The Instigator
al1029384756
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AWSM0055
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Was Jesus resurrected

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 1 vote the winner is...
AWSM0055
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 447 times Debate No: 81641
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

al1029384756

Pro

Hello,
I would like to challenge anyone on if Jesus really rose from the death as written in the scripture.
It has been a common myth on the Internet to say that Jesus didn't exist. We have 5 non Christian sources mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, including the Talmud, Josephus, Tacticus , Piny the younger and Lucian.
In ancient time if you had 2 independent sources mentioning an event it would be counted as a historical facts. A lot of historical facts are based on 2 independent sources. We have 5 mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus.

However, this is not what the discussion is about. When it comes to Jesus of nazareth, there are 4 facts that every reputable new testament historian believe in. And those historical facts are:

1) Jesus was buried by Joseph of Armathia after his crucifixion

2) Jesus' s tomb was found empty by a group of women the Sunday following the crucifixion

3) Multiple individuals have experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death (not only his disciples but skeptics and even enemies)

4) The disciples genuinely came to believe in the resurrection despite having every disposition of it:
- The Jewish theology prohibits a dying messiah, the messiah is not supposed to die
- In Judaism, there's a general resurrection of everybody, there is not supposed to be the resurrection of one man
- The Jewish theology certainly does not predict a single resurrection of the messiah after he dies
- So the belief in the resurrection is unlikely to have been invented
- Disciples were willing to get killed and go to hell for that belief in the resurrection

And the fact is, that there is no plausible naturalistic explanation for these minimal facts. The theories like Jesus wasn't really dead when he was buried, or that the body was stolen, or that the disciples hallucinate, are rejected universally, and I'm willing to address them.

So the only plausible explanation is the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the death" as accordance to the scripture.
AWSM0055

Con

Ok, first, source please! You cannot spout of stuff like "Historians ALL agree on blah blah blah" without sources and references! Your so called "facts" are as good as the anecdotal evidence Jesus disciples gave!

And even if I did take your word for it, I would say that firstly, five different people mentioning Jesus crucifixion has nothing to do with his supposed resurrection!

Furthermore, historian "facts" are not completely infallible, but are simply something that most historians agree on (which is not reliable, as many people 500 years ago believed the earth was flat, so the number of believers has nothing to do with how true it is. This is a bandwagon fallacy.

On to your next point:

"In ancient time if you had 2 independent sources mentioning an event it would be counted as a historical facts. A lot of historical facts are based on 2 independent sources. We have 5 mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus."

You admit this has nothing to do with the discussion and is not convincing, so I'm baffled as to why you put this in your argument.

But let me break down your other points and give simpler explanations for them:

"1) Jesus was buried by Joseph of Armathia after his crucifixion"

So? This doesn't support your claim at all.

"2) Jesus' s tomb was found empty by a group of women the Sunday following the crucifixion"

Again, so? Jesus was known for being a magic man throughout Israel (true or not), so grave robbers would have been salivating over his death! Or even simpler, maybe his disciples took his body and made up the rest? Who knows!?

"3) Multiple individuals have experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death (not only his disciples but skeptics and even enemies)"

And this is written in a book 2000 odd years ago, so no, this is not a convincing argument for his resurrection.

"4) The disciples genuinely came to believe in the resurrection despite having every disposition of it:
- The Jewish theology prohibits a dying messiah, the messiah is not supposed to die
- In Judaism, there's a general resurrection of everybody, there is not supposed to be the resurrection of one man
- The Jewish theology certainly does not predict a single resurrection of the messiah after he dies
- So the belief in the resurrection is unlikely to have been invented
- Disciples were willing to get killed and go to hell for that belief in the resurrection"

Ok, firstly, controversial books have been around for donkeys years. Good modern examples are fifty shades of grey, or even the satanic bible. Simply because a book or story is not in a majority's favour, does not make it convincing or true.

Secondly, I rolled my eyes at your second point that said "In Judaism, there's a general resurrection of everybody..."

The Jews didn't solidly believe in the resurrection. In fact, Sadducees (a movement of Judaism) didn't believe in a general resurrection of everybody at all, whereas Pharisees (another group) did. Ancient Judaism had many different opinions and was often subject to interpretation.

