The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Resurection of Jesus Christ.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 3/11/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 864 times Debate No: 71491
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)




The Resurrection:

I will try my best to persuade whoever is witnessing this debate that the Resurrection of Jesus historically actually happened and that the tomb is empty. I will try my best to give sufficient evidence to support what I am saying. I believe Jesus to be whom he says to be and my hope is that others will also begin to have a relationship with him if they don't have one already.

Imagine that an intelligent alien comes from somewhere in space to visit our planet and spend a few years touring the globe. The purpose of his visit is to learn about us, to research our history and to make observations about the state of life on the earth. But also imagine that the alien's human guides deliberately withhold from him all contact with Christians, all information about Christianity and all data on Christian history. What would the alien observe, and what would he conclude from his observations?

He would tour America and Western Europe and see cultures in decline and fragmented societies in which people purse their own self interests. He would witness people saturating themselves in pleasure and entertainment while ignoring the human needs and growing poverty around them, failing to maintain good relationships and sinking deeper and deeper into immorality. He would see grand mansions in gated communities with inhabitants overlooking massive slums dominated by hopelessness, poverty and squalor. He would see a rising crime rate and growing dishonesty in all strata of society. He would see rampant drug use and homicides in every city.
Traveling to Africa, the alien would tour countries where masses of starving people, including children, die every day while their national leaders get rich on corruption and greed. He would find whole nations in which young people are being wiped out by disease epidemics, particularly AIDS.
In the Middle East, he would see murderous repression of religions, oppression and torture of women, and infighting among tribal leaders in cultures saturated with incredible oil wealth.
In the Far East, he would find more government tyranny, repression and mass genocide.
In India, he would find abject poverty and hopelessness imposed by a cruel caste system preventing upward movement.

No doubt our visiting alien would see no hope for this planet. He would perceive a corrupting flaw in the human heart that would cause these dismal patterns to repeat over and over until humans either destroyed themselves or the sun grew cold. He would board his craft and return to his own planet, shaking his head at the fatal hopelessness of our world.

At one point in history, there was a band of believers who trusted in someone that fervently believed would truly change the world for good. A handful of devout Jewish people thought a man named Jesus was the Messiah-the deliverer who would break their oppressive bondage under the Romans and set up a permanent and truly godly kingdom on earth. Their prophet Isaiah had prophesied in the ancient Jewish writings that the Messiah would come and restore all things to a paradise., where there would be no more fighting, oppression, fear or death (see Isa. 11;35).

Imagine the terrible mental and emotional state of that small group of disciples as they stood watching the Messiah, their deliverer, breathing his last agonized breath, hung to die as a common criminal on a Roman Cross. He was humanity's last hope. For the man that cross was the one God had promised would come and lead all humanity out of its pain and misery into an eternal life of bliss. But now, with his death, it seemed that all hope was lost.

I will present you with facts:

1. Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.
2. He died on the cross
3. He rose from the dead on the 3rd day

However, I do believe the Bible to be a reliable source. It was written by 40+ people over thousands of years and it has never been found inaccurate.

Before I go any further I need to know why you believe the Resurrection is false.

Good luck!


Why I do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus:

1. THE BIBLE: Whereas the Pro believes the bible is a reliable source, I do not. The Pro makes the declarative statement that the bible has never been found inaccurate. This is false and there are many reasons why. What does inaccurate mean when pertaining to the bible, I assume he means that there is no errors to be found in scripture? Here are three example of biblical error out of many.

Ezekiel 26:14 I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken," says the Lord God. (NKJV)

The god of the bible makes it clear that the city of Tyre would be demolished and would never be rebuilt. I only gave the one verse due to space, I encourage readers to read the whole chapter for themselves. I have seen how Christians try to explain this chapter away from the idea of it being a failed prophecy but the attempts do not add up to what the passage says. In fact not only is this city still standing today, Nebuchadnezzar never breached the walls, this mighty feat was accomplished by Alexander the great later in history. Either way the city still stands. This prophecy failed.

