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

Was Jesus (pbuh) Crucified ?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,088 times Debate No: 23828
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)




I am going to be arguing through biblical evidences that Jesus Christ(pbuh) was not crucified.

As the quran says.
4:157. And (also) because of their uttering (the boastful claim): ‘We (have) killed Allah's Messenger, the Messiah, ‘Isa, the son of Maryam (Jesus, the son of Mary),' whereas they neither killed nor crucified him. But (in truth) someone was made the like (of ‘Isa—Jesus) in their view. But those who disagree about him have surely fallen prey to doubt (concerning) this (murder). They know nothing (what the truth is) except (that they are) following fancy. And they certainly did not murder ‘Isa (Jesus).


I will be arguing against my opponent's assertion that Jesus Christ was not crucified.

I look forward to my opponent's opening argument.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank U for accepting the debate.

In this round I will uncover the reality of the concept of original sin, because this is the foundation of why christians believe Jesus (pbuh) scarificed himself. Christians believe because we are ordained with sin from the beginning there needs to be a sacrifice like Jesus(pbuh) for the sins of humanity.

"…No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another…" (Quran 6:164)

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16)

None can reject that in these two verses, the first from the Quran and the second from the Bible, is an allusion to the same meaning: that the Just God will never punish people for the sins of others.

Christianity alleges that God created humans to live eternally in Heaven, and that when Adam ate from the tree from which he had been forbidden, God punished him through death and banishment from Heaven. They further assert that as death was inherited by his progeny, so too was the sin of their father, which was a permanent stain on the hearts of humanity, never to be removed except through a sacrifice so great that it would oblige God to forgive humanity. This sacrifice would be nothing other than the sacrifice of God himself, incarnate in His "son" Jesus. Therefore Christianity deems all of humanity as damned to Hell for the sin of Adam from which they could never be cleansed, except through the belief that God became incarnate and died for Adam's sin, ritualized as Baptism, through which Christians are ‘born again' into the world, but this time free of sin.[1] So we see that the theory of ‘Original Sin' forms the basis of various Christian beliefs, from the crucifixion of Jesus to the concept of salvation and savior from Hell. It forms the very basis for the mission of Jesus himself.

So the questions arise, is humanity guilty for the sin which Adam committed by eating from the tree he was forbidden? Must we all repent from that great sin? In what way is one to repent? And if so, what is the fate of those who did not?

Islam strictly promotes the notion that the punishment of sins will only be faced by those who commit them. Sin is not a hereditary trait or ‘stain' passed to one's progeny one generation to another. All people will be accountable to what only they themselves did in this life. Therefore, even though the Quran mentions the sin of Adam and how he was banished from the Garden, it places no responsibility on the shoulders of his progeny. None of the Prophets before Jesus were known to have preached this concept, nor were any other beliefs or rituals based upon this belief. Rather, salvation from Hell and attainment of Paradise was achieved through the belief in One God and obedience to His commandments, a message preached by all prophets, including Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, as well.

The Oft-Forgiving, the Most Merciful
As for the sin of Adam, the Quran tells us that he repented for his sin. God revealed to him words with which to repent, which he then accepted from him.

"Then Adam received Words (of forgiveness) from his Lord, and he accepted his repentance. Verily, He is the One Who repeatedly accepts repentance, the Most Merciful." (Quran 2:37)

Through God's acceptance of Adam's repentance, Adam was cleansed of the sin which he committed. God in the Quran repeatedly ascribes to Himself attribute of mercy and forgiveness. He also mentions that from His Names are The Oft-Forgiving, The Most Merciful, the Accepter of Repentance, and others, all of which emphasize the All-Encompassing Mercy of God. Even to those who have sinned much and may lose hope in the forgiveness of God, He says:

"Say: ‘O My slaves who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of God, indeed God forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.'" (Quran 39:53)

If a person sins, all they need to do is truly repent from their heart, and they will find God Ever Merciful. Adam did sin, and the sin did stain his heart, but it was removed through his repentance. The Prophet Muhammad said:

"Indeed if a believer sins, a black spot covers his heart. If he repents, and stops from his sin, and seeks forgiveness for it, his heart becomes clean again. If he persists (instead of repenting), it increases until covers his heart…" (Ibn Maajah)

Even if we were to say that Adam did not repent, that stain is not passed on to further generations. Therefore, we see that God does not need any physical sacrifice in order to forgive sins, and that no sin is too great for His Mercy; to say so would be to ascribe deficiency to His Excellence and Perfection. The Prophet Muhammad relates to us that God said:

"O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great at it." (Al-Tirmidhi)

God says in the Quran in regards to sacrifice, that it is the intention of the person when offering the sacrifice which is of importance, and not the actual sacrifice itself.

