The Instigator
Microsuck
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Neonix
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead

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 7 votes the winner is...
Microsuck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,200 times Debate No: 21216
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (7)

 

Microsuck

Pro

RESOLUTION

Jesus of Nazareth did not rose bodily from the grave.

Clarification

This debate focuses on the historical accuracy of the New Testament concerning the resurrection. Before anyone accepts this debate, I concede two points: (1) Jesus was a real person, and (2) Jesus died via crucifixion. However, we are debating if Jesus rose from the dead.

INTRODUCTION

I would like to express my appreciation to anyone who accepts this debate and this opportunity to debate this subject. I also thank debate.org for setting up this platform for us to debate.

DEFINITIONS

Jesus of Nazareth is the centural figure of Christianity, and in Christian theology, the promised messiah of the Old Testament. Jesus is allegedly God incarnate and died to atone for our sins. [1]

The resurrection is a fundamental claim of Christianity; namely, if Jesus did not rise from the grave, then Christianity is in vain.

RULES

A) Structure

1. Acceptance
2. Opening arguments
3. First rebuttals
4. Second rebuttals
5. Final rebuttals/statements. (No new arguments)

B) Acceptance

1. Only accept if you are serious about this debate.
2. Only those 17 and older may accept.
3. If you are a troll, you will be reported and blocked.

C) Conduct

1. Forfeiting and plagarism will result in a forfeit.
2. If you wish to forfeit this debate, then say so; don't let the time run out.
3. No ad hominems.

D) Voting

1. Please provide an RFD for your vote. If your vote is not up to par with RFD, your vote may be countered.
2. Please read the entire debate before voting.
3. Please do not vote based on your bias.

Good luck, I anticipate a good debate.

References

1. http://carm.org...;
Neonix

Con

I accept the debate rules as stated. This should be a fun debate. I am excited to get started.
Debate Round No. 1
Microsuck

Pro

First it is a great pleasure to be debating neonix on this issue. I read some of your debates and can tell that I am in for a challenge. Is there enough historical evidence to believe in the resurrection? That is what we are debating. I anticipate a good debate from both sides.

==Opening Arguments==

1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

To begin with, I would like to use this syllogism from the Krueger-McHugh debate [1]:

1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.2. The claim that a Jesus rose from the dead is an extraordinary claim.
3. Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead may be considered false.
4. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.
5. Therefore, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead may be considered false.

What do I mean by an extraordinary claim? I will define an extraordinary claim as a claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences of the world. Based upon my understanding of an extraordinary claim (and most people would agree), the resurrection of Jesus is an extraordinary claim.


In the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, this claim may be regarded as false. My attempt throughout my opening argument is to accomplish three things: (1) To show that the Bible is unreliable as a historical document, (2) To point out areas in which we must doubt the claims of Jesus' resurrection, and (3) To show that there is absolutely no strong evidence to support Jesus' resurrection.

2) What's the evidence?

a) The Bible cannot be relied upon as a historical document


1) Contradictions concerning the resurrection account

When examining evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, one is certainly surprised to run across contradictions which cannot possibly be reconciled. This is indeed funny because the Bible claims that it is inspired (lit. God breathed) and that the resurrection is the fundamental key of Christianity. In Paul's own words "if Jesus did not rise from the dead; then our faith is in vain and we are still in our sins." Therefore, one must ask the question why the gospels contradict itself in this fundamental key point.

Contradiction 1: The chronology of Easter week


All four gospels agree that Jesus was tried first by Jewish athorities, and then sent to a Roman court before being sentenced to death by Pilate. However, on closer elements, these agreements are very superficial. We have, in total, three different sequences of events. This is a table that shows where each of these issues lie [2]:

Mark's Chronology Luke's Chronology John's Chronology
Thursday Night
(14th/15th Nisan)
  • Taken to high priest's house
  • Night trial of the Sanhedrin
Thursday Night
(14th/15th Nisan)
  • Taken to high priest's house
  • No mention of trial at night.
Thursday Night
(13th/14th Nisan)
  • Taken to the high priest'sfather-in-law's house.
  • Informal interrogation by the high priest.
Friday Morning
(15th Nisan)
  • "consultation" with scribes, elders and the whole council
  • Handed Jesus to Pilate
  • Trial before Pilate
Friday Morning
(15th Nisan)
  • Trial before the Sanhedrin
  • Handed Jesus to Pilate
  • Trial before Pilate
Friday Morning
(14th Nisan)
  • Handed Jesus to Pilate
  • Trial before Pilate

Mark 14:61-64
[On Thursday night]
Again the high priest asked him, "are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed one?" "I am." said Jesus...The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy."