The biblical historian Richard Carrier points out another biblical flaw found in the accounts of the census that required Joseph to return to Bethlehem. "The Gospel of Luke claims (2.1-2) that Jesus was born during a census that we know from the historian Josephus took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed. But Matthew claims (2.1-3) that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive--possibly two years before he died (2:7-16). Other elements of their stories also contradict each other. Since Josephus precisely dates the census to 6 A.D. and Herod's death to 4 B.C., and the sequence is indisputable, Luke and Matthew contradict each other."

This is a historical discrepancy and one of the many biblical contradictions found in the perfect word of god which claims within its own pages to be perfect.

The bible declares that god flooded the earth and saved only a few people along with some animals, the point here is that if this event happened then we would have evidence for it, yet we do not. In fact when this event supposedly happened the 6th dynasty of Egypt was not effected, nor was any other part of the world to which we would have evidence of this grand event. What more do I need to say other than there is no evidence for the flood.

Outside of error laden scriptures there is no evidence for a resurrection, at least no contemporary accounts. First of all we do not have eye witness accounts of the resurrection. Secondly the Gospels were not written in the time in which this event supposedly happened. They were not written until decades later. Even with that said we do not know who wrote these accounts. Historians agree that the titles of the Gospels were later attributed to the writings. Historians also agree that the Gospel according to Mark was the first Gospel written and ended in chapter 16:8 ( Chapters and verses were also add way later), this is known as the short ending which pre-dates all other endings of Mark. The point is that if you stop reading at Mark 16:8 you have no resurrection story. All other Gospels have later dates.
This tells me that the Gospels were based on oral tradition since we are not aware of any manuscripts that date at the time of the event. Now this does not necessarily disprove the resurrection, but when you start adding up all the issues it become harder to believe such an event took place according to scripture, that is if you even believe the scripture are true, which I do not.

Also I would like to point out that Paul declares that the risen Jesus had shown himself to 500 plus people ( believers no doubt), why wouldn't at least one person record this event, certainly if there is a god of the Christian belief he would have seen it fit to give us better records.

I will not spend my time worried about whether Jesus was actually crucified. All I can say that if he was crucified as a criminal then typically the Romans denied victims a burial (Martin Hengel Fortress Press 1977). Let alone to be buried in a tomb of a member of the Sanhedrin who condemned the very man crucified.
Two quick points about the empty tomb and the duration of tomb occupancy.
First of all, why can we not assume a more plausible explanation of an empty tomb by simply advocating for the removal of the body of Jesus by Joseph, it was his tomb, he would have a right to remove it and place it were most criminals were buried?

Secondly, I notice that the Pro and many other claim that Jesus was in the tomb for three days. You have Jesus buried before sun down on Friday and an empty tomb found by Mary before sun up on Sunday. This is not three days. I believe Jesus proclaimed it would be like the story of Jonah and the fish. Seems to me that this is not like Jonah in the belly of the fish.


We have never witnessed a live person dying and being raised from the dead, it just does not happen. Many stories written in the past have claims to resurrection as well and these stories that pre date the supposed resurrection of Jesus. I am certain Christians do not believe any of these other accounts, so why believe this one when you have problems in the scriptures which proves that it is not without error?

Conclusion: Because the bible is not without error we cannot conclude it was inspired by any superior being. If we know it is not correct in many areas then how can we know it is correct in areas that supernatural things occur, such as the resurrection?

Historically the bible gets plenty of things correct, yet still it gets many things wrong as well.

Scientifically it gets enough wrong to wonder why people believe it still to this day. There are many more things that can be said, but I believe I have given enough reasons to why I do not believe the resurrection happened. The evidence is just not good enough, especially if you do not believe the bible to be an adequate source for such extraordinary claims.

I look forward to hearing my opponents evidence for the resurrection and his rebuttals to my arguments.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1


Hey buddy, thank you for having this debate with me. As you already know from my opening statement that I do believe the Bible to be the Word of God. You mentioned the city of Tyre, frankly, I don't know much about the book of Ezekiel so for me to try and convince you with my ignorance would be laughable.