Finally, you last argument that Jesus disciples were willing to go to hell is flawed. Firstly, Im guessing you mean everlasting torment when you say hell, which is not according to Jewish beliefs.

Secondly, this argument does not make me want to believe in Jesus resurrection at all. People who murder often know they will go to jail for it, yet do it anyway. Simply because they knew they were doing something unpopular and likely to get them killed, does not mean Jesus was actually resurrected.

I also want to add a point about the guards at Jesus tomb. This detail is ONLY found in the gospel book Mathew. This detail is found in no other gospel or book. Therefore, this detail seemed to be added into the sorry to make hoaxes or grave robbery less likely,
Debate Round No. 1
al1029384756

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate.

The minimal facts are not facts because I say so or because historian say so, I can prove you the historicity of those facts.

Historical evidence demonstrates the"Gospel"of Mark was written before 37 A.D which would be about"four years or less after Jesus" crucifixion and scholars further note the"language, grammar and style used by Mark in his account of Jesus" crucifixion and resurrection (including the empty tomb) indicates Mark received the narrative from an earlier source. As noted by Oxford historian A.N. Sherwin-White, it is unprecedented anywhere in history for a legend to have arisen that fast so as to distort the account in the gospels of the resurrection.
Mark's Passion source didn't end with Jesus' burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial account verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John rely on independent sources about the empty tomb. Jesus' empty tomb is also mentioned in the early sermons independently preserved in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36), and it's implied by the very old tradition handed on by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have multiple, early attestation of the fact of the empty tomb in at least four independent sources. Same thing with the multiple attestations
The dominant view among NT scholars is therefore that the Passion narratives are early and based on eyewitness testimony (Mark Allen Powell,"JAAR"68 [2000]: 171). Indeed, according to Richard Bauckham, many scholars date Mark's Passion narrative no later than the 40s (recall that Jesus died in A.D. 30) (Richard Bauckham,"Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2006, p. 243). So we're dealing here with an extraordinarily early source.

Now Matthew and Luke probably knew Mark's Gospel, as you note, and used it as one of their sources. But the differences between Mark and the other Synoptics point to other independent sources behind Matthew and Luke. These differences are not plausibly explained as due to editorial changes introduced by Matthew and Luke because of (i) their sporadic and uneven nature (e.g., Mark: "tomb which had been hewn out of rock"; Matthew: "tomb which he hewed in the rock"; (ii) the inexplicable omission of events like Pilate's interrogating the centurion; and (iii) Matthew and Luke's agreeing in"their"wording in contrast to Mark (e.g.,"Matt. 27.58"="Lk. 23.52""This man went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus." Also the phrase translated "wrapped it in linen" is identical in Matthew and Luke. How could Matthew and Luke have"independently"chosen exactly the same wording in contrast to Mark? They both probably had another source. Indeed, as we'll see when we get to the empty tomb account, differences between Matthew and Luke emerge that suggest multiple sources.

Moreover, John is generally believed to be independent of the Synoptic Gospels. As Paul Barnett points out, "Careful comparison of the texts of Mark and John indicate that neither of these Gospels is dependent on the other. Yet they have a number of incidents in common: For example, . . . the burial of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea" (Jesus and the Logic of History, 1997, pp. 104-5).

Finally, the old tradition handed on by Paul to the Corinthian church, which is among the earliest traditions identifiable in the NT, refers to Jesus' burial in the second line of the tradition. That this is the same event as the burial described in the Gospels becomes evident by comparing Paul's tradition with the Passion narratives on the one hand and the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles on the other. The four-line tradition handed on by Paul is a summary of the central events of Jesus' crucifixion, burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb, and his appearances to the disciples.

What about the empty tomb account? First, it was also part of the pre-Markan Passion narrative. The empty tomb story is syntactically tied to the burial story; indeed, they are just one story."E.g., the antecedent of "him" (Jesus) in"Mk. 16:1"is in the burial account (15:43); the women's discussion of the stone presupposes the stone's being rolled over the tomb's entrance; their visiting the tomb presupposes their noting its location in 15.47; the words of the angel "see the place where they laid him" refer back to Joseph's laying body in the tomb.

