resorting to mockery and name-calling to refute points.

Thanks for the debate, Pro, I enjoyed it.

Sources:
[1] http://www.hebrew4christians.com...
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://pleaseconvinceme.com...
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Though Christopher Hitchens reminded me of the fact that the worlds top Jewish historians have admitted after a century of research, that the Exodus of slaves from Egypt led by Moses, was fraudulent.
Yes, the entire "Book Of Exodus" is fake, it never really occurred.
This makes all Books that refer to Exodus as also fraudulent.

Those historians are (as Hitchens stated) extremely brave and honest in actually denying one of the founding stories of their religion.
Though it is also a mainstay of Christianity which uses Exodus to promote Moses as being a man of great benevolence, when in fact he was not.
Sometimes we philosophers ponder as I have done for the last several years, that if Exodus is fraudulent, then how much of the Bible is actually honest when one of it's major foundations is false.
Possibly the entire Bible is fraudulent.
Actually, that is also highly probable, not just a mere possibility.
Nobody knows how much of the Bible was fabricated by the scribes at both the writing of the Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament, and the rewriting or formation of the first Christendom Bible under Constantine, from which the vast majority of modern Christianity evolved.
It could very well be that 90% of the Bible is fabricated, with only places. plus the names of some leaders (where the Bible chronologically errant) remain the same.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Oops I meant a Theologian is far less intelligent than any scientist or engineer.

Reason being is that the mindware of a Theologian is far more contaminated by irrational. useless knowledge than that of any scientist or engineer, thus making them less intelligent, regardless of even their IQ.
Mindware contamination, lowers a person's intelligence, it destroys their IQ.
http://gizmodo.com...
http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca...

As I have stated before William Lane Craig may appear smart, have a fairly useless piece of paper, but essentially, he's really just another dumb egotistl, who has learned a lot of very useless information.
Unless he wants to preach irrationality/religion/superstition, which is all his papers are good for.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Many Apologists have a high piece of Paper in Theology, though such pieces of paper did not exist in the time of Thomas Aquinas.

A piece of paper does not make a person a rational critical thinker.
Lane-Craig is as far from being a rational critical thinker as you can get.
He's a typical apologist, powered by delusion, not by logical reasoning.
He failed the rational thinking test years ago.

Industries around the world are now applying Rationality testing for prospective new employees, because it has been discovered that a Rational Critical thinking worker is a much safer worker to have in your workplace, they make less stupid mistakes and won't do a job in the wrong way, because some hero, father etc,.. did it that way and got away with it.
In such a future world where rationality will be required for getting even a basic factory laborer job.
William Lane Craig wouldn't be able to get a real job, regardless of his considerably worthless pieces of paper.

A Phd in Theology (pondering the mind of God, or what we here call Pondering Porkies) is about as useful as useful in getting real employment as having a Phd in Spidermanology (pondering the thoughts of Spiderman).
Truthfully, Theology is a total waste of head space, it's only useful if you want to be a church minister.
Intelligence wise, a theologist is far less intelligent than any scientist or engineer, even with a Phd.
Posted by Nzrsaa 3 years ago
Nzrsaa
Hi sagey, I'm working on a response right now.
I can see that your opinion of William Lane Craig is not too high :) honestly though, he isn't just an apologist, he has a Phd in both an Theology, his work is always peer-reviewed and has devoted his life to the subject of God and Jesus. I honestly don't think that his work is controversial - most of what he writes is the opinion of a lot of philosophers and historians and so his work is in line with contempory scholarship. I don't think he is a liar!
I agree on the voting on this site... you only really get votes if the person agrees with you or not.
Where do you live where it is that hot??!! It is freezing here!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Finally in my insomnia based ramblings, yes, I'm rambling because it is hot here and I cannot sleep.
The fan on the roof only feels like it is blowing even hotter air onto me.
Nothing else to do at midnight here that is quiet enough to not wake the wife.
Don't know how she can sleep in 35C+ temperatures. ????
Though I've been watching debates for the last 30 years.
As I've stated, debates are like the US electoral system, too often popularity wins over policies.

I liken debates to the US local state government decisions where the Irrational Stupidity called Young Earth Creationism (which should properly be changed to Young Earth Craziness) was established in their public education system, yes, this is the debate, where popularity, not reason prevailed.
Only to be Overturned by a Court Ruling, which was infinitely more Rational in it's deliberation.
Think my brain is getting tired.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
In a way, I would like to be proven Wrong.
So would every other Christian who has looked at this debate.
Con has a massive job on his shoulders.
But, as debates go, the person with the most Truth and Evidence, won't win if that Truth and Evidence is not popular with the voters.
Because a debate is not a court case.
In a court case, Evidence is everything and popularity (topic or debater) amounts to nothing.
In a debate, popularity (topic or debater) is everything and evidence may occasionally get 1 point if somebody is honest enough to tick the radio button for who presented the best argument or most reliable sources and popularity will likely get the other 5 points.
This is what I have learned from my own debates and monitoring many other debates.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I'm hoping Con will find some real evidence from outside the Bible that can be can be considered as validated objective evidence, not that people don't lie or tradition does this, which are not objective, Though I do honestly believe that those disciples who followed Jesus were very likely (cannot be proven though) honest people, but, the actual books with their names on them, were not written by them, but likely people with vested interest in gaining followers. Thus the higher probability that they would be likely to tell porkies, to gain converts to their cause.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I noticed Con used William Lane Craig's poor excuse for evidence, twice.
That half-wit wouldn't recognize evidence if he fell over it.
Everything Lane Craig cites as evidence is subjective, like disciples won't lie or Jewish tradition would assure that such a burial occurred.
Nothing in the way of objective evidence in any of Lane Craig's work.
The man is an Apologist.
All Christian Apologists are Liars, because that is their job.
Painting extremely Irrational nonsense to make it appear as Rational Truth.
Only Lying can achieve that objective.
Thus Apologists have to be Liars.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Thanks Nzrsaa for that.
I'm not likely to spent much time on responses either, there is a lot of other stuff happening here, though it will help me get another debate under my belt, so I can vote, instead of bothering to type out replies.
Thought this was an easy subject, though a little controversial in the US.
Most people here generally accept that the story of the execution and resurrection of Jesus is extremely improbable and highly irrational.
So it is only controversial, depending where you live.
Let the fun begin!
Hope you enjoy it!
No votes have been placed for this debate.