Instigator / Pro
7
1525
rating
23
debates
58.7%
won
Topic
#5048
Did the resurrection happen?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
SethBrown
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1493
rating
25
debates
60.0%
won
Description
Given the nature of this debate, both contenders will have to provide evidence for any historical claims they make, and pro will not be able to assume the bible is real without reason
Pro: The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth happened
con: The resurrection didn't happen
Round 1
Due to the nature of this debate, the burden of proof is on me to prove the resurrection happened, but 1st id like to thank hey-yo for this debate.
The method
So to describe the method we will be using to prove the resurrection or not we will be looking at several different theories, and see how well they explain what happened following the alleged resurrection. For example lets say we established an empty tomb is historical, we could then discredit hallucination theory (a theory that said people hallucinated the resurrection) because it cant account for that. Now of course I wont be assuming the bible is true unless I have reason to, so now lets look at the theories we will be looking at.
The theories
We'll look at the 3 most popular theories, although my opponent (if he wishes) may add a theory he thinks can explain what happened.
Mythic theory - All the events and miracle claims of Jesus were made up at a later time and were not made up by early eyewitnesses
Conspiracy theory - The disciples made up the story of jesus rising from the dead
Hallucination Theory - The disciples had hallucinations that Jesus had risen and that propelled them to think he was alive again
And lastly we'll compare it to the theory I think best explains the evidence:
Resurrection theory - Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his followers
The claims that were made
So the 1st factor we'll look at which is almost unanimous in agreement among scholars is that after Jesus's death his disciples said he appeared to them alive.
Bart Ehrman said:
"I don't doubt at all that some disciples claimed this... Paul, writing about twenty-five years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I dont think he is making it up." [1]
E.P Sanders said:
"It is an 'equally secure fact' that Jesus' disciples 'saw him' (in what sense is not certain) after his death....Thereafter his followers saw him." [2]
The reason for this is because it has multiple attestation: (do note im not assuming the bible is true since this is just showing they claimed it
Paul's Epistles
Mark
John
Matthew
Luke and Acts
Luke and Acts
And most notably Josephus (a Jewish priest, so not biased) wrote about his followers claiming this in Antiquities 18:3:3 [3]
"There was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" [3]
Another reason this is commonly believed is because there is no way to explain the rise of Christianity if they didn't claim Jesus was resurrected, so this is a widely affirmed fact & is evident
Lets see how the theories fare with this factor
Mythic theory - This would most certainly disprove the mythic theory given that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 appears to be an early creed, and most scholars agree it goes back to within 3 years of Pentecost, the reasons for this are overwhelming.
-Mnemonic structure with parallelism
-Less than 50 words
These 2 reasons point towards it being an early creed for catechizing new Christians (easy to learn and memorize)
-Paul also says at the start that he delivered to you (the Corinthians) what he received, meaning it likely came from the disciples themselves.
-The creed also uses the name Cephas, for peter which was an early name for peter, only later on was he called peter
-It also has an independent tradition that is not from the gospels, which is appearing to peter & James (peter likely added his name after learning it)
There is not a single scholar to my knowledge that dates this after the mid 40's, so we can reasonably rule out the mythic theory
-Paul also says at the start that he delivered to you (the Corinthians) what he received, meaning it likely came from the disciples themselves.
-The creed also uses the name Cephas, for peter which was an early name for peter, only later on was he called peter
-It also has an independent tradition that is not from the gospels, which is appearing to peter & James (peter likely added his name after learning it)
Hallucinations theory - the main issue is that many people claimed it happened, and group hallucinations are extremely rate, so rare in fact that there is very little scientific literature on them,
Dr. Gary Sibcy said:
I have surveyed the professional literature (peer reviewed journal articles and books) written by psychologists, psychiatrists and other relevant healthcare professionals during the past two decades and have yet to find a single documented case of a group hallucination, an event for which more than one person purportedly shared in a visual or other sensory perception where there was clearly no referent." [4]
There is no scientific evidence that group hallucinations can even happen
Its also important to note that hallucinations most often manifest in one sensory mode, and multimode hallucinations are exceptionally rare. [5] yet most claims of the resurrection claim multiple senses were used, making the hallucination theory highly, highly improbable, so we can cross of hallucination theory
Conspiracy theory - Ignoring how unlikely it would be to hold together a conspiracy this large, the conspiracy theory can explain why people claimed to see the resurrection, so we'll say this can check this box, despite it being a stretch.
Resurrection theory - The resurrection theory of course can explain why people claimed to see Jesus alive.
onto our next factor:
Enemies of Christ being converted
Next we'll look at 2 people specifically Paul & James.