The crucifixion:
The actual crucifixion of Jesus began about 9;00 that morning (Friday, April 7th). The entire trial process under the Roman authorities and the preparations for the crucifixion took about four hours. About noon on the day Jesus was crucified, the sky became dark for three hours. Toward the end of the darkness, Jesus died. "Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom" (Mark 15:38). Most Bible teachers believe this veil was torn by God to symbolize that because of Jesus' death, people now could have direct access to God without the meditation of a human priest. When the Roman centurion present at the cross saw the way Jesus died, he could come to only one conclusion. "Truly, this Man was the Son of God" (Mark 15:39). (Saturday, April 8th), A day of Opposition: Because Israel was about to begin observing the Feat of Unleavened Bread, the Jewish leaders felt it was important the the bodies of the crucified not remain on the crosses overnight. When they were certified to be dead, the Roman soldiers took the bodies off the crosses and gave them to anyone who would claim them. Jesus' body was claimed by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin who was a follower of Jesus. Along with another member of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus, he took Jesus' body and buried it in a tomb which had recently been carved out of rock. By sundown, the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath, Jesus had been buried and the tomb had been sealed by rolling a large stone before the mouth of the cave. Even though the Jewish Leaders were successful in their attempt to execute Jesus, they were still not satisfied. They remembered Jesus had predicted His own resurrection and were afraid his disciples might still his body to perpetrate the movement. (Sunday, April 9th) When Matthew began his account of the events of Sunday morning, April 9, he wrote, "Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn" (Matt. 28:1). Similarly, Mark begins his account of the events of that day noting, "Now when the Sabbath was past" (Mark 16:1). Some Bible teachers believe these statements refer to more than the identification of the day of the week, Sunday. In a very real sense, the events of that Sunday marked the end of the observance of the Sabbaths as a Jewish day of rest. Within months, Sunday would be a new day of the week to take special significance in the hearts of many of Jesus' followers.

Also, back in that day of time.... It would be really uncommon for women to stand trial over a crime that was committed. Why, would the authors of the Bible choose women to have seen the risen Lord first? It would've been ridiculous for them to have made up a story to make them look bad! Also, where did the first Christians begin to preach the Gospel? It was in Jerusalem. Again, if Jesus had not been raised from the dead, The first disciples would have chosen to get as far away from Jerusalem as they could to preach the message.

The pieces just fall into place for me as for me to believe the Gospel.

Josh McDowell points out; "If the Resurrection had not happened, obviously the disciples would have known it. I can find no way that these particular men could have been deceived. Therefore they not only would have died for a lie "" here"s the catch "" they would have known it was a lie. It would be hard to find a group of men anywhere in history who would die for a lie if they knew it was a lie."

And as for the authors of the Gospel:

The writers of the gospels were either eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) or people like Luke who received the story from eyewitnesses. These writers were very close to the action! 2 Peter 1:16 says, "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." I could get other verses that sound similar.

Other Historical documents"

"The persons commonly called Christians ... Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea for the reign of Tiberius..." Cornelius Tacitus, Roman historian, 112 A.D.)

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as a god and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word..." (Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor in A.D.112 writing to emperor Trajan seeking counsel as to how to treat the Christians.)

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." -Josephus

The Flood:

Whether or not the flood was local or global, there are numerous stories told from all walks of life


First of all I want to point out that the Pro has not dealt with the failed prophecy of Tyre, until he shows it false, it stands as a failed prophecy at least in this debate. The passage clearly prophesies that the city would not be rebuilt, yet is stands today.

Secondly he makes no comment or rebuttal to the census issue found in Matthew and Luke. The very fact that these two do not agree on historical points shows me and many others that they cannot be relied upon. Not to mention the genealogies of Jesus don't add up as well.

Thirdly the Pro makes no real argument against the lack of evidence for a flood. I also would like to point out that according to Genesis 6:17 the flood was global. Not that I was making a case for a local or global since the scriptures indicate clearly that it was not local.

"Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish."

I am not a bible scholar, but it seems to me the bible states that this was a global flood. If there was a global flood you would find evidence for it, such as ice cores that show sediment and disruption. Scientists have ice cores going back some 40,000 years that have no evidence of a global flood. Also the cores taken from the sea beds would show evidence of a global flood, but no such evidence is found.