Luke 22:66-71
[On Friday morning]
At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together and Jesus was led before them...They all asked, "Are you the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying that I am." Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his lips.

Contradiction regarding the time of Jesus' death


This is a table made by Steve Wells of the Skeptic's annotated bible. [3] This outlines the problem that one gospel says that Jesus was killed the day before passover, and another states the day AFTER passover.

after noon on the day before the Passover mealMid-morning on the day after the Passover meal
John 18:28
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

John 19:14-16
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified.
Mark 14:12
And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

Mark 15:25
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Because all three synoptic gospels insist that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder, they therefore must maintain that the crucifixion occured on Passover day 1; not passover Eve as John claims. [4]

b) The resurrection accounts contain events which are doubtful to historians.


Mark 15:42-47
When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid.

There are many problems with the above passage that need to be pointed out.

1) "When evening had come" shows that it was aready Sabbath had started. This is a problem because no transaction is allowed; yet Joseph purchased a linen shroud on that day. The working and arrangement of the passage does not permit the interpretation that Joseph bought the shroud earlier. Likewise, Jesus would probably have not been burried on Sabbath. Based on this difficullty, theologian Nineham concluded: "Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the story originates from a cyce of tradition which knew of no chronological tie-up between the crucifixion and the Passover." [5]

This is also highly doubtful historically because Joseph was part of the same Sanhedrian to condemn Jesus.

Conclusion
  1. Based on the difficulties in the gospels surrounding their most fundamental claim, the Gospels should be rejected as historical evidence.
  2. The gospels contain procedure difficulties which would have been unheard of based on Jewish law and custom.
Thank you, good luck with your opening arguments.
______________

Sources

1. The Krueger-McHugh debate: "Theism or Atheism." http://www.infidels.org...;
2. Tobin, Paul. The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptics Guide To Christianity. http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...;
3. Wells, Steve. The Skeptics Annotated Bible. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...;
4. For more on this difficulty, see this video to the right of the screen. ;
5. Nineham, St. Mark. p434 quoted http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...;

Neonix

Con

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic.

Opening Arguments (Bullet Point Statements)

*- Loosely stated in the resolution, the personhood and crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a commonly accepted based on historically writings and eye witness accounts. However, the very manuscripts (some famous, some obscure) that are referenced as an authority of the personhood of Jesus Christ, also call him the risen son of God. (See References for manuscripts)


*- The Risen Christ was physical, not spiritual. If the argument (based on the wording of the resolution) is that Jesus
Christ was raised spiritually, but not physically, then we ignore the people who touched him and the food he ate after
his resurrection. The risen body of Christ is not spiritual, but rather the original, intended, perfected body.
This same body was granted to Adam before it was made corrupt and broken by the fall of mankind and this
same body is promised to the saints when they are raised in Christ. This body is called “incorruptible” and is
considered to be a harmony between flesh and spirit. (See References for a risen body)


*- During the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, it is reported by extra-biblical sources that ground shook and the sky grew
dark by an eclipse. The evidence of a supernatural death is present, which does not outright prove the resurrection,
but adds credence to the supernatural character of Jesus Christ. (See References for a Supernatural Death)

As a note to my opponent, please repost your sources. Your links are broken, yielding an “error 404”. I would like to
directly address your sources during the rebuttal rounds, if you could please repost working links.

References:

Manuscripts:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a
wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling
deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he
gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was
the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men
among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did
not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again,
just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous
things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named
after him, has not died out.

[Jewish Antiquities, 18.63-64]

"He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the
Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptised by John that all
righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our
sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we--that
is, of his most blessed passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all ages
through His resurrection."

[Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD)]

The Risen Body:

in a moment, in the twinkling of
an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be
raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. [1 Corinthians 15:52]

Philippians 3:20 But our citizenship is in
heaven – and we also await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who
will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious
body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to
himself.

1
Corinthians 15:36
Fool! What you sow will not come to
life unless it dies. 37 And what
you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare seed – perhaps of wheat or
something else. 38 But God gives
it a body just as he planned, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.

Luke 24:36-43:

36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and
said to them, "Peace be with you."

37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to
them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look
at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not
have flesh and bones, as you see I have."