"It is neither their meat nor their blood that reaches God, but it is piety from you that reaches Him..." (Quran 22:37)

If we were to implement this verse in regards to the original sin and God incarnate sacrificing himself in order to forgive all of humanity, we see that even without seeking repentance for Adam's sin, God forgave human beings due to His Own Sacrifice. Could He not have forgiven them without such a sacrifice?

It is also mentioned in the bible:

"To what purpose (is) the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? Saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; (it is) iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear (them). And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

Despite its prominent place in Christianity, the notion of an "original sin" is not found among the teachings of any prophet, Jesus included. In the Old Testament, God says: "... the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ez.18:20-22). Personal responsibility is also stressed in the Quran where God says: "... no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another... man can have nothing but what he strives for" (Quran 53:38,39).

The doctrine of original sin gave Paul the means to justify pagan influence in his scheme of salvation. Irresponsibility became the hallmark of Christianity through this doctrine, however, for by "transferring" sins onto Jesus, followers assume no responsibility for actions


My opponent has taken an interesting approach to the debate. Unfortunately, it is entirely a red herring. Simply put, he does nothing to contend with the historical attestation of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. The truth value of the doctrine of Original Sin bears absolutely zero influence on the historicity of the Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, and since my opponent has structured his entire argument on dismantling Original Sin and not on disproving the historicity of the crucifixion, his argument is entirely moot.

Another way of saying this is as follows: This debate is not about why Jesus was crucified. It is about if he was crucified. As such, I bear no burden of proof to defend a particular reason for the crucifixion, only to defend the fact of the crucifixion as a historic event.

In the New Testament we have three independent attestations to Christ's Crucifixion. These three historic attestations must be overcome by my opponent if he is to secure victory. Up until this point, he has not even approached them.

The first comes from the Synoptic Gospels, Mark 15:24 says "And they crucified him" while Mark 15:34 positively identifies it as Jesus who is on the cross. Matthew 27 and Luke 23 recount the same facts. It is important to note that although Matthew was likely using Mark as a source for his Gospel, he was himself an eye witness to the events being recorded. Additionally, the Historian Luke indicates that he interviewed witnesses who were present during the events in question.

The second comes from the first recorded Christian sermon, delivered by the Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost, approximately forty days after the crucifixion. It is recorded for us by the Historian Luke in the New Testament book of Acts. He writes: "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." As is the case with Matthew and with those who Luke interviewed, Peter was an eye witness to the events in question.

The third and final of the historic attestations that I wish to highlight at this time is the crucifixion account recorded by the Apostle John. The Apostle John, another eye witness of the events in question, records that "the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city" (John 19:20) He also recalls "So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him.But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs." (John 19:32-33)

At this point, I shall close my argument. I have provided three historic, independent attestations to the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on a Roman cross just outside the city of Jerusalem. My opponent has done nothing but attempt to undermine the Christian doctrine of Original Sin. Whether he has done so or not is irrelevant, as this debate is not about the truth or falsity of Christian doctrine, rather it is about the historicity of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Until he has done any work to disprove the historic attestation I have provided he has not fulfilled the burden of proof that his initial argument demands. Namely, he has not proved "through biblical evidences that Jesus Christ was not crucified."
Thank you for reading, and I look forward to my opponent's next argument.
Debate Round No. 2


In the Old Testament, God says: "... the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ez.18:20-22). The reason why I talk about original sin, is that without there is no need for a sacrifice.

So let’s ask the witnesses. Let’s ask the gospel authors.

Umm, one problem. We don’t know who the authors were. This is a less popular Christian mystery (i.e., waaay less popular) – the fact that all four gospels of the New Testament are anonymous. Nobody knows who wrote them. Graham Stanton tells us, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to . . .’) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.”

Added in the second century? By whom? Believe it or not, that is anonymous as well.

But let’s forget all that. After all, the four gospels are part of the Bible, so we must respect them as scripture, right?