As for the other Gospels, that Matthew has an independent tradition of the empty tomb is evident not only from the non-Matthean vocabulary (e.g., the words translated "on the next day," "the preparation day," "deceiver," "guard [of soldiers]," "to make secure," "to seal"; the expression "on the third day" is also non-Matthean, for he everywhere else uses "after three days;" the expression "chief priests and Pharisees" never appears in Mark or Luke and is also unusual for Matthew), but also from"Matt. 28.15: "this story has been spread among Jews till this day," indicative of a tradition history of disputes with Jewish non-Christians. Luke and John have the non-Markan story of Peter and another disciple inspecting the tomb, which, given John's independence of Luke, indicates a separate tradition behind the story. Moreover, we have already seen that John's independence of Mark shows that he has a separate source for the empty tomb. Same method with the post mortem apprences of jesus

"http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

6"The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It"s outstandingly different in quality and quantity."
~Antony Flew

Minimal fact 1: The burial by Joseph of Armathia
There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus" burial by Joseph is "very probable," since it is "almost inexplicable" why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus."1

For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is "one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."

Minimal fact 2: Empty
Why the body couldn't have been stolen:
.The guards stationed at the tomb would have prevented anyone from stealing Jesus" body.
.No one stealing the body would have had a reason to leave the grave clothes behind or take time to fold the burial head cloth.
.The initial reactions of the disciples when they found out the tomb was empty were inconsistent with them stealing Jesus" body.
(When the women reported they had seen Jesus alive, the disciples initial reaction was to think the women were talking nonsense (Luke 24:10-12). Some of the disciples did not believe Jesus had bee resurrected until after they personally witnessed the resurrected Jesus with their own eyes (John 20:25). Thomas didn't believe Jesus had been resurrected even though the other ten apostles told him Jesus had appeared to them (John 20:19-25)
. The resurrection of man the messiah was completely unexpected on judaism, jewish theology prohibits a dying messiah, the invention of that would lead the inventors to get persecuted and go to hell
. Jewish propaganda presupposes empty tomb, they even paid for those who have seen it to lie
.The explanation someone stole the body doesn't explain the eyewitness testimony of Jesus" post crucifixion and burial appearances

Minimal fact 3: Post mortem apprences
We have independent sources attesting to have seen jesus alive after his dead, even Paul who was persecuting ealy Christians have witnessed apparitions of jesus after his death
.Hallucinations usually happen only once, except to the insane."This one returned many times, to ordinary people (Jn"20:19-21:14;"Acts 1:3).
.Hallucinations come from within, from what we already know, at least unconsciously."This one said and did surprising and unexpected things (Acts 1:4,9)"like a real person and unlike a dream.
.Not only did the disciples not expect this, they didn't even believe it at first. Neither Peter, nor the women, nor Thomas, nor the eleven believed. They thought he was a ghost; he had to eat something to prove he was not (Lk"24:36-43).
. Hallucinations do not eat."Yet the resurrected Christ did, on at least two occasions (Lk"24:42-43;"Jn 21:1-14).
. Paul was persecuting early Christians until he saw jesus and came to genuinely believe in the resurrection, he hadn't met jesus before nor did he love him, no reason for hallucinations
.The disciples touched him"(Mt 28:9;"Lk24:39;"Jn"20:27).
.They also spoke with him, and he spoke back."Figments of your imagination do not hold profound, extended conversations with you, unless you have the kind of mental disorder that isolates you. But this "hallucination" conversed with at least eleven people at once, for forty days (Acts 1:3).
.The apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination" if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb."This is a very simple and telling point; for if it was a hallucination, where was the corpse? They would have checked for it; if it was there, they could not have believed.

The resurrection of man the messiah was completely unexpected on judaism, they wouldn't have made this up.
They would get persecuted, they did get persecuted in fact. And also that unjewish belief could lead them to hell in their mind.

The only plausible explanation is the hypothesis "god raised jesus from the death" as written in the scripture
AWSM0055

Con

Firstly, I'm not saying that Jesus tomb was never empty, I'm saying that Jesus was not resurrected. And I don't care about the the disciples grammatically implied "eye-witness" testimony, or the dependence/independence of each other. I also don't care about the pre-burial of Jesus or the supposed post-burial and his disappearance three days later. The question here is whether Jesus' disappearance was indeed due to him being resurrected. Also, the bible is not a reliable source of history, and should not be used as one, so in the future, don't use bible passages to indicate reliability.