40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they
still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do
you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

The Supernatural
Death

Julius Africanus, writing around 221
AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the
Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered
the land during Jesus's crucifixion:

"Thallus, in the third book of
his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the
sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take
place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Microsuck

Pro

I thank my partner for his opening reply. Unfortunately, my partner has made some serious mistakes that I wish to exploit in this round.

*- Loosely stated in the resolution, the personhood and crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a commonly accepted based on historically writings and eye witness accounts...
  1. I have already conceded that Jesus Christ was a historical person.
  2. I have already conceded that Jesus died by crucifixion.
*- The Risen Christ was physical, not spiritual....
  1. This is the claim that you make.
  2. This is the claim I am arguing against.

*- During the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, it is reported by extra-biblical sources that ground shook and the sky grew
dark by an eclipse...
  1. You need to provide these extra-Biblical sources.
  2. You need to prove that these sources are reliable.
Onto the sources

1) Jewish Antiquities, 18.63-64

This is a serious mistake exploited by my partner. Unfortunately, the majority of scholars view this as an interpolation.

Evidence:
  1. Not a single Christian author has used this as support for the Jesus myth.
  2. It is quite absurd that Josephus claims that Jesus was the Messiah yet remained an orthodox Jew. Likewise, it is also absurd to claim that Josephus would even dare to claim that God became a man.
  3. Why did Josephus only make one paragraph of Jesus if Josephus really thought that Jesus was "the Christ" (lit. The Messiah), instead of making a casual point for his existence? [1]
  4. Matt Slick from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry admits, "The problem with the copies of Antiquities is that they appear to have been rewritten in favor of Jesus and some say too favorable to have been written by a Jew. Add to this that the Christians were the ones who kept and made the copies of the Josephus documents throughout history and you have a shadow of doubt cast upon the quotes." [2]

[Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD)]

There are some problems with this:

  1. You need to prove that this letter is a reliable source without bias.
  2. This is a hearasy account written almost a hundred years after Jesus.
  3. This source is clearly bias as Ignatius of Antioch was a Christian trying to prove Jesus' resurrection to the Smyrneans.
The Risen Body
  1. Quotes from the Bible prove nothing from this debate.
  2. I have provided evidence from the previous round that the New Testament cannot be relied upon.
  3. The Bible is a claim, not proof.
  4. Chris points out,
    The passage is 1st Corinthians 15:3-9, and
    most Biblical scholars agree it was really written by Paul. But again, would you accept similar
    evidence in favor of another religion’s miracles? The Mormon church has statements signed by
    several people attesting to miracles that are supposed to confirm the truth of the Book of the
    Mormon, but you probably won’t convert to Mormonism based on that. Also, Paul doesn’t tell us
    how he knows about all these appearances, so we can’t be confident his report is accurate. [3]

The Supernatural Death

Here are some problems with these quotes:

  1. Julius Africanus is a hearasy account and should not be relied upon.
  2. The Thallus quote is easily doubtful.
    1. The fact that a solar eclips marked the death of a king was not unheard of in pagan mythology. [4]
    2. We know nothing about Thallus, nor do we know anything about his work. Therefore, we do not know if Thallus is even relialbe to begin with.
    3. It is possible that this was a forgery as well. [5]
Conclusion

In efforts to "prove" the resurrection of Jesus, my partner has made a very weak case quoting historians writting long after the alleged event. Likewise, we know from philosophy that this is an argument from authority, also this is argumentum ad populum. My partner has proven nothing.

_______________________

References


a) From this round

1. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com...;
2. http://carm.org...;
3. https://docs.google.com...;
4. Greek Lore has tons of examples of this. See Herodotus 7.37, Plutarch Pelopidas 31.3 and Aemilius Paulus 17.7-11, Dio Cassius 55.29.3, John Lydus De Ostentis 70.a as examples.
5. See http://www.infidels.org...;

b) From the previous round.

I apologize that the links from the previous round did not work. Here they are.

1. http://www.infidels.org...
2. http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...
3. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...;(remove the %20 if needed)
4. Video works for me.
5. http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...;

Neonix

Con

The debate title uses the word "bodily" as to insiuate a spiritual raising, yet the resolution attempt to claim a total lack of resurrection. My opponent engineered this debate, to allow himself an "out". This vauge attempt to confuse the resolution is common, which is why I addressed it in my argument. The risen Christ was touched by his followers and ate food in their presence. If the resurrection occured, it was physical. Let the obscured resolution come into clarity. We are concerned with the physical resurrection. If my opponent wishes to argue that Christ was risen spiritually rather than physically, then let him outright make this claim.