My point is simply this, the bible is suppose to be the word of god, true and infallible, but this is not what we see with many parts of scripture, I have only introduced a few things out of a large amount I could have chosen from. I figured these three issues would be sufficient to show that there are errors in scripture, which is why I do not believe in it. Of course we could debate on each issue in and of itself. I suppose the biggest point is that we as a people need to look at the writings of the bible like we would approach any said book that proclaims to be the words of the very one or ones that have supposedly created us. This is what some call the "Outsiders test of faith". Christianity is only one of many religions, so I ask, do Christians look at their religion skeptically like they look at all others? It is not for me to answer, but this is how I came to where I am today.

In going back to my arguments about the evidence for the resurrection, I still stand on the fact that we have no direct eye witness accounts written at the time of the supposed event. Now the PRO believe that Matthew and John were eye witness accounts, but why did they wait so long to write this stuff down and how do you prove that they wrote them? Because what you have is oral tradition that was passed down until someone wrote about it. First we have Paul's writings and then the gospels, Ironically even though Paul wrote first he still was not an eye witness to Jesus other than a vision. How would Paul know this was Jesus if he never met him? The gospels written after Paul, dating later, decades after the events supposedly happened. The gospels are not contemporary accounts of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Now if the bible is the infallible word of god, then why did god wait to record such events for us?

I made the point in my last post that Jesus claims that he would be in the grave for three days and three nights like Jonah was in the belly of the fish. I pointed out that Jesus was not in the tomb for this long, so I can only conclude that this is a failed prophecy. He supposedly goes in Friday night and is gone by sunrise on Sunday, I only count one and a half days at best. No resurrection narrative describes Jesus being in the tomb for three days period! This is a failed prophecy.

You have the anointing of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea before burial in John 19:39,40 and then you have people coming back to the grave to anoint Jesus after his burial Mark 16:1-3; Luke 23:55,56. You have conflicting accounts of whether the stone was in place or already rolled away when they arrived at the tomb. This goes on and on, which tells me that these stories are not god inspired, but orally passed forward allowing errors in the story to occur as well as embellishments as time progressed. If we are to believe the resurrection, that is that Jesus was raised from the dead, then I think that the evidence would be more convincing.

Many are not convinced by the supposed accounts or lack of evidence of martyred Christians to prove the resurrection. Plenty of people have died for beliefs that we know or believe to be false. Many Germans died believing they were the master race. How about the 39 members of Heavens Gates? Why is it not possible that those who believed in Jesus and the resurrection were mistaken? Who is to say that they died for their belief in Jesus, who is to say whether they were even offered a chance to recant their beliefs or that they even had a chance to do so? This can be said of James in Acts 12:2. What evidence do we have that all the disciples died for Jesus? How does this prove the resurrection? I find it all very lacking.

As for Josephus: Why do we not have Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Terullian, Cyprian, etc- in all there defenses against pagan hostilities make no mention or reference to Josephus' words found in Testimonium Flavianum? Most likely this passage was inserted after Josephus by someone else. There is no reason why these writers would not use this man's writings if he had proclaimed what some think that he wrote about Jesus in this little section of his works. While it is plausible that Josephus made reference to Jesus, it is highly implausible that he would speak this way about him. A study of this issue can reveal what most scholars conclude about the validity of the segment found in this Jewish historians writings. Either way this does not prove the resurrection to be true, Pliney the Elder does not prove the resurrection happened, nor does any of the sources you have provided. Better yet why didn't contemporary writers leave us with anything? Justus of Tiberias and Philo of Alexandria could have easily written about Jesus yet make no mention of him, let alone his resurrection.

When all is said and done there is a mountain of issues that one has to go through to believe the resurrection and to believe the bible to be the word of god and then to dedicate the remaining part of one's life to serving a god who thought this would be sufficient evidence. Besides Jesus is not the only one to be supposedly resurrected at this time, notice in:

Matthew 27:52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Who did they appear to? Did this event actually happen? Why do we not have any sources of this happening outside of the bible? I believe that this event trumps the grand notion of just one man being resurrected, here you have many and with no external evidence outside of the bible to verify it!

