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

It is more likely that the Resurrection happened than that it didn't

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
KingsLink has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 246 times Debate No: 112388
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




The hinge pin of Christianity is the idea that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after being crucified. Whilst my burden is not to prove this idea with 100% certainty it is to show that the event has a higher chance of having occurred than having not occurred. Here's the general argument outline:

A. Jesus probably existed
This is something that most New Testament scholars affirm. I could point out by saying that Jesus as a figure is referred to in numerous sources both inside and outside the New Testament. There's frankly more reason to believe that Jesus existed that there is to believe he did not. If he didn't exist it is highly unlikely a whole cult could've centered around him so close to his supposed life. The early Christians collective seems to have claimed that Jesus existed and died quite recently. It is quite frankly difficult to start a religion that claims its cult figure just died a couple days/weeks/months ago IN the city where this claim is made (Jerusalem) and lie without being called out on it, this cult would be quite unsuccessful.
B. Jesus probably died via crucifixion
This follows the same logic as A. It would be quite hard to lie about this and still get a religion flowing. If somebody says "Jesus, who was crucified x days ago is the son of God" and people say "Wait a minute... we know Jesus and he wasn't crucified" or they would say "We don't know a Jesus" you won't get any followers. It is also an unpleasant truth and it is odd that somebody would make it up. We also know he was crucified for reasons to do with his religious claims because... well once again this seems to be something that the early Christians claim and it seems like if it were a lie contemporaries would call them out on it.
C. The early followers of Jesus believed in the Ressurection

Since we have a historical Jesus who was crucified we can imagine that the crucifixion would leave the morale of his followers quite low. You'd expect them all to hide and cover after the event for twofold reasons; disappointment and fear. Yet somehow the disciples solve this dilemma. They claim this is because they have seen Jesus risen from the dead. They could either be a) lying or they could be b) a bit mad or they could be c) telling the truth. I intend to show that a) is impossible without b) and that b) is improbable
D. The early followers of Jesus, even those who spread the belief in the Ressurection were persecuted/killed for this reason (or in part for this reason).

This is also something that is true beyond a doubt. Early Christians, even those who claimed to have seen Jesus risen were often martyred for this belief. If they knew they were lying they would surely recant in an attempt to save their lives. Thus either they were the biggest and most successful group of madmen in history or they were telling the truth.

Further claims that help my argument

E. Where's the body?
It seems like there would've been an easy way for the authorities of the time to prove Jesus had not risen... parade his body through the streets of Jerusalem or something of that sort. They did not. That can be because a) there was no body because Jesus had risen or because b) his body was in a communal grave/could not be identified. I would suggest b) is improbable (though probably the most probable of improbable things stated so far). If Jesus had been buried in a communal grave it would be hard for the apostles to claim, in Jerusalem, the city where Jesus was crucified that Jesus had a tomb and still raise followers (which is one of the central earlyish claims they made). If the body were disfigured beyond recognition a fake body could be presented, there would be no need for identification. Either way, if the Jewish authorities wanted to kill Christianity in its cradle (which would have been very much in their interest) it was easy to do so and it seems like there was no need to kill/imprison people if they could've proven them wrong.

F. Unpleasant details
According to the NT, the first witnesses to the Ressurection are two women (not the apostles) which would've been particularly embarrassing at the time.

G. The conversion of Saul

Need I say more?

Lastly some sources to give weight to some points:

The existence of Jesus

Spread of early Christianity
It is quite easy to prove that Christianity is a Jewish based religion because it's simply apparent through the NT and all early Christian writings as well as the way external sources describe it

If any of the argument requires further citations (it probably does to be honest) or anybody has anything against any of the general points I'd be happy to hear it out.

For the opposition:

How do you explain the formation of the religion known as Christianity?
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 72Cats 3 years ago
Fair enough. Wikipedia offers citations on its texts if you wish to look into those. None of the sources are essential. I do make several assertions that I don't back up by sources but I doubt most people would challenge any of them (ie most people would not argue that Christianity did not start in Jerusalem)
Posted by Gabe6120 3 years ago
Decent argument, only problem is your sources are from Wikipedia.
This debate has 8 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.