My opponent claims that the Bible is not a source to prove the resurrection, yet the Bible is the source of the information of the resurrection. Excluding the Bible as an evidence source in this debate, is the establishment of a strawman. In addition, if the Bible does not count for evidence, why has my opponent quoted it so ferverously in an attempt to confuse the chronology?

Obviously the Bible counts as evidence. The opponent has already admitted to the personhood and death of Jesus Christ, the source of which is the Bible. As stated in the previous round, my opponent is picking helpful portions of the manuscripts to aid his case and ignoring the damaging parts by calling them illegitimate. This debate, by definition, is an engineered strawman.


My opponent attempted to confuse the chronology of the resurrection by using the Bible. I ask my opponent a few questions:

1.> How does a mismatched calendar date disprove an occurance? If my calendar claims Christmas is in February, does that mean Christmas was not celebrated? Your argument doesn't disprove the resurrection, it makes claims about the timeframe of it's occurance.

2.> You claim the Gospels should be rejected as a historical text, yet you agree that Jesus Christ was a person who was executed by the Romans through crucifixion. You can only know this by reading the Bible, reading the apocriphal texts or reading the secular sources, all of which you have discredited as "a very weak case quoting historians writting long after the alleged event."

Conclusion: My opponent wishes to make the personhood of Jesus an axiomatic truth. It is not axiomatic. It is based on historical evidence. My opponent has accepted this evidence openly. My opponent is now trying to diffuse that exact evidence, as it's being used to extend the personhood of Jesus, to the divinity of Jesus. This is an oxymoron. It is like claiming:" I believe in huricaines because I trust the weather channel to track the event accurately. However, I don't believe their claim that Huricanes are seasonal because the weather channel is prone to error."

This may seem like a silly example but it's an accurate portrail of trusting a source as the expert in one instance and then rejecting it in another on seemingly similar issues.


In short, my opponent has thoroughly shot himself in the foot, when he discredited my sources as inaccurate. He is relying on their accuracy to claim Christ even existed. I don't feel I need to address his argument any further in this regard. To debate the topic of credence any further is silly. We either accept the sources or wholly reject them as a whole.


My opponent has made no other claims to support his burden of proof. I find no argument that merits the absence of deity. Most of his arguments attempt to demerit human scholars, not Christ himself.


New arguments:


Since the Bible is the majority source for the claims of the resurrection fo Christ, I will provide evidence that the Bible is a trustworthy document.


Lysanius, Nicodemus and the ben Gurion family, Mary/Martha and Lazarus,"The crucified man", Simon of Cyrene, the Pilate Inscriptions, Sergius Paulus inscriptions, Erastus the Treasurer of Corinth, Gallio the govenor of Corinth are all real people mentioned in the Bible.

Nazareth, Capernaum, Jerusalem, Caesarea, Derbe in Turkey, Ephesus in Turkey and Corinth in Greece are real places, verified to have existed (or still do exist).


If we wish to elliminate the Bible as evidence, then we must elliminate the evidence that verifies the Bible.

Extend argument to next round - Jesus was risen from the dead, as per the detailed historically verified text.
Debate Round No. 3
Microsuck

Pro

=====> Introduction <======

As I was reading my partner's reply, I was astonished to see that he completely droped his arguments from the last round, completely ignoring my objections to the Josephs quote, and adding new arguments.

"Obviously the Bible counts as evidence..."

No, the Bible does not count as evidence; it would be like using the Koran to prove that the moon split in twain as the Koran puts it. I conceded Jesus' crucifixion and life for purpose of this debate. In fact, I can easily argue (and will argue in the future) that Jesus that is mentioned in the current New Testament never even existed.