The case for the resurrection only becomes more difficult as you go through the issues and the lack of good evidence. History cannot prove the resurrection. Science cannot prove the resurrection. Outside sources do not prove the resurrection. Supposed martyrdom does not prove the resurrection. The PRO has not proven the resurrection. It fails and continues to fail as viable through the supposed evidence that one is to place faith upon.

So it is plausible for me not to believe in the resurrection. I hope the PRO will deal with the main issues that he has not dealt with yet and the few more that I introduced in this round. I look forward to the next round.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2


The parallels between the many stories from practically every culture are amazing. They generally agree that:

1) there was some provision made for rescue (an ark, barge, or similar vessel)

2) living things were destroyed by water

3) only a few were saved through divine intervention;

4) the Flood was judgment against the man"s wickedness

5) animals were often saved with the few humans, and birds were often used by the humans to report the end of the Flood

6) the vessel came to rest on a mountaintop, or the people were saved on a mountaintop.

The fact that the biblical account of a flood, whether local or global, is shared by so many cultures is added evidence that the Flood was indeed a cataclysmic event as described in Genesis

Whether the Flood was restricted to a local but wide area of the earth, or was on a global scale, will continue to be debated. But clearly there was a flood that accomplished God"s purpose.

Additionally, an extensive flood is written about in practically every ancient culture.

The Babylonian Gilgamesh epic (1900"BC) tells of a Noah-like character named Utnapishtim who was told by Ea, the god of wisdom, to build a ship because a flood was coming.

In Asia, Flood stories are found in the folklore of remote tribes on the Indian peninsula, including those of the Kamars, those in Kashmir, and in Assam. In a Chinese tradition, Fah-He escaped from the Flood with his wife, three sons, and three daughters, from whom the entire population of the modern world was descended.

In Australia and the Pacific, the Australian aborigines have Flood stories that say that God sent a flood as judgment on man"s wickedness. The Hawaiians say that a long time after the first man, Kumu-Honua, all of mankind became completely wicked. The only righteous man was Nu-u, who was saved from the Flood that inundated the land. God left the rainbow as a token of his forgiveness of Nu-u and his family.

In the Americas, Alaskans tell the story that the "father" of their tribe was warned by a vision that a flood would destroy all life on the earth. He built a raft upon which he was able to save his family and all the animals.

The Census:

I will begin to answer your question that deals with the census in verse 1, We have no evidence that Augustus ever issued a decree resulting in an empire-wide registration (census), though several censuses were conducted during his reign having this effect. Luke may have been merely summarizing the intention of these registrations or referring to a decree that expressed such an intention. Evidence exists that the Romans sometimes took registrations of client kingdoms, as Palestine was at this time, and may even point to the existence of tax rolls in Samaria prior to Herod's death. Herod had fallen out of favor with Augustus toward the end of his life, and Augustus may have pressured Herod to conduct the registration in view of his advanced age and the possibility of Roman acquisition of at least some of Herod's territory upon his death.
Verse 2, The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that Quirinius became governor of Syria and instituted a registration in Judea in A.D. 6, too late for a supposed birth of Jesus under Herod the Great (Mt 2:1; Lk 1:5), who probably died in 4 B.C. Luke clearly knew of this registration (Ac 5:37), so that calling the registration of chapter 2 the "first" (in apparent opposition to the later census) strongly suggests he did not have his facts mixed up here. The verse is to be read as either:
1. Dissociating Quirinius from the registration (i.e., this was a former registration, taken before the famous one under Quirinius), or
2. Posting two registrations administered by Quirnius (i.e., this is the registration taken by Quirnius the first time he was governor (or some other administrator) of Syria.) Our knowlege of the relevent historical facts is too incomplete to determine a more definitive solution.
Note: Just because it is incomplete doesn't mean it is wrong or should be discredited.