( If you want examples of its unreliability, read this: http://www.answering-christianity.com... )

Secondly, I'm not entirely sure about whether you proved that Mathew is somehow reliable or not, as I got easily lost in your many lines of argument, so I apologise if I ignored anything important (try paraphrasing your arguments better). But like I said before, the Gospel of Mathew seems to provide exclusive details that Mathew himself should not have known, such as the guards at Jesus' grave and the high priests supposed secret conversations. Therefore, if such details seemed made up, then guards being present in Jesus' tomb is unlikely.

This would obviously give free reign to all grave robbers interested in selling part of Jesus body for money, which was common.

And for your point about the robber supposedly leaving clothes and linen behind, does this's give any more credibility to Jesus being resurrected? I don't think so.

Anyway, most info about Jesus is from the bible, which as I stated earlier, is horribly inaccurate and relies on mostly anecdotal evidence.

Therefore, we really have no idea whether the disciples or Paul really saw ghost Jesus or not, as it's ALL from the bible!

Nonetheless, I agree much of Jesus' resurrection story is mysterious, which is why it's so successful as a religion. But we really don't know if Jesus truly came back from the dead, or whether his disciples made it all up, or whether they attempted to cover up their skeletons in the closet with made up details to justify his supposed resurrection: We don't know.

And one last point I found interesting when researching: Roman LAW dictated that part of the crucifixion punishment was the denial of a burial. Therefore, criminals were left to rot on the cross and not buried. Why do the gospels say Jesus was buried at all? This seems historically inaccurate.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org...]

Finally, as a slight suggestion, could you please keep your arguments as paraphrased and concise as possible, as I find it difficult reading great wads of text due to my dyslexia. Sry
Debate Round No. 2
al1029384756

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for participating in this debate. And in my final round, I'm going to write a summary.
"The question here is whether Jesus' disappearance was indeed due to him being resurrected"
I'm aware that you didn't deny the empty tomb and that you don't care about the post mortem appearances, but the only plausible explanation here, is that Jesus really rose from the death as written in the scripture. I addressed in my previous argument the most famous theories about this like jesus's body was stolen, and that the disciples had hallucinations etc.. I also said that im willing to address any other theory but you didn't offer any.

I don't understand why you sent me a site against Christianity, I can send you a site against atheism or against islam. Does that matter? No, we're here debating. And slight contradictions don't prove the gospels are not reliable; The resurrection narratives bear unmistakable signs of being historically accurate. The earliness of these accounts, at a time when hostile witnesses were present, would have made a fabrication unlikely and dangerous. There is agreement on the main facts and great variety in the witnesses given, yet they are not a mere repetition of some standardized story with all the discrepancies worked out. Indeed, the accounts of Christ"s resurrection appearances are clearly independent of one another, as their surface dissimilarities suggest. Deeper scrutiny, however, reveals that these appearances are non-contradictory. Henry Morris writes:
"It is a well-known rule of evidence that the testimonies of several different witnesses, each reporting from his own particular vantage point, provide the strongest possible evidence when the testimonies contain superficial contradictions that resolve themselves upon close and careful examination. This is exactly the situation with the various witnesses to the resurrection"

The Roman authorities took him into protective custody lest he be killed by the Jews. After several appeals according to Roman Law, Paul found himself standing before King Agrippa, his last level of appeal before the Emperor himself.

Given permission to speak freely, Paul launched into a passionate account of his life, culminating with his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. When Paul then verified the resurrection from Old Testament prophecy, the governor, Festus, interrupted him and told him he was crazy. The truth of Paul"s brilliant reply remains emblazoned across the pages of human history.

Acts 26:25 and 26
(25)""I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable.
(26)"The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because It was not done in a corner."

Also, you said that romans kept victims on the cross, but jews burry the dead, and jesus was a jew
There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus" burial by Joseph is "very probable," since it is "almost inexplicable" why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus."1
For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is "one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."