Well, maybe not. After all, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.” Add to that Bart D. Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”Whoa. Hard to imagine. On one hand, we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John telling us . . . oh, excuse me. I meant to say, we have Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous and Anonymous telling us . . . well, what? What do they tell us? That they can’t even agree on what Jesus wore, drank, did or said? After all, Matthew 27:28 tells us the Roman soldiers dressed Jesus with a scarlet robe. John 19:2 says it was purple. Matthew 27:34 says the Romans gave Jesus sour wine mingled with gall. Mark 15:23 says it was mixed with myrrh. Mark 15:25 tells us Jesus was crucified before the third hour, but John 19:14–15 says it was “about the sixth hour.” Luke 23:46 says Jesus’ last words were “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit,” but John 19:30: says they were “It is finished!”

Now, wait a minute. Jesus’ righteous followers would have hung on his every word. On the other hand, Mark 14:50 tells us that all the disciples deserted Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. But okay, some people – not disciples, I guess, but some people (anonymous, of course) – hung on his every word, hoping for some parting words of wisdom, and they heard . . . different things?

Believe it or not, after this point, the gospel records become even more inconsistent.

Following the alleged resurrection, we hardly find a single issue the four gospels (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20) agree upon. For example:

Who went to the tomb?

Matthew: “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary”

Mark: “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome”

Luke: “The women who had come with him from Galilee” and “certain other women”

John: “Mary Magdalene”

Why did they go to the tomb?

Matthew: “To see the tomb”

Mark: They “brought spices, that they might come and anoint him”

Luke: They “brought spices”

John: no reason given

Was there an earthquake (something nobody in the vicinity would be likely to either miss or forget)?

Matthew: Yes

Mark: no mention

Luke: no mention

John: no mention

Did an angel descend? (I mean, come on, guys – an angel? Are we to believe that three of you somehow missed this part?)

Matthew: Yes

Mark: no mention

Luke: no mention

John: no mention

Who rolled back the stone?

Matthew: The angel (the one the other three anonymouses – now, let’s see, would that be “anonymouses” or “anonymice”? – didn’t see)

Mark: unknown

Luke: unknown

John: unknown

Who was at the tomb?

Matthew: “an angel”

Mark: “a young man”

Luke: “two men”

John: “two angels”

Where were they?

Matthew: The angel was sitting on the stone, outside the tomb.

Mark: The young man was in the tomb, “sitting on the right side.”

Luke: The two men were inside the tomb, standing beside them.

John: The two angels were “sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.”

By whom and where was Jesus first seen?

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary,” on the road to tell the disciples.

Mark: Mary Magdalene only, no mention where.

Luke: Two of the disciples, en route to “a village called Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.”

John: Mary Magdalene, outside the tomb.

So where does this leave us, if not wondering whose idea of scripture this is?

But, hey, Christians tell us Jesus had to die for our sins. A typical conversation might go something like this:

Monotheist: Oh. So you believe God died?

Trinitarian: No, no, perish the thought. Only the man died.

Monotheist: In that case, the sacrifice didn’t need to be divine, if only the man-part died.

Trinitarian: No, no, no. The man-part died, but Jesus/God had to suffer on the cross to atone for our sins.

Monotheist: What do you mean “had to”? God doesn’t “have to” anything.

Trinitarian: God needed a sacrifice and a human wouldn’t do. God needed a sacrifice big enough to atone for the sins of humankind, so He sent His only begotten son.

Monotheist: Then we have a different concept of God. The God I believe in doesn’t have needs. My God never wants to do something but can’t because He needs something to make it possible. My God never says, “Gee, I want to do this, but I can’t. First I need this certain something. Let’s see, where can I find it?” In that scenario God would be dependent upon whatever entity could satisfy His needs. In other words, God would have to have a higher god. For a strict monotheist that’s just not possible, for God is One, supreme, self-sufficient, the source of all creation. Humankind has needs, God doesn’t. We need His guidance, mercy and forgiveness, but He doesn’t need anything in exchange. He may desire servitude and worship, but he doesn’t need it.

Trinitarian: But that’s the point; God tells us to worship Him, and we do that through prayer. But God is pure and holy, and humankind are sinners. We can’t approach God directly because of the impurity of our sins. Hence, we need an intercessor to pray through.

Monotheist: Question—did Jesus sin?

Trinitarian: Nope, he was sinless.

Monotheist: How pure was he?

Trinitarian: Jesus? 100% pure. He was God/Son of God, so he was 100% holy.