Genealogies of Christ:

There is evidence that first-century Jews kept genealogical records (for example, Josephus referred to public registers as sources of some of his information). Matthew's genealogy emphasizes Christ's royal lineage, while Luke's focuses on His biological lineage. Luke and Matthew differed considerably in their recording of Jesus' genealogy. Some have suggested that Luke gave Jesus' decent through Mary, but this solution has not been accepted by the majority of scholars. Perhaps Matthew gave the legal line of descent, while Luke gave the physical line of decent (i.e., of Joseph, but not literally of Jesus), both of allowances for adoption, levitate marriages, or transference of inheritance rights from one parallel line to another in the absence of children. Though all harmonizing solutions are conjecural, they demonstrate that the two genealogies are not inherently incompatible.

The Flood:

Many Geologists and Bible scholars don't believe there was a single universal flood in history yet, acknowledge that there were many devastating local floods in Earth's history. On the other hand, there are geologists and Christian scholars who contend that only a world wide flood could account for the Earth's sedimentary layers of fossils that have been formed.

I hope you enjoyed this debate. I love talking about my faith and I wish you nothing but the best. God bless you.


The Flood:

1. Having many myth accounts of an event does not necessarily make one of the myths true, certainly not just because it is the bible, I consider all of them to be myths.

2. However we have scientific evidence that shows that a flood did not happen. There are core samples from the ocean, and the Ice core samples going back 40,000 years. The core samples do NOT reveal any evidence for a flood. Even tree samples disprove the flood and it also shows that a young earth belief is not reasonable with the dating of the trees that go back 11,000 years. The flood is suppose to have happened 4359 years ago accord to "Answers in Genesis". [] So science reveals a certain lack of a deluge evidence just within these few examples. 2348 B.C the flood happened and in 2250 b.c we are aware of an Egyptian dynasty that shows no evidence of a flood, the tombs alone would have evidence of a flood, yet none have been found.

3. If the evidence was there people would have no choice but to accept it, are a majority of scientists just ignoring plain truth?

4. A single world wide flood cannot explain the distribution of fossils. Believers in the flood cannot account for the earth's sedimentary layers of fossils. Certainly there would be evidence of a catastrophic flood in the fossil record, yet we have no evidence in the fossil record for a flood? Again scientists are either ignoring the evidence on a large scale or there is just no evidence.

5. It's just another one of the stories we cannot believe in the bible.

The Census:

1. The point of showing the discrepancies of Matthew and Luke is simply this, why would god's word be this confusing? Why is hurdle jumping required just to get an understanding of simple time lines in scripture? The more discrepancies we look at in the bible, the more hurdles Christians have to go through to explain such things that make no sense upon causal reading and even hard study.

2. The Pro concedes that "Relevant historical facts are too incomplete to determine a more definitive solution" Well then we should blame god for not giving us plain words. I would conclude that this saying can be applied to the resurrection as well, along with the flood and the creation story. It just doesn't add up like the city of Tyre, the bible says that it wouldn't ever be rebuilt. It was never even breached by King Neb. and the city still stands today.

The Genealogy of Jesus

1. The reason I brought this up was merely to show how when confronted the Pro has to explain the problems away. If the book is for us to understand that Jesus was the one from the prophecies foretold and that he was the right "ONE" being introduced into the world, why wouldn't god have it recorded for us so we wouldn't have to question every problem we encountered? Certainly he would know all of us and prepare something special for us to follow him that would make us believe. Instead we have a book full of things that do not add up.

2. All the guessing and conjecture only brings the Pro to this: "They demonstrate that the two genealogies are not inherently incompatible." So god could not see to it that a simple genealogy be plain between to of his chosen messengers to all mankind for us to understand?

The Resurrection:

1. It fails for reasons given from the beginning of the debate. First and foremost based on the unreliability of scripture, one must wonder where it is reliable.

2. Three days in a fish? Not only do I think the fish story is a myth, I think the actual resurrection is a myth. Jesus prophecies three day and night and only supposedly gave us one and a half.

3. So why is it that one of the most important facts about the Christian faith is the one thing that god could not see it fit that we received viable proof of?

4 He gives us a book full of errors and false prophecies, gospel accounts and epistles written mostly anonymously, some known to be forgeries.