"Nonetheless, I agree much of Jesus' resurrection story is mysterious, which is why it's so successful as a religion. But we really don't know if Jesus truly came back from the dead, or whether his disciples made it all up"
We can know that jesus was raised from the dead, the fact is that there is no naturalistic explanation for the hisrorical facts we have for the resurrection. You didn't offer any, but I addressed the most famous anti resurrection story.
The disciples also couldn't have made this up as I argued in the previous round, you didn't believe and the disciples themselves , and jesus rebuked them "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" Luke 24 22.
When he appeared to the other disciples on other occasions, they didn't believe as well, they thought he was a ghost, he had to eat with them to prove them that he's not (matthew 4 26 and luke 24 37). The disciple thomas had to touch his flesh to believe.

Given all the evidence, we can say that jesus was resurrected and know it in our hearts.
But we can't go back to the first easter, so we have to believe without seeing it
"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29
AWSM0055

Con

Firstly, I would like to thank my opponent for clearing that up. I now better understand your argument, so now I may refute it better:

Firstly, you say there were plenty of eye-witness accounts recorded in the bible (specifically the gospels)

My argument is that the gospels are not accurate sources of information to draw the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected.

You argument is that the contradictions in the gospels don't make the entire gospels unreliable.

My response is that no, I'm not saying the entire gospel is a lie, but rather we don't know which parts are true or which parts are lies. I infer that you believe God inspired the gospels? If so, I could reason there *should* be no mistakes or errors (this is, after all, supposed to be a detailed account of Jesus life!). Alas, there is, which I showed you in that website I linked.

I believe Jesus was a real person, and died on a cross, and was buried. I do believe that Jesus disciples wrote many eye-witness details about Jesus' life and such. Nonetheless, they also make quite a bit of stuff up as well.

So my reasoning goes like this: If these gospels seem unreliable, why should we use them as source of information regarding Jesus resurrection? Even many separate eye-witness accounts TODAY would have a difficult time convincing critics that they saw ghost Jesus, far less a bunch of unreliable books written 2000 years ago by random Jews during a time when people often made up stories!

However, I do NOT have to give a theory regarding the disappearance of Jesus in the tomb. You are making the claim that Jesus was resurrected, and I'm unconvinced. I don't have the burden of proof! You do.

Furthermore, even though the burden of proof is not on me, I said that grave robbers could have easily raided Jesus grave as there were probably no guards about, nor anyone stoping them. The only account that mentioned the guards at Jesus tomb was Mathew, whom probably simply added that in to give more credibility to the story.

You also argue that because there is no natural explanation for Jesus disappearance (which there is, but I will pretend there isn't for the sake of argument), then therefore Jesus was resurrected.

This is false, and a "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Even if we had no idea where Jesus went, it still gives no credence to the claim that he turned into a ghost and flew away!

I'm sorry, that was a little condescending, but you get my point, it's sounds a little ridiculous.

I also want to point out that you're again using the gospels as your source of information, which they shouldn't be! You say that Jesus was resurrected, and that the very gospels making this claim also give anecdotal evidence in support of it (including the whole flesh touching thing by Thomas)! The gospels aren't reliable enough, and the possibility of bias is too high to take them seriously. You could skip any hallucination theory altogether and simply say "The gospel is t reliable enough"!

As Christopher Hitchens once said: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

You have provided no evidence the gospels are reliable besides "But Mathew said this... and Luke said this...and Mathew and Mark said similar things therefore Jesus was resurrected"

Not evidence.

And don't feel like your somehow being hard-done by: The scientific community and critics alike shouldn't believe even the most respected scientists or person in the world if he/she still remains without sufficient, verifiable evidence.

(Also, as a side note, John 20:29 DIRECTLY contradicts Proverbs 14:15 which says: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." ...The bible seems like a very wibbly-wobbly kind of book)
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
Even if 100% of historians were to conclude that the Bible was 100% factual, that would not mean it is actually 100% factual. A more reasonable explanation is that they are wrong until you can demonstrate that the events in the Bible are possible. It might be the case that the standard that historians use to verify things is a bad standard.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
al1029384756AWSM0055Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: As a Christian, I still believe that Jesus was ressurected, but Con provided much more rational arguements than Pro. Con successfully debunked all of Pro's points, while Pro was much too weighted on the Bible, while he should have used other sources to prove his points better. My votes go to Con on this one.