Monotheist: But then we can’t approach Jesus any more than we can God, by your criterion. Your premise is that humankind can’t pray directly to God because of the incompatibility of sinful man and the purity of anything 100% holy. If Jesus was 100% holy, then he’s no more approachable than God. On the other hand, if Jesus wasn’t 100% holy, then he was himself tainted and couldn’t approach God directly, much less be God, the Son of God, or partner with God.

why would God demand the sacrifice of what Christians propose to be “His only begotten son” when, according to Hosea 6:6, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.”
Perhaps Jesus’ prayer is explained by Hebrews 5:7, which states that because Jesus was a righteous man, God answered his prayer to be saved from death: “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission” (Hebrews 5:7, NRSV). Now, what does “God heard his prayer” mean—that God heard it loud and clear and ignored it? No, it means God answered his prayer. It certainly can’t mean that God heard and refused the prayer, for then the phrase “because of his reverent submission” would be nonsensical, along the lines of, “God heard his prayer and refused it because he was a righteous man.”

Hm. So wouldn’t that suggest that Jesus might not have been crucified in the first place?


My opponent again takes an interesting, but ultimately unsuccessful, approach.

As far as the anonymity fo the authors, this presents no real problem. Let us suppose a theoretical scenario. On September 12th, 2001 you are walking down the street and come across a note pinned to a bulletin board. The note reads "On September 11th, 2001 unknown men flew planes into the World Trade Center in New York City and the towerd collapsed killing thousands." You do not know who wrote this note, you do not know when it was written, or the purpose for which it was written. This does absolutely nothing to discredit the veracity of the statement, which indeed was factually true. The anonymity of the document does nothing to discredit its historicity.

Ultimately my opponent's argument is self refuting. He spends several paragraphs refuting the historicity of the Gospels by refuting an event recorded in the Gospels as happening AFTER the crucifixion. He does nothing however to show any sort of inconsistency within the Crucifixion itself.

He then proceeds to attempt to dismantle Trinitarian theology by creating a contrived discussion between "Monotheist" and "Trinitarian." However, these discussion points are not only inaccurate (a Trinitarian would indeed say that God died... this was the answer given by the 1st council of Chalcedon in reference to the Nestorian controversy), but are also irellevant. If God is or is not triune changes nothing in reference to the historic fact of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth in or around 33 AD. I will not waste space or time by refuting the other glarring inaccuracies of my opponent's presentation of Trinitarian theology... since it is utterly irellevant to the argument.

Finally, my opponent attacks with what must have seemed like the deathstroke to him. If Jesus prayed for God to be saved from death... then why didn't God answer his prayer. Now... the WHY of the result of this prayer is not what is pertinent to this debate. However the FACT of the prayer itself is. My opponent has unwittingly affirmd the historicity of the Gospel accounts. Hebrews 5:7 is referencing the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemene immediately prior to Christ's betrayal, arrest, and ultimately his crucifixion. My opponent is relying on a historical fact from within a document that he claims is ahistorical... I would like to extend a hearty thank you to him for affirming the historicity of the Gospel account. From that point forward, he has given us no reason to question the historical reliability of the testimony of these three indepenent sources. I will acknowledge that the account provided by Matthew is anonymous... however this account is attested to by the author of Luke, who interviewed eye witnesses. The account in John is indeed anonymous, however he has given us no real reason to doubt their veracity or the veracity of the statement that the author was an eye witness. Finally, the account of Peter in the Pentecost Sermon is indeed another eye witness account.

This leaves us again with three independent accounts of at least two confirmed eye witnesses, and one anonymous likely eye witness. My opponent has still done nothing to challenge the veracity of these witnesses and instead has attempted to dismantle theology that arrose as a RESULT of the crucifixion, not as a cause for believe in the resurrection. Until my opponent provides any sort of reason to doubt the veracity of these witnesses he has not fulfilled his burden of proof in any meaninful way.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3


The sign of Jonah proves that Jesus Christ did not die.

Matthew 12:38

Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.

Matthew 12:39

But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Matthew 12:40

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

What was the "sign" (miracle) of Jonah? We have to go to the "Book of Jonah" in the Old Testament to find out. God commanded Jonah to go to Nineveh and warn the Ninevites to repent from their "evil ways, and from the violence that is in their hands." (Jonah 3:8) But Jonah was loath to go as a warner unto the Ninevites, so he goes to Joppa instead of Nineveh, and takes a boat to run away from the Lord's command. While at sea, there was a terrible tempest. According to the superstition of the mariners, a person fleeing from his sister's command creates such a turmoil at sea. They began to enquire among themselves and said, "COME, AND LET US CAST LOTS, (like the tossing of a coin, "head" or "tail") THAT WE MAY KNOW FOR WHOSE CAUSE THIS EVIL IS UPON US. SO THEY CAST LOTS, AND THE LOT FELL UPON JONAH." (Jonah 1:7) Though there was a temporary lapse on the part of Jonah in fulfilling his mission, he manfully and most courageously volunteers:





(Jonah 1:12)


Since Jonah was selflessly offering himself as a vicarious" sacrifice there was no need for strangling him before throwing him into the sea, no need to spear him or break his arm or limb. In his own words: "TAKE ME UP AND CAST ME FORTH.
The question now arises, that when the shipmaster and the crew threw him overboard, was Jonah dead or alive?
Any Christian child who has attended Sunday School will give an immediate reply: "ALIVE!"
The storm subsides. Was this perhaps a coincidence? A fish swallows Jonah. Was he dead or alive when swallowed? The answer again is "ALIVE." Was he dead or alive when "JONAH PRAYED UNTO THE LORD HIS GOD OUT OF THE FISH'S BELLY?" (Jonah 2:1)
Surely dead men don't cry and don't pray! The answer again is "ALIVE." For three days and three nights the fish takes him around the ocean: dead or alive? "ALIVE!" is the answer. On the third day it vomits him on the seashore: dead or alive? A-L-I-V-E, of course!

What had Jesus prophesied about himself? He said: "AS JONAH WAS ..... SO SHALL THE SON OF
MAN BE" - LIKE JONAH. And how was Jonah? Was he dead or alive for three days and three nights?
Alive! ALIVE! ALIVE! is the unanimous answer from the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim!


If Jonah was alivefor three days and three nights, then Jesus also ought to have been alive in the tomb as he himself had foretold! But Christianity hangs on the flimsy thread of the "death" of Jesus for its salvation. So it has to answer that Jesus was DEAD for three days and three nights. The contradiction between his utterance and its fulfilment is obvious. Jonah ALIVE, Jesus DEAD!

Very UNLIKE Jonah! Jesus had said LIKE Jonah" not UNLIKE Jonah. If the christian world view is that Jesus died then according to his own test Jesus is not the TRUE Messiah of the Jews. If the Gospel record is genuine then how can we blame the Jews for rejecting "CHRIST."

Jesus also emphasized what will happen to him by specifically saying that he will be like Jonas in terms of the number of days and nights he will be in the heart of the earth" For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40). Now let us see if this prophecy came to pass.

Jesus was crucified on Friday, this is certainly known among all Christians, and that is the reason for calling that Friday by "Good Friday". Jesus was buried on Friday night. Now let us start counting

1.Friday night Jesus was buried. This is night number 1.
2.Saturday day Jesus was still in the grave. This is day number 1
3.Saturday night Jesus was still in the grave. This is night number 2
 Mary Magdalene, very early in the morning before sun rise and after the Sabbath (Saturday), went to the see Jesus, and he was not there. The following verses relate this event
Mark 16:1And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Mark 16:2

And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Mark 16:3

And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

Mark 16:4

And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

Mark 16:5

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Mark 16:6

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
The number of days and nights that Jesus had spent in the heart of the earth is 1 day and 2 nights. This clearly challenges what Jesus had prophesied. When I tell this to my Christian brothers, some of them responded by saying that what Jesus wanted to really say was that he will be gone for a while, and not that he will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. This is clearly not the case. Had Jesus meant that, he would have said it, but it is clear that he wanted the people to know that this was a sign (miracle) and that it will be like Joans' sign, and that he will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.



My opponent presents again a self refuting argument. He claims that "The sign of Jonah proves that Jesus Christ did not die." His argument goes like this:

A) Christ said that he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, in the same way that Jonah was in the belly of the whale.
B) Jonah was in the belly of the whale as a living person who did not die
C) Therefore, Christ did not die.

On the surface this argument has merrit. However, it ignores several significant issues.

First, this phrase is what is called a Simile. A simile is a "figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared"[1] using the words "like" or "as." However, this comparison is between two unlike things. It is not saying that the things that are compared will be identical only that they bear SIMILarity (hence the word SIMILe) in one or more ways. Consider the simily "She is as beautiful as a rose." This phrase does not mean that she looks, smells, or feels like a rose. All it tells us is that she is visually appealing, and that in this visual appeal she is similar to a rose (which is also visually appealing).