James was not a follower of Christ before his crucifixion, some examples of scholars who accept this: [6] Betz, Conzelmann, Craig, Derret, Ehrman, Funk, Hoover, Kee, Koester, Ladd, Lorenzen, Ludemann, Meier, Oden, Osborne, Pannenberg, Sanders, Spong, Struhlmacher, Wedderburn
Its also accepted by all [7] scholars that Paul was an enemy of the church originally and later converted, the reason for this is Paul admits it himself, and meets the criteria of embarrassment which is why we should believe it.
Lets see how the theories compare to this
The mythic theory - The mythic theory would have a hard time explaining this, since early Christians wouldn't disrespect early church leaders like paul & james by making this up, and plus its paul himself that admits he was an enemy
Conspiracy theory - The conspiracy theory couldnt account for this either, the only way it could attempt to justify it is to say paul & james lied, but the issue with this is that neither of them (especially Paul since he saw Christians prosecuted) had no reason to lie, infact they had reasons to not lie, Tacitus wrote regarding the prosecution of Christians: [8]
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Why would you lie if you got prosecuted like that for it? Its safe to conclude the conspiracy theory cant answer this.
Hallucination Theory - This would be adding more hallucinations you'd have to explain, so we can deny it for the same reason we did in the previous factor.
Resurrection Theory - The resurrection theory can once again account for this.
Conclusion
I merely pointed out 2 factors to discredit the 3 major theories, out of the 4 we looked at the resurrection is the most reasonable, my opponent must give a theory that would hear to these 2 factors (and possibly more if I add another to discredit his theory), at the moment the resurrection is most reasonable.
Sources:
[1] - The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the early Christian Writings page 301
[2] - The Historical Figure Of Jesus page 13
[3] - The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus. (n.d.). https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link182HCH0003
[4] - The Resurrection of Jesus page 484
[5] - Hallucinations The Science of Idiosyncratic Perception by Andre Aleman & Frank Laroi page 25-46
[6] - The Risen Jesus and the Future Hope, Page 22, 44
[7] - The Case for the Resurrection Of Jesus, page 75
[8] - Wikipedia contributors. (2023, October 4). Tacitus on Jesus. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
Some questions to start.
Core
To confirm, we are using a process of elimination to develop a conclusion? Our conclusion being that Jesus' resurrection is real.
Why are we using this method to determine if it is real?
Are there other ways to determine if the resurrection is real?
Who are these scholars you reference and why are we trusting their report?
Can you confirm who we are talking about when saying James, Paul, ...
The claim.
.ok we know what what claim is.
Why are we accepting that the jewish author is not biased?
Round 2
To confirm, we are using a process of elimination to develop a conclusion? Our conclusion being that Jesus' resurrection is real.
I suppose you could consider it that, ive listed only 2 factors soo far (I may have to add more factors depending on the theory you pick) and that's casted doubt on atleast the 3 major theories, yet the resurrection could explain them.
Why are we using this method to determine if it is real?
Well if we cant really explain what happened any other way then wouldnt it be odd to say a belief in such is irrational?
Are there other ways to determine if the resurrection is real?
Certainly we could point to other ways (shroud of Turin, minimal historical facts, etc) but I find this to be the most compelling.
Who are these scholars you reference and why are we trusting their report?
Well I provided reason in such for each factor, I dont think you can deny claims were made about the resurrection, and I provided reasons to believe they were made within a decade of the supposed resurrection, such as the creed paul represents which most scholars date to within 10 years, and I dont know of a single one that dates it past 45 ad.
Can you confirm who we are talking about when saying James, Paul, ...
Yes, when we say paul we are referring to the paul in the bible, the one that wrote most of the new testament, and by James we are referring to the brother of Jesus, we know James existed based off of Josephus's writings
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned (Antiquities 20:9:1). [1]
.ok we know what what claim is.Why are we accepting that the jewish author is not biased?
Josephus? Well a one of the reasons we know Josephus is not biased is 1, he was Jewish & the Jews rejected Jesus as a blasphemer (note josephs didn't convert to Christianity or anything), so there's no reason for him to make something up for Jesus sake, it appears in his antiquities he's recording history. Its also worth noting that Josephus's writings arent super important to my argument, probably worth addressing that Tacitus is reliable since Tacitus seems to have cared about his reputation & wouldnt make things up, and Tacitus is used often to look at historical claims since he was a roman historian around the time of Rome.
sources:
[1] - The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus. (n.d.). https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link202HCH0009
Ok. I lost interest for this debate. Sorry to waste your time. I thought I had it in me.
Interesting stufff though. Thanks.
I quit.
Round 3
Alright man your good.
Pro wins.
Vote pro
Round 4
Again, thanks for the debate
Thanks for putting it up.
Round 5
Gg's man
Gg
Vote pro