Conclusion: If there is a god, he hides. If there is a god, he could not see fit to at least give us a good source of understanding. If seeing Jesus brings belief in him then why did he only show himself to some and not all? Certainly he would have the power. Instead we have this book that haphazardly stumbles through stories that do not add up. Why does doubting Thomas get to stick his fingers in the risen Christs wounds and I do not? Why does Saul get a vision and become Paul and I do not? Is it because I didn't seek him well enough? Certainly god knows what evidence would be convincing for me and to hold me so I never would be in danger like a father is for his children. Instead I have a book that tells me this loving father is going to burn me forever. I do not know a father like that and I have seen some bad fathers. Either way Christians always try to explain away the guess work that needs to be done to continue believing things that don't add up. The resurrection is really only to those who subscribe to what they think the book teaches, But because they cannot all agree on so many topics Christianity has so much division..... 40,000 plus denominations. I am sure it is believed that a father would want all his selected children to be of one accord.

How can you know you are in the right one? Who is right? Who is wrong? Should we care? You would think that this god cared, but does not care to reveal himself to many. Religion in general does not reveal god, only man's apparent need for a father figure that beats his children. Heaven, Hell, this is the game where most lose and a few win. Try looking at the bible with an unbiased view, it's hard, but it must be done. What is faith? According to the book it cannot be seen. So is it felt, can we know when we really have it? Or do we go on through our lives not certain of a lot of things and call it faith? That is not how I want my children to view me as a father, so why does the god of the book play games? The resurrection fails because the book of god fails, which shows me that god failed.

I want to thank the Pro for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Enchanter-Fisii 1 year ago
@Projectid :
Has clearly stated "Here is the problem with most of your arguments, you cannot know if you are right. Obviously there are many Christians who do not agree with you."
I definently disagree with this statement as I do know that MY statement "the 1st literaries of the Bibe is true" due to the the fact that there is a LOGICAL explanation for it! This was CLEARLY explained in my comment and backed my statement up with CLEAR WORDS SO IT IS READABLE however, why haven't you noticed. Maybe I should start writing this in CAPITAL letters because it is unseen to the "former" oppositions angle. Now back to my case, let me just re - phrase that I want to go through a Logical explanation of the Bible because I believe that some of it is untrue, here is an example; Adam and Eve. If they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden where did they go? They obviously re - produced but can anyone explain our HUMAN population, how did Adam and Eve do that, so they are having Incest? And Everyone in the world now is somehow related, how did we come up with different laguages since Adame and Eve knew how to speak English. Therefore, some texts in the Bible are untrue because I have explained the LOGICAL side of everything explaining how and why Parts of the Bible are untrue! Technically you didn't even REFUTE my statements, you introduced NEW MATERIAL, stating " IF I AM RIGHT!" but said I was Wrong because I do not know if i am right. Did i not just show you how I am right, I just created a logical explanation for why I am Right. The person who really is wrong is You.

You also stated that we "chrisitans" are all divided. No we are not, we are relating to the scriptures not to the 1st Literaries of the Bibles. Most create a division and different beliefs because we sometimes take the BIBLE as a real story, but it isn't real as I explained "christians" believe in one God and that the son is Jesus Christ, is it not. How are we not divided @Projec
Posted by Projectid 1 year ago

How is it that when I show things to be demonstrably FALSE I am wrong? When you say they are purposely untrue it is OK, which in turn makes me wrong and not you?Perhaps you are just put off because I do not believe in any gods. You start both of your posts with "Some texts in the bible aren't true, but I am catholic myself" Here is the problem with most of your arguments, you cannot know if you are right. Obviously there are many Christians who do not agree with you. So who decides what is true and not true? It is clear that the Catholic church decides for you what to believe and they tell you how to believe it and if you don't then you are not one of them. This is all part of DENOMINATIONAL-ISM! Christians according to the bible are to be of one mind, of one accord. Is Christ divided? I watch Christians of all denominations make excuses for this division, but all of them merely point to non agreement on many levels. If there is a god of the bible then he is a fool and could not see to it that his people be of one accord.