Second, this simile is comparing the length of time that Jesus would be in the heart of the earth to the length of time that Jonah was in the belly of the whale. Not the state of the person who was in the heart of the earth/belly of the whale. The important part of the simile is that Jesus would be inside something for three days and three nights and then come out of that thing, just as Jonah was inside something for three days and three nights and then came out.

Thirdly, this argument assumes two things that refute the argument itself. A) It assumes that Jesus' predictions are accuraet. This refutes the argument in the fact that in other places Jesus predicts his death. In fact, in the same Gospel (Matthew) Jesus not only predicts his own death, but he predicts his own death by crucifixion. He says "They will condemn [the Son of Man] and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life (Matthew 20:17-19)." If my opponent is correct and the prediction of Jesus to fulfill the sign of Jonah must be fulfilled... then why would his prediction of his impending crucifixion not be also correct? B) It assumes again the historicity of the Gospel accounts. My opponent seeks to affirm that the historic Jesus of Nazareth made a historic statement at a point in history. He expects us to accept the historicity of this claim by the text, but then reject the historicity of the claim by the same text that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified... with no explanation as to why we should accept one claim and not the other.

Next, my opponent seeks to unermine the crucifixion account by challenging the number of days he spent in the ground versus other statements. Quite honestly I am tired of saying this phrase... this is irellevant to the argument. Even if the Gospel incorrectly records the length of time that Jesus was in the ground... it unanimously agrees that he was indeed in the ground, dead as a result of crucifixion. (For the record, there are several ways to explain the apparent discrepancy with the three days and three nights counting schema. I will leave to those who are interested, however this argument is a red herring).

So summarize, my opponent began by quoting the Quran in an attempt to undermine Penal Substitution theory. He the proceeded to attempt to undermine trinitarian theology and the historicity of the resurrection account, while at the same time affirming and utilizing the historical accounts he was attempting to refute. Finally, he attempted to refute one prophecy of Jesus with another prophecy of Jesus... again utlizing the historic source he was trying to refute as his primary historic source. My opponent has confronted me with red herring after red herring, and presented me with nothing but self refuting arguments.

I on the other hand have presented three independent, historic attestations by two confirmed eye witnesses and one anonymous (but likely eye witness) source that claim that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in or around 33 AD outside the city of Jerusalem. My opponent has done nothing to refute these historic sources and therefore has not fulfilled his burden of proof to argue "through biblical evidences that Jesus Christ(pbuh) was not crucified." I remind you that as Con, it is not my responsibility to prove the converse of the resolution as true, only to show that Pro has not suceeded in proving the resolution true. Because of this I urge you as the voter to cast your vote as Con stating that you do not believe that Pro has fulfilled his burden of proof.

Thank you for the time that you have put into this as the reader, and thank you to my opponent for a cordial and spirited exchange.

Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Microsuck 6 years ago
Although an atheist, ai believe Jesus did die by crucifixion. However, con wins all 7 points and here is why:

1) Conduct: As stated in an earlier rfd, pro plagarized his entire case. This looses conduct.

2) S/g: Lots of grammatical errors in con's case such as spelling "you" as "U" in the second round and had horrible format in the following rounds making his case illlegabke.

3) Arguments: This debate focuses on whether or nt Jesus died by crucifixion. It has asolutelt nothing to do with why Jesus died or if it was for sin etc., as con rightfuly points out it is a red herring. Pro refutes none of con's evidence.

4) Sources: Sources to con as pro's sources were irrelavent and con showed numerous reliable socuments and indeoendent documents concerning Jesus' crucifixion


Very few debates have a winner who ritfully wins all 7 points. This is one of them. Con wins 0-7
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
I will take this debate. Please extend the voting period to 30 days and I will accept! I am very interested in seeing your line of argumentation.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 6 years ago
Yes, evidence from the Koran can't be used as "biblical" evidence.
Posted by nyyfan 6 years ago
You are using biblical evidence from the quran? I understand they are the same set of stories from a different viewpoint but it isn't biblical evidence unless it's from the bible... correct me if I'm wrong.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by twsurber 6 years ago
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear cut victory for the Pro
Vote Placed by Microsuck 6 years ago
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: Comments
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 6 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments and Conduct go to Pro because Con plagiarized his arguments (
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 6 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con from the get-go said he would use Biblical evidence, so all of his claims from the Qu'ran can be summarily dismissed (besides which you can't prove Christian theology wrong by appealing to another holy book). As Pro correctly points out, trying to dismantle the theology of original sin does nothing to disprove whether Jesus was crucified. Con's arguments from the later two rounds were equally weak.