=====> Rebuttals <======

I. Rebuttals to new arguments

Since the Bible is the majority source for the claims of the resurrection for Christ, I will provide evidence that the Bible is a trustworthy document.
  1. Not only is it the majority source, it is the only source.
  2. One must pause to wonder why historians such as Philos and Josephus completely missed Jesus' resurrection and the aftershock of the dead saints resurrecting and the temple veil tearing apart.
Lysanius, Nicodemus and the ben Gurion family...are all real people mentioned in the Bible.
  1. Just because the Bible contains historical people, does not mean that it is trustworthy.
  2. The Koran mentions people that we believe to have existed, yet we do not hold the Koran as a reliable historical evidence because of this. These historical people include, but by no means are limited to:
    1. Muhommad,
    2. Alexander the Great,
    3. Jesus (for the purpose of this debate), and
    4. Cyrus the Great.
Nazareth, Capernaum, Jerusalem, Caesarea, Derbe in Turkey, Ephesus in Turkey and Corinth in Greece are real places, verified to have existed (or still do exist)
  1. See above.
  2. What does this prove? The argument is the equivalent of using the historical places in the Wizard of Oz (Kansas) to prove it is true!
If we wish to elliminate the Bible as evidence, then we must elliminate the evidence that verifies the Bible.
  1. What evidence verifies the Bible?
  2. I already discounted the Josephus evidence as well as the other "evidence" that you provided in round 1!
II. Further Rebuttals

My opponent claims that the Bible is not a source to prove the resurrection, yet the Bible is the source of the information of the resurrection. Excluding the Bible as an evidence source in this debate, is the establishment of a strawman. In addition, if the Bible does not count for evidence, why has my opponent quoted it so ferverously in an attempt to confuse the chronology?
  1. The Bible is the very source we are debating.
  2. The resurrection is the event in question.
  3. It is not the establishment of a straw man because we are currently debating the reliability of the Greek Testament.
  4. I have quoted from the Bible for the following reasons:
    1. To prove that it is unreliable
    2. To show that it is full of contradictions.
      1. These contradictions cast shadows of doubt on the reliability of the source.
1.> How does a mismatched calendar date disprove an occurance? If my calendar claims Christmas is in February, does that mean Christmas was not celebrated? Your argument doesn't disprove the resurrection, it makes claims about the timeframe of it's occurance.
  1. I fail to see what your point is. What are you trying to prove?
  2. It appears my partner concedes that the GT contains contradictions in concerning the crucifixion of Jesus. One must pause to wonder the following:
    1. Why did the gospel of John forget what date Jesus was crucified on? I believe it is to make Jesus the passover lamb. [1]
    2. If we know that John contains this historical error, what other errors must John (and the other gospels) contain?

2.> You claim the Gospels should be rejected as a historical text, yet you agree that Jesus Christ was a person who was executed by the Romans through crucifixion. You can only know this by reading the Bible, reading the apocriphal texts or reading the secular sources, all of which you have discredited as "a very weak case quoting historians writting long after the alleged event."
  1. I have indeed discredited my partner's evidence, which apparently, you dropped.
  2. As mentioned earlier, I do not believe Jesus ever exited to begin with [2] therefore, your opinion is straw-man and a red-herring. I concede Jesus' life for purpose of this debate.
Conclusion
  1. My partner drops his arguments from the previous round.
  2. My partner has not answered any of my objections from the opening round.
  3. My partner has brought up new evidence in the previous round, which is a weaker case than his previous arguments.

For the very fact that my partner doesn't even bother to defend his arguments, I urge an affirmative vote. I conclude that Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead.

_______________

Notes

1. It appears that the Gospel of John continues to compare Jesus to the Passover lamb. See Bart Ehrmans Jesus, Interrupted for more on this doctrine.

2. The Jesus of the current GT is a legend. He was most likely a person who was personified into the Messiah and God incarnate. I do not believe this "Rabbi Jesus" even claimed to be God. See Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus to see more on how the GT transforms Jesus into a "rabbi" to the Messiah!
Neonix

Con

My opponent has stopped arguing objectively. He claims that I have dropped arguments or
failed to respond to his arguments. Let the following arguments show that I have answered
his sources, his claims and forced him into a corner.

I based my entire argument on his admission that Jesus Christ is a real person (see resolution). Now
that I have used this point to my advantage, he drops his admission and blatantly changes
his resolution, promising that he "will argue in the future that Jesus that is mentioned in the current
New Testament never even existed."

If I had not addressed his evidence, in regard to the resolution, then he would not be forced to
abandon his resolution. I see this as a point of defeat. My opponent has been forced to completely
change his resolution and is therefore in error. He is only doing this, in an attempt to disallow the Bible as evidence. (Which he cannot do until he discredits it by disproving it's historical evidence).

I claim:
•The Bible is the evidence for the resurrection
•Before we discredit the Bible, we must discredit the evidence that verifies the Bible

My Opponent claims:
•Jesus was real, until I used the Bible as evidence
•The Bible is not taken seriously by any real scholars
•The evidence I posted doesn't count for no other reason except his foot-stomping protest.