You say there is nothing I can refute, bullocks! I have just shown you that even Christian denominations cant agree what the bible says, or what is true or false, literal non literal, real or not real. If there is such in consistency in the bible then you can never know for sure what is right and what to follow. So why follow it at all.
Posted by GainWisdom 1 year ago
@Enchanter- Fissi: Are you saying that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth?
Posted by Enchanter-Fisii 1 year ago
Some texts in the bible aren't true, but I am catholic myself.
Why is it that I say that?
Well, the bible has these things called Literary Forms.
These Literary forms are sent throughout the Bible which divides it into different pieces.
I will be mainly talking about the First form and the Last form because these significant occurrences aren't true and are not real. These Literary Forms are what we Christians call Myths, which is one of the first literary forms of the bible. Scriptures such as Genesis and Apocalypse are unreal due to the Literary form it was given in. In the bible it has Myths at the beginning (Creation of the world) which is Genesis and at the end which is apocalypse ( End of the world). You can also see that these Literary forms are unreal due to how it was written, The Creation Story for example. It says " GOD PLACED A DOME IN THE sky." This seemed to the scriptures/Desciples of the bible " hey the sky is a big dome and blah blah." In those times they didn't know what the sky was so therefore the bible does have Inadequate information due to there lack of knowledge in AD ( Anno Domini ) However, other than this all the texts that have occurred are true.
You may say that the bible is wrong but your wrong because things like these have occurred purposely! There is nothing you can refute. You obviously must be reffering to the 1st Literary form of the bible. Which is myths.
I'd like to also add that we are all people of christianity, aren't we? Firstly, Why do we have graves? Maybe, because we want the dead to R.I.P ( Rest In Peace ) this clearly states that we want the dead/ souls ( ghoslty form) to ascend to heaven.This statement is true because Jesus was buried too so he can ascend to heaven as well! If we weren't christians and were athiests woudn't we leave bodies to rot on the soil of earth? We'll whats the point of putting them underground ofcourse.Why not leave them in morgues and use their body hair. Ohh wait, maybe we want them to R
Posted by Projectid 1 year ago
Posted by Enchanter-Fisii 1 year ago
Some texts in the bible aren't true, but I am catholic myself.
Why is it that I say that?
Well, the bible has these things called Literary Forms.
These Literary forms are sent throughout the Bible which divides it into different pieces.
I will be mainly talking about the First form and the Last form because these significant occurrences aren't true and are not real. These Literary Forms are what we Christians call Myths, which is one of the first literary forms of the bible. Scriptures such as Genesis and Apocalypse are unreal due to the Literary form it was given in. In the bible it has Myths at the beginning (Creation of the world) which is Genesis and at the end which is apocalypse ( End of the world). You can also see that these Literary forms are unreal due to how it was written, The Creation Story for example. It says " GOD PLACED A DOME IN THE sky." This seemed to the writer of the bible " hey the sky is a big dome and blah blah." In those times they didn't know what the sky was so therefore the bible those have Inadequate information. However, other than this all the texts that have occurred are true.
You may say that the bible is wrong but your wrong because things like these have occurred purposely! There is noting you can refute.
Posted by GainWisdom 1 year ago
And "faith" is another word for trust. You could flip flop them and they would mean the same thing. That is what faith is.
Posted by GainWisdom 1 year ago
Well, Christians may be divided in certain doctrinal beliefs like one saved always saved but we all agree on the deity of Christ. Good question. And I find the Bible to be really accurate. It's the most accurate of all ancient texts. The Bible I find to be the Holy word of God. :)
Posted by Projectid 1 year ago
Just because you believe something does not make it so. Trust Jesus? You do not know Jesus, the only way you can have any knowledge of this person is through an unreliable book. Having faith in faith seems like a faulty belief system.

If the book was accurate then why are all of you Christians so divided?
Posted by GainWisdom 1 year ago
To be honest, I take the Bible for what it claims to be. I try to learn from it. I believe my faith not just because I trust Jesus but I find it to be historically accurate. A lot of scholars believe that scripture you pointed out to be fulfilled. You got to have faith.
No votes have been placed for this debate.