The Instigator
Charles0103
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
gavin.ogden
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead and was the Jewish Messiah

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,922 times Debate No: 14756
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (11)

 

Charles0103

Pro

This debate was made for gavin.ogden. Since he's not accepting debates at this time, I had to leave it in the challenge period. If you aren't gavin.ogden, please don't accept this debate. Thank you.

I will be arguing as Pro, that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed raised from the dead, and Con will argue that there is not enough evidence.

I would like to start out that the Gospels are four, independently written books that tell us the true picture of Jesus's life. These men had absolutely nothing to gain from writing the Gospels, yet they put their lives on the line for this truth. There is more evidence that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead than there is for Alexander the Great's existence.

The Bible tells us that the Jewish people were afraid that the disciples would come and steal Jesus's body, so Governor Pilate sent "a watch" of Roman guards to protect the tomb. Most think that a watch is around 2-6 men. How could a bunch of tax collectors and fishermen kill Roman soldiers?

According to the Bible, hundreds of people saw Jesus after He was ressurected in the 40 days before he ascended! The faith spread like wildfire because people really and truly saw Him.

There's also the case for Paul. Paul was a strict Jew. In fact, he ran around persecuting Christians all day long. Paul had some sort of divine experience and converted to Christianity. I don't think someone would make such a drastic turn in their lives for nothing. And you have to remember that Paul was executed for his beliefs. Why would he give his life for a dream?

Also, you have to remember that Jesus was only 33 years old when He was crucified. Why would He give His life for a lie?
gavin.ogden

Con

It is very rare that I accept religious debates of any kind, but Charles seems like a nice enough guy, so let's have a little fun. My opponent has a huge burden of proof to meet in this debate, so I will leave it to him to lead the way, here. He must prove, somehow, that a man was in fact raised from the dead and that he was the "Messiah."

I will be arguing that not only is this story most likely false, but also that it is not even an original story, and uses all of the same fallacies as many other religions of today and the past. With that, I will pass to my opponent to start his arguments. Good luck, Charles.
Debate Round No. 1
Charles0103

Pro

Thanks, Gavin, you too.

Allright. I'll start off with talking about the gospels of Matthew and John. These two men lived with Jesus for three whole years, and they eventually wrote these books. In a point in history where Christians were getting killed for their beliefs, why would Matthew and John risk their lives to write this down? Do you think both Matthew AND John were liars? You have to remember that they had had no contact with each other for roughly 15 years, and their stories are basically the same.

Based on what Matthew and John said was true, we know that Jesus's tomb was guarded by a watch of guards which is roughly 2-6 men. I doubt some fishermen and tax collectors could kill off some Roman soldiers, move a stone that weighs a ton, and steal Jesus's body.

According to the Gospels, hundreds of people saw Jesus after he was ressurected. The fact that the religion spread like wildfire is proof enough. Why did the religion spread so rapidly? It's simple; people saw Jesus alive after he had been crucified.

I'll leave it up to you, Gavin to refute these arguments or to make your own. Again, good luck, and I'm looking forward to a great debate.
gavin.ogden

Con

From what I gather, my opponent has made an ad populum argument to prove that a man was resurrected from the dead, and that he was "the messiah." This argument is invalid, obviously, because just because someone believes something certainly does not make it so. Furthermore, there are more Non-Christians in the world than Christians, so the ad populum argument can go both ways. Also, sources would be useful in this debate, as I have no point of reference for my opponents arguments. I do know, however, that none of the authors of the new testament had any contact with Jesus, thus the bible is strictly a second hand account.
I suppose I will simply let my opponent try one more time to make a proper argument to affirm the resolution. If he is unable to do so, a con vote will certainly be in order.
Debate Round No. 2
Charles0103

Pro

My opponent states,

"From what I gather, my opponent has made an ad populum argument to prove that a man was resurrected from the dead, and that he was "the messiah." This argument is invalid, obviously, because just because someone believes something certainly does not make it so. Furthermore, there are more Non-Christians in the world than Christians, so the ad populum argument can go both ways."

I apologize if anyone took my argument the wrong way. I meant that at this faith spread so rapidly at its initial point because people saw Jesus.

And yeah, there's more people that believe in a God than people that don't. That's not what I was arguing. Population has nothing to do with it. I'd still be a Christian whether there's 2.5 billion of us or just 1 million of us.

My opponent also states,

"Also, sources would be useful in this debate, as I have no point of reference for my opponents arguments. I do know, however, that none of the authors of the new testament had any contact with Jesus, thus the bible is strictly a second hand account."

I'm using the Gospels as my sources, as well as what should be common knowledge.

And saying that none of the authors of the Gospels didn't have contact with Jesus is just not true. John and Matthew were both disciples of Jesus. In fact, they lived with Jesus for three whole years. Mark worked closely with Matthew, and Mark also ran around with Paul a lot. Luke used second hand sources. Also, James, you know, the guy that wrote the book of James, was Jesus's half brother.