Conclusion: I maintain the argument; PRO must disprove the historical validity of the Bible before he can disprove
its claims concerning the resurrection. PRO instigated the argument; he seeks to disprove the
resurrection based on the source. The burden of proof is his. He has not shown that the Bible cannot
be trusted as a historical manuscript. I have provided ample evidence that people, places and events
mentioned in the Bible are accurate, based on secular scrutiny. Pro has attempted to discredit them by
mere protest only.





Rebuttals to Notes:

Jesus Christ is referred to as the Passover Lamb. That is correct. He was slain, his death pleased God,
he was sacrificed as an atonement for sin. You have that absolutely correct.


Refuting that Jesus never called himself God:

During Christ's trial, the chief priests asked Him point blank, "Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

And He said,

• "I am." (Mark 14:60-62)

• "Yes, it is as you say." (Matt. 26: 63-65)

• "You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:67-70)

John 10:30-33 - Jesus answered them, "I and My Father are one." Then the Jews took up stones
again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father.
For which of those works do you stone Me?" The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we
do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."

John 14:9-11 - Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long and yet you have not known
Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

John 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

John 8:24 - "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM
He, you will die in your sins."

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...
1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,




New Arguments:
Here is a list of historical person that verify the Bible as a historical document:

Ahab, Ahaz, Apries, Artaxerxes I, Baruch ben Neriah, Belshazzar,Ben-hadad
Cyrus II of Persia, Darius I, Esarhaddon,Evil Merodach, Hazael,Hezekiah, Hoshea, Jehoash,
Jehoiachin,Jehu, Johanan, Manasseh,Menahem, Mesha, Merodach-baladan,
Nebuchadnezzar II, Necho, Omri, Pekah, Rezin, Sanballat, Sargon II, Sennacherib,
Shalmaneser V, Taharqa,Tattenai, Tiglath-Pileser III, Xerxes I,
Annas, Augustus Caesar, Caiaphas,Herod the Great, Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas, Herodias,
Pontius Pilate, Quirinius,Tiberius Caesar, Salome
Ananias son of Nedebaios, Antonius Felix, Aretas IV Philopatris Berenice, Claudius Caesar,
Drusilla, Gamaliel the Elder, Herod Agrippa I, Herod Agrippa II, Judas
of Galilee, Junius Annaeus Gallio, Porcius Festus,

Also to be considered:

Tentatively Identified
Azaliah, Azariah ,Darius II , Gedaliah son of Ahikam, Gedaliah son of Pashhur, Gemariah, Geshem, Hilkiah,
Jehucal son of Shelemiah, Jerahmeel, Jeroboam (II), Jezebel, Josiah, Jotham, Nebo-Sarsekim,
Nergal-sharezer, Seraiah, Shebna , Sheshonq I, Uzziah, Zedekiah, son of Hananiah
Sergius Paulus, Lysanias, Theudas

