The Instigator
Brainii
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Tophatdoc
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Resurrection of Jesus Christ

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 2 votes the winner is...
Tophatdoc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,329 times Debate No: 43675
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Brainii

Pro

In this debate, I will try to prove the Resurrection of Jesus using historical fact and believability errors to disprove any other theories that attempts to explain the six minimal facts. Also, I would appreciate it if my opponent will explain what his religious beliefs are as to make it easier for the readers and me to understand where my opponent is coming from as far as his/her arguments. Thanks to whoever accepts this debate. I am really looking forward to this, and I hope the readers will enjoy.
Tophatdoc

Con

i accept Pro's challenge. I would like to thank Pro for hosting this debate. I as Con will be arguing against the resolution which is the "Resurrection of Jesus Christ" was a historical fact. I assume Pro has the Burden of Proof because he is trying to prove the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I am an Agnostic when it comes to questions about gods and god. I am a nihilist when it comes to morality.

I will await for my opponent's arguments.

I apologize if my arguments get a bit convoluted. I might still be recovering from a fever.
Debate Round No. 1
Brainii

Pro

First, there are some facts that need to be established before any real arguments are made.

I. The Bible is a reliable and accurate document.
II. Jesus exists as a historical figure.
The next historical facts that encompass Jesus" resurrection are:
I. That Jesus was crucified and that he died.
II. That he was buried in a tomb and that later, the tomb was found empty.
III. That friends and enemies claimed to have seen him afterwards.

Using these basic facts, I plan to defend the authenticity of the resurrection and these facts.
This round will be used to determine whether my opponent agrees with the information set out here, as to make the other rounds solely on what needs to be debated.
Tophatdoc

Con

"I. The Bible is a reliable and accurate document."
I don't agree. None of the four Gospels were written when Jesus of Nazerth was alive. None of the Gospel authors were at the Crucifixion. Exaggeration and misinformation was inenvitable because the first Gospel written after Jesus' death which was fifty years or more after his death. Therefore it leads one to wonder how many people were alive at that point to claim that they saw Jesus' death?

"II. Jesus exists as a historical figure."
Agreed.

"I. That Jesus was crucified and that he died."
I agree that he was crucified. However I am not so sure he was dead when he was taken down from the cross.

"II. That he was buried in a tomb and that later, the tomb was found empty."
Not quite sure. See my response to point "I."

"III. That friends and enemies claimed to have seen him afterwards."
Not quite sure. See my response to point "I."
Debate Round No. 2
Brainii

Pro

First, let's tackle the least difficult question first.
"However, I am not so sure he was dead when he was taken down from the cross."
There was no question that Jesus died. He would have had to survive a scourging, a punishment that was so brutal, victims did not always survive, a crucifixion, a punishment nobody survived because it was intended to kill and was brutally efficient, and survive a spear through the rib and to the heart, a punishment that was intended to make sure that the victim died. Even if he survived all that, when he woke up from his grave, he would have had to relocate his shoulder and maybe his elbows back into place, stand up on feet that were now most likely useless. He would have had to move a tombstone that weighed several hundred pounds, and then overpower several guards that were watching over his tomb. Then he would have had to walk 7 miles to Emmaus, and convince his friends there that he was risen, then walk 7 miles to Jerusalem and pass through the city without being recognized or even attracting attention to himself, while wearing only his burial clothes with strips of skin hanging from his body from the scourging. Jesus then had to find his disciples, somehow sneak into the room without being detected, and make it seem to the disciples that he had rose from the dead and had defeated death. At the very least, they would have called a doctor, not spreading the good news of Jesus' resurrection and other such things. They also would not have been willing to die for this!

The other objection that must be addressed is whether or not the Bible is correct as far as miracles or historical evidence.
First, the objection of "None of the Gospel authors were at the Crucifixion."
John the disciple was at Jesus' crucifixion. Also, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was also at his crucifixion, and she is where the gospel writer Luke got most of his information. The New Testament had a very little chance of having information fabricated and exaggerated. According to Dr. Josh McDowell in his book,Don't Check Your Brains at the Door, he says, "Two factors are most important in determining the reliability of a historical document: the number of manuscript copies in existence, and the time between when it was first written, and the oldest existing copy." For Caesar's book, The Gallic
Wars, the time span was 1,000 years, and the number of copies was 10. For Plato, the time span was 1,200 years, and the amount of existing manuscripts is 7. Now, however, for the New Testament, the time was 25 years and the number of copies is 24,000+. As far as fabrication and embellishment, there was a very little chance of that happening. Compared to other writings of this time, the New Testament is more reliable by far.
As for making up the resurrection and other miracles that Jesus performed, it was completely illogical for the New Testament writers to do this. They knew that relating such impossible facts would get them killed. And it did! Every New Testament writer got martyred for their faith, with the exception of John, who was marooned on the island of Patmos by the Roman government. There was nothing to gain, but everything to lose. Yet, they were so passionate about what they had seen, that they were willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believed to be the truth.

Tophatdoc

Con

"There was no question that Jesus died. He would have had to survive a scourging, a punishment that was so brutal, victims did not always survive, a crucifixion, a punishment nobody survived because it was intended to kill and was brutally efficient, and survive a spear through the rib and to the heart, a punishment that was intended to make sure that the victim died."

There is no evidence that he died from the Crucifixion itself. There is no evidence that his heart was directly punctured with a spear either. Who is to say that Jesus of Nazareth didn't lose consciousness for a short period of time due to excruciating pain[1]? Or perhaps how can we account the fact that Jesus of Nazareth didn't fall into a coma for a longer period of time[2]? The concept of a coma as diagnosed is strictly a modern phenomena. Meaning that people in the past were buried while they were in a vegetative state. They could not of woken up from their vegetative state and lived if they were buried. However, Jesus of Nazareth was not buried.