If you're going to attack the accuracy of the Bible, don't attack it by saying the authors weren't sincere. Most scholars agree that these men did indeed write the Gospels. You have to say that they were misguided or had something to gain. Here's a newsflash for everybody, they lived with the guy for three years, so no, not misguided, and they had nothing to gain. Every single disciple (except for John, he was exiled on the island of Patmos) was martyred in a very, very painful fashion.

Constantine was no idiot. He was the guy who organized the Bible at the council of Nasea. He, along with all the other leaders of the Christian faith, went through hundreds and hundreds of documents and found the most reliable ones. We've believed in these books for 2000 years and running.

I have one more thing to say. I didn't really go into the prophecies too much about Jesus being the Messiah. Really, if Jesus did rise from the dead, then I'd say it's basically a given that he was the Messiah given what He said and did.
gavin.ogden

Con

Well, I do appreciate my opponent putting in the time to debate, although I am a little upset that there are absolutely no sources cited to back up the validity of his arguments. There were no real arguments to refute, and at this point it would be in bad taste to make any new arguments to negate. However, Since the pro bore the burden of proof, and failed to affirm the resolution in any way, I urge a vote for the Con. There was no evidence provided for the resurrection of a human being, and furthermore, there certainly was no evidence provided that there even is such a thing as a "messiah". In order for my opponent to have won this debate, he would have to prove both parts of the resolution in some kind of convincing fashion.
I will simply end with this. There is no evidence to support that anyone has ever been brought back to life after the brain has died. Since it takes 5-10 minutes for the brain to die(due to lack of oxygen), and my opponent claims Jesus was resurrected after 3 days, he left much to be desired.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
Again, I thank Charles and the readers for your time.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Charles0103 5 years ago
Charles0103
Oh and by the way, for the people saying, "his only source is the bible", this is for you:

Sorry I didn't really clear this up more, but I thought my bit on Constantine would clear up the accuracy of the bible, but whatever. haha
Posted by Charles0103 5 years ago
Charles0103
What time period, gavin?
Posted by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
gavin.ogden
Who have Christians persecuted, Charles?
Posted by Charles0103 5 years ago
Charles0103
"'Paul was a strict Jew. In fact, he ran around persecuting Christians all day long.'"

"As opposed to liberal Jews who only persecuted Christians in the afternoons"

I love how people think they're so smart and then wind up making themselves look stupid-ish! A good deal of the Jewish community left the Christian movement alone. It was basically the higher ups that got all mad about it.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Yep, morning to night, just persecuting. Must have been rough on all those Christians...
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
"Paul was a strict Jew. In fact, he ran around persecuting Christians all day long."

As opposed to liberal Jews who only persecuted Christians in the afternoons...
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Zomg. I would love to argue Con on this debate.
Posted by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
@Dimitri.C: "the only resurrection story that predates Christ"

Wiki harder.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
@Dimitri.C: "the only resurrection story that predates Christ"

Wiki harder.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Charles0103gavin.ogdenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I was hoping for more substance in the arguments here, but gavin, though concise, could have brought up some points to refute earlier on - or some that he should have. EDIT: Counter-Votebomb.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Charles0103gavin.ogdenTied
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: only one with a source. Args, as I see it are fairly tied.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Charles0103gavin.ogdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro appealed to the historical accounts of the Bible obtaining to Christ as evidence intrinsic to His existence, irrespective to presupposition, of which is not logically invalid reasoning.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
Charles0103gavin.ogdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: newsplash: just because the bible says it doesnt make it true.
Vote Placed by Rinexe 5 years ago
Rinexe
Charles0103gavin.ogdenTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Even if Constantine did in fact organize the bible, motives were unclear and not pointed out by the affirmative, nor did he use sources to back it up. Pro constantly cited the bible, however, this is where the store of Jesus being the messiah comes from, which makes it fairly irrelevant in the debate. It's the exact same thing as using the bible to prove god exists, when it is known as the word of god. Though, Pro did show better conduct in the debate.
Vote Placed by Robikan 5 years ago
Robikan
Charles0103gavin.ogdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: While I agree with Con's position, he made no attempt to support his position. Yes, the burden of proof was on Pro, but this does not mean Con gets to sit back and do nothing and expect to win, which is what seems went on here. Edited to add: to be fair, I changed the vote on spelling and gramar, as they seemed to be equal.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
Charles0103gavin.ogdenTied
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: I'm so upset to have to do this, but alas the previous RFD's express my sentiments. gavin, this was SUCH an easy debate for you to win, but your reliance on the opponents burdon of proof not being forfilled was a mistake.
Vote Placed by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
Charles0103gavin.ogdenTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry Charles, you did not support the bop. Saying "the Bible says so" is not proof enough. Not to mention half of the resolution was to prove that Jesus was the Jewish messiah which is almost impossible to prove.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Charles0103gavin.ogdenTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to agree with previous RFDs. Con made no attempt to rebute any arguments, even if they were poorly done. For that, the argument goes to Pro. Sources were basically none, apart from one explaining what brain dead is, which wasn't even relevant to the debate.
Vote Placed by Floid 6 years ago
Floid
Charles0103gavin.ogdenTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10