References as found in bulk:
1.^ Rainey, Anson F. Stones for Bread: Archaeology versus History [1] in Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 140-149
2.^ Hallo, William W. ed., The Context of Scripture, Brill Academic Publishers, 1997-2002
3.^ Caiger, Stephen L. Bible and Spade, Oxford University Press, 1936
4.^ Deutsch, Robert First Impression: What We Learn from King Ahaz's Seal [2] in Biblical Archaeology Review, July 1998, pp. 54-56, 62
5.^ The palace of Apries, University College London, 2002
6.^ Petrie, W. M. Flinders & Walker, J. H., The palace of Apries (Memphis II) [3], published by School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College, 1909)
7.^ Wolfram Grajetzki, Stephen Quirke, Narushige Shiode, Digital Egypt for Universities [4], University College London, 2000
8.^ Rogerson, John William; Davies, Philip R.; The Old Testament world, Continuum International, 2005, p. 89 [5]
9.^ a b Dunn, James D. G. & Rogerson, John William, Eerdmans commentary on the Bible, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003, Artaxerxes: p. 321 [6]; Pauline epistles: p. 1274 [7]
10.^ Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, translated by Thomas Hobbes, Book 1, Chapter 137 [8]
11.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Pritchard, James B. ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton University Press, third edition with supplement 1969: Ashurbanipal: pp. 294-298, 300 etc.; Benhadad and Tiglath-Pileser III: p. 655; Darius, Johanan and Sanballat: p. 492; Essarhaddon and Necho: p. 297; Hezekiah: p. 288; Hoshea and Pekah: p. 282; Josiah: p. 569; Manasseh: pp. 291, 294; Menahem: p. 283;
12.^ Goodspeed, George, A History of the Babylonians and Assyrians, New York NY, C. Scribners Sons, 1902
13.^ Peck, Harry Thurston, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities [9], New York, Harper and Brothers, 1898
14.^ a b Avigad, Nahman, Baruch the Scribe and Jerahmeel the King's Son [10] in The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Spring, 1979), pp. 114-118
15.^ Shanks, Hershel, Fingerprint of Jeremiah's Scribe in Biblical Archeology Review 2 (1996): 36-38.
16.^ Nabonidus Cylinder [11] translation by Paul-Alain Beaulieu, author of The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C. (1989)
17.^ a b Geoffrey W. Bromiley International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A-D, Agrippa: p. 42; Ben-Hadad III: p. 459
18.^ Cyrus cylinder [12], translation by Irving Finkel, at the British Museum
19.^ Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi; The Jewish study Bible, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 1243 [13]
20.^ Stead, Michael R.; Raine, John W.; The intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8, Continuum International, 2009, p. 40 [14]
21.^ a b Thompson, R. Campbell, The prisms of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal found at Nineveh [15], p. 9 and 25
22.^ Barton, George A., Archæology and the Bible, American Sunday-school union, 1917, p. 381 [16]
23.^ Beaulieu, Paul-Alain, The pantheon of Uruk during the neo-Babylonian period, BRILL, 2003, pp. 151, 329 [17]
24.^ a b The Black Obelisk at the British Museum. Translation adapted by K.C. Hanson from Luckenbill, Daniel David Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Vol. 1. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1927
(+ 76 more) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Microsuck

Pro

=====> Introduction <======

Because this is the last round, I will make only a few minor points and respond to a few of his. This last round (as per the terms) is for final rebuttals and closing. I like keeping the last round under 5000 characters. I must say, I am highly disapointed in my partner.

=====> My case <======

I have argued that the Bible cannot be relied upon as historical evidence based upon the numerous contradictiosn and faulty history that exists within the four gospels. My partner neglected to respond to this and added new arguments every single round.

"My partner claims..."

•Jesus was real, until I used the Bible as evidence
  1. I conceded this based on the type of debate not based upon the Bible.
•The Bible is not taken seriously by any real scholars
  1. Where did I claim this?
•The evidence I posted doesn't count for no other reason except his foot-stomping protest.
  1. Huh? Where did I claim this?
Refuting that Jesus never called himself God:

I never claimed this. I claimed that it was misquoted. Likewise, this point is irrelavent to both of our cases.

New Arguments:

As seen earlier, my partner made new arguments every single round. I believe this shows poor conduct.

Here is a list of historical person that verify the Bible as a historical document:

Argumentum ad populum.

Tentatively Identified

This proves nothing.

Conclusion
  1. My partner added new arguments every single round, which shows lack of conduct.
  2. My partner copied and pasted from wikipedia's sources, showing that he plagarized his sources and did very poor research for this debate.
  3. My partner defended none of his opening arguments.
  4. My parnter has not proved that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.
  5. I have shown that the Bible is not a reliable source; thus casting doubt on the resurrection.
For these 5 reasons, I strongly urge an affirmative vote.




Neonix

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate. I'm sorry that he decided to resort to character attacks by expressing his disappointment in me. I don't think condescension is necessary to sway voting opinion. The debate was about the resolution, not my ability,my form or Pro's fragile sensibilities. Otherwise, I was quite happy with the results of the debate.


1.>My opponent attacks my debate style, by complaining that I issued new arguments every round. The rules only prohibit new arguments during the final round because these arguments cannot be addressed. There is no demerit in posting new arguments in every other round. I find no resource on debate.org or in the resolution that prohibit me from attacking my opponent with arguments. I simply debate with an offensive posture. Chess players do the same. If my opponent felt he was overwhelmed by my arguments, he could have taken more time to respond. His average respond time was less than an hour.

I committed no conduct violations, as per any standing rule. Nor would I beg the judges for free points, which my opponent has clearly done in his character attacks (if seen through the right eyes could actually border on ad hominem ). I would ask my opponent to resort to his debating ability to win a round.