[1]http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[2]http://www.ninds.nih.gov...

"Even if he survived all that, when he woke up from his grave, he would have had to relocate his shoulder and maybe his elbows back into place, stand up on feet that were now most likely useless. He would have had to move a tombstone that weighed several hundred pounds, and then overpower several guards that were watching over his tomb."

Jesus of Nazareth would not need to do this if his followers removed the his body from the tomb.

"John the disciple was at Jesus' crucifixion."

There is no evidence that John the disciple wrote the book of John if your implying that[3]. To claim that it was a firsthand account of the Crucifixion would be a mere assumption not a fact.

[3]http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

"Also, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was also at his crucifixion, and she is where the gospel writer Luke got most of his information"

Luke did not receive his information directly from the Mary the mother of Jesus. The Gospel of Luke is claimed to have been written about 62 AD[4]. Jesus' mother would of most likely been dead by this point in time. Therefore there would be many errors in the Gospel of Luke.

[4]http://carm.org...

"The New Testament had a very little chance of having information fabricated and exaggerated."

It would be in their nature to exaggerate. I would go so far as to say all great events in history are exaggerated because "perception is reality."If perception is reality the amount of facts are distorted due to the perception of those who perceive such events.

"For Caesar's book, The Gallic Wars, the time span was 1,000 years, and the number of copies was 10. For Plato, the time span was 1,200 years, and the amount of existing manuscripts is 7. Now, however, for the New Testament, the time was 25 years and the number of copies is 24,000+. As far as fabrication and embellishment, there was a very little chance of that happening. Compared to other writings of this time, the New Testament is more reliable by far."

That is a poor comparison. Neither Julius Caesar or Plato wrote a book claiming to be the son of god, or being god, or human beings being resurrected from the dead. The aura of mythology does not surround either of those books you mentioned. Neither would come into the same questioning as I am asking about the validity of the Gospels. One is a historical document about warfare with no supernatural events. The other is a philosophical author writing about his perception of the world that surrounds him and how one should function within it.

"As for making up the resurrection and other miracles that Jesus performed, it was completely illogical for the New Testament writers to do this. They knew that relating such impossible facts would get them killed. And it did! Every New Testament writer got martyred for their faith, with the exception of John, who was marooned on the island of Patmos by the Roman government. "

To make it up would be to their advantage. Do human beings get attracted by the boring and the mundane or the exciting and the shocking? A simple rule in propaganda states a half-truth or lie must be stated boldly in order for it to be accepted by the masses of people. I will just quote a 20th century master propagandist Dr. Joseph Goebbels.

"the principle & which is quite true in itself & that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily" -Dr. Joseph Goebbels[5]

[5]http://www.calvin.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
Brainii

Pro

Brainii forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Brainii

Pro

Brainii forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

Extend all arguments. I would like to thank Pro for hosting this debate. If you agree that Pro has failed to prove the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by marviniscool 3 years ago
marviniscool
The Gospels were written by men through God. So even if the authors didn't write the Gospels when Jesus was on earth, they are accurate. John was on of Jesus' disciples who was at the Crucifixion and John wrote the Gospel of John, John 1,2, & 3, and Revelation. Many people saw Jesus after his resurrection. Some seem to think that Jesus wasn't really dead when he was taken down from the cross. This theory has serious flaws. First, crucifixion was not survivable. The Roman soldiers were not about to jeopardize their careers, and possibly their lives, by failing in their duty to kill. Second, before His crucifixion, Jesus had been beaten severely. He was already bloodied and weak. Third, before being taken down, the Roman soldiers stabbed his rib with a spear to make sure he was 100% dead. After Jesus descended into heaven, the disciples gained much courage and went out spreading the word. Remember that before Jesus returned to them, they spent their time hiding in fear of being killed. After, though, they had the courage to go out and spread the word, it didn't matter how much they were laughed at, or how many times they were threatened, or how bad they were beaten, they were willing to die to tell the world about the risen Savior.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
So god sent his son, who was god, to pretend to suffer and die, sounds like a con job to me. How can Jesus die if he's god? Why can't god just remove the sin ( that he gave us) without human sacrifice?
Posted by Archangel12 3 years ago
Archangel12
Not everything in the world can be explain by science. Some things are meant to be kept in the shrouds of mysteries.
Posted by Archangel12 3 years ago
Archangel12
Not everything in the world can be explain by science. Some things are meant to be kept in the shrouds of mysteries.
Posted by Ma555 3 years ago
Ma555
I agree it is a miracle with the moving of the huge stone but that is what Jesus did right, miracles.
Posted by Galal 3 years ago
Galal
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is by all means a miracle as mentioned in religions. A miracle is an act of super natural phenomena that does not apply to the universal laws of physics and rationality and is often perceived as somewhat of a divine influence. That being said, if it was indeed a divine act or a miracle as claimed. Then the laws of logic and rational thinking would simply not apply to it. And thus can not be disproven or proven. Finally, that is why it falls under the category of religion and belief. People choose to believe in it, because it is supernatural in it's nature. Logic does not play a role here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
BrainiiTophatdocTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Strong win for Tophatdoc. Con would have won even if Pro didn't forfeit from the looks of it, but you never know. Pro had a very difficult case to prove, having to prove several difficult steps. Con gives evidence that discredits the gospels/gospel myths well. In fact, Con is quite correct.As an aside, the disciples/story tellers had very good reason to lie in order to make Jesus more closely fit their apocalyptic expectations. Like Con said, John was indeed anonymous, there's no reason to think John wrote it. In fact, all of the gospels were anonymous. The early church simply assigned them names post hoc. They were indeed written long after Jesus' death, and our gospels come from texts long after that.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
BrainiiTophatdocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.