2.>My arguments against my opponent stands. He keeps protesting that the resolution is not based upon the Bible. Immediately after, he concedes that the Bible is the source of the resurrection. He is trying to separate the source from the argument. That is no more possible than separating law from lawyer. The central source of the resurrection claim is the Bible, if we are to discredit the resurrection, we must discredit the source. It would be similar to discredit the intent of the founding fathers, but now allowing the signed declaration of independence to be reviewed for scrutiny. What my opponent has done is called a straw-man argument. He engineered an argument to exclude the only viable evidence. It would be similar to proclaim:"Explain the origin of the computer, but you can't use human intelligence as the source."

It's a silly tactic and I made it a clear point to circumvent his attempts to control the debate with legalism. His only response has been protests like:"This proves nothing."


3.> My opponent admitted defeat. Quoting "....thus casting doubt on the resurrection."

Bearing the burden of proof, we require more than doubt. Pro claimed the Bible was wrong and that Jesus did not rise from death. Pro must show proof, not doubt. A case is made by absolute facts.


4.> My sources show that the Bible has significant historical value. The amount of data that has been verified as true makes it more credible than incredible. The only response my opponent offered to my list of verified Biblical characters was:"This proves nothing."


Actually, it proves quite a bit. It proves the Bible is a document of historical significance. It also means that Pro has failed to discredit the 101 sources that followed.



Conclusion:

I would agree that neither of us proved anything conclusively. That, however, is not my problem to deal with. The burden of proof lies with the man who claims to be able to discredit the Bible and the resurrection.


Thank you to my opponent and the voting public. I learned a lot.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
David, my old username made me soundtoo militant
Posted by Neonix 4 years ago
Neonix
If someone wants to really be fair, please vote on this debate. http://www.debate.org...

Infidel forfeited and it's stood as a tie for over a week.
Posted by Neonix 4 years ago
Neonix
Am I seeing this right? Two counters for one botched vote? The legalism is getting thick in here. Someone please counter on of the other counter votes.
Posted by Davididit 4 years ago
Davididit
Microsuck, you're Kohai/Mr.Infidel aren't you?
Why the account change and you went back to atheism?

lol.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Nice vBomb, DevonNetzley , think you can give a better RFD?
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Nice vBomb, DevonNetzley , think you can give a better RFD?
Posted by Skynet 5 years ago
Skynet
Eh, that's a lot of speculation, Tacos. They sealed up the grave with a very heavy disc-shaped stone in a stone track, then set a Roman guard all night in front of it. I say you either believe the testimony given in the Gospels, or dismiss it. The whole sleeping thing is even less believable.
Posted by JayR 5 years ago
JayR
A good debate. Tied would be my vote.
Posted by IcookTacos 5 years ago
IcookTacos
Well, I think that the consequences from being crucified is that the veins in your arms and wrists will brake and cause internal bleeding and can flood your lungs, so there is a possibility that Jesus just passed out on the cross and people thought he had died. I have also heard that to ensure his death his chest was penetrated by a spear. That last part is something I'm very unsure of, but if that's the case, could it not be that the spear that went into Jesus chest also made a hole in his flooded lung, and then causing the blood to pour out and therefore saving his life. That's just my theory.
Posted by Neonix 5 years ago
Neonix
Mhm......(Shrugs).......oh well. Humility is not my strong point.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by FIGHTTHEPOWER29 4 years ago
FIGHTTHEPOWER29
MicrosuckNeonixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Helping thett3 counter VB DevonNetzley
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
MicrosuckNeonixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I will vote later tonight.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
MicrosuckNeonixTied
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: Counter
Vote Placed by DevonNetzley 4 years ago
DevonNetzley
MicrosuckNeonixTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: My reasons lie within my vote, but to a more understandable way to put this. I agree with Cons arguments. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, i am a strong believer as a Christian.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
MicrosuckNeonixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I really liked Con's used of other manuscripts outside of the Bible to help make his point. In my opinion they were strong and refreshing pieces of interesting evidence.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
MicrosuckNeonixTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Microsuck had a much stronger argument. He adequately refuted the claims of Neonix, refuted all of his sources where needed - or even wanted - and has shown, yet again, how perfect preparation is the key to debating victory. The extraordinary claims was a great start, the refutation of the evidence Neonix provided kept the steam train rolling, and he ended by a massive put-down of almost every argument Neonix used.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
MicrosuckNeonixTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate got derailed. Both sides complained about the other side not playing fair, so neither one gets the conduct point. On balance, Pro was the better arguer. Con was in the habit of spamming a lot of source but not actually explaining his arguments.