Is it probable that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead?

For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. [14]

But a clear and unmistakable proof of the fact I hold to be the undertaking of His disciples, who devoted themselves to the teaching of a doctrine which was attended with danger to human life — a doctrine which they would not have taught with such courage had they invented the resurrection of Jesus from the dead; and who also, at the same time, not only prepared others to despise death, but were themselves the first to manifest their disregard for its terrors. [16]

The first argument I would like to present is the medical impossibility of Jesus coming back from the dead. ... This puts Pro in a tough position as they must either prove all known medical science wrong and prove that brain death is not irreversible or that Jesus, who was a human somehow does not adhere to the laws of physics.

Although Pro has asked that his Christian sources be treated as historical documents, I cannot comply with that request. Firstly. it is indeed biased to demand theological documents as historical facts when they are historically not recognized as such, and there are many reasons for that.

... Jesus did not write the bible. The Bible that is based on Jesus is one that was written by his followers and that was a full decade after he died. This renders the bible and everything that it supposedly says about Jesus, including his supposed teachings, unreliable as sources of information by academic standards.

 pro can make very logical excuses for why there is a lack of evidence for Jesus, and it may sound very convincing, but it is not true.

One major source of reason Christians think that Jesus did die and come to life is because they believe they have found the tomb that Jesus was placed in for three days. However, this is a fallacy because the existence of the tomb itself proves nothing.

Pro is relying on the illogical premise that if the apostles were wrong or lying, then they would not have maintained their claims even at the cost of dying for them.

However, one can still fully believe in something, be wrong, and also not be lying because they wholeheartedly believe what they believe in even if said beliefs cannot be proven or indeed are false.

Early in my opponent's argument, he tries to use a well-known atheist and bible scholar known as Gerd Ludemann. pro tries to misrepresent Gerd as saying that the apostles really saw the resurrection of Jesus and that such an event is indeed a historically recognized event. 

But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probably that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. (Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.15) [15]

Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman. (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8) [16]

This objection reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. The claim that "science proves resurrections are impossible" is based on a naturalistic assumption that all events must conform to known natural laws. What science has shown is that a person is not going to rise from the dead by natural causes [4]. This reasoning does not apply to Jesus' resurrection, since we are not claiming that Jesus came back to life naturally. The writers of the New Testament asserted that it was God who raised Jesus from the dead [5]. 

While my opponent objects to treating Christian sources as historical documents, scholars, both religious and secular, have long valued the New Testament for its historical content [7]. The historical-critical method, widely accepted in academia, allows us to analyze these texts just as we would any other ancient writings [8]. By treating the New Testament as a collection of first-century documents rather than solely theological texts, we gain insight into the socio-cultural context of the time, providing valuable historical data. Ignoring these sources would disregard valuable evidence that has been rigorously examined by historians across the spectrum. 

Contrary to my opponent's assertion that these texts are "historically not recognized as such," the New Testament has been treated as valuable historical documents in scholarly circles [9] [10]. To disregard these texts entirely would be to ignore a significant body of evidence that has been carefully analyzed and debated by scholars. Historians do not reject evidence merely because of its biases; instead, they critically analyze all available data [11]. Therefore, using the Bible as a source, especially on the subject of the resurrection, is not only acceptable but essential for a comprehensive analysis.

My opponent claims the Gospels are unreliable because Jesus didn't write them and they were written decades later by His followers. However, the Gospels' value comes precisely from being eyewitness accounts. Most historical figures, like Genghis Khan or George Washington, are known through similar writings. Dismissing the Gospels ignores the importance of primary sources in historical research.

My opponent has misunderstood the argument for the empty tomb. They claim that the empty tomb is fallacious because the "discovery of the tomb" does not prove that Jesus came back to life. However, this was not the argument. If the tomb weren’t empty, Jesus’ opponents could have easily disproven His resurrection by producing the body. The absence of His body, despite being guarded, supports the claim that the resurrection occurred. Alternative explanations like theft or misplacement fail to account for the historical and social context surrounding the event. 

My opponent asserts "Many people have died for their beliefs, but that does not mean that their beliefs were true." I agree, but this misses the point: The disciples' willingness to suffer and die for their beliefs indicates that they certainly regarded those beliefs as true. The case is strong that they did not willfully lie about the appearances of the risen Jesus. The crucial difference between the apostles and modern martyrs is that the apostles were in a position to know whether their beliefs were true or false.

Extreme acts do not validate the truth of their beliefs, but willingness to die indicates that they regarded their beliefs as true. Moreover, there is an important difference between the apostle martyrs and those who die for their beliefs today. Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that other have taught them. The apostles died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The disciples of Jesus died for what they knew to be either true or false. The martyrs you are referencing when you say "one can still fully believe something, be wrong, and die for these wrong beliefs" are not categorically the same as the apostle martyrs. This is an important distinction to draw. Unlike these martyrs, the apostles knew whether Jesus appeared to them or not. They knew whether their beliefs were true or false. Had they been false, the apostles would have renounced their claims.

If the apostles had been lying about their experiences, it is unlikely they would have willingly faced torture and death with nothing to gain. Even the highly critical New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann agreed that historical criticism can establish the fact that "the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection" and that they thought they had seen the risen Jesus [12].

 My opponent has accused me of misrepresenting the atheist and Bible scholar Gerd Lüdemann. They claim that I suggested Lüdemann believes the resurrection is historically certain. In reality, I accurately quoted Lüdemann, who stated, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." [13]. This quote does not imply that Lüdemann believes in the resurrection as a historical event, but he deems the subjective experiences of the apostles as historically certain.

My argument was not that Lüdemann supports the resurrection as a historical fact, but that even a skeptical scholar like him acknowledges the certainty of the disciples' experiences. Any misinterpretation of this point arises from a misreading on the part of my opponent.

So, what? It doesn't matter what the writers of the New Testament Claim. What matters is what can be proven. I proved that the resurrection of Jesu is a scientific impossibility. If your counter to this point is to say that the resurrection of Jesus did not happen naturally and was divine in nature, then you must prove that both the resurrection did indeed happen and that it was a divine one at that.

The difference pro is that we can validate everything we know about George Washington and Genghis Kon and everything that they did because they are historically Coherent.

The claim that Jesus rose from the dead comes from Christians. Thus, it is the Christians job to Prove Jesus rose from the dead.

Your argument is again that the tomb was empty thus it proves he resurrected, which is exactly what I said in the first round.

One major source of reason Christians think that Jesus did die and come to life is because they believe they have found the tomb that Jesus was placed in for three days. However, this is a fallacy because the existence of the tomb itself proves nothing. ...  The fact is there is no objective evidence to say the tomb everyone thinks that Jesus's body was once put in was the correct one, nor does the location itself prove anything. ... It's no different than if I told you that I died and came back three days ... and I told you the location [of the tomb I was buried in] and you visited it and saw that robbing my body would be difficult, and then concluding that indeed must have come back to life since you have the location. 

Pro, you not only just said that you agree that many people are willing to die for beliefs that are false whole believing it to be true. Now you're saying that the mere fact the disciples were willing to suffer and die because they believed their beliefs were true. There is literally zero difference.

What about the Millions of Germans that died during World War 2 for Adolf Hitler? Do you really believe that they all willingly died for a genocidal racist? No, many were loyal to him and believed he was leading them to greatness. Were they right? No, but were they all liars? Also no.

This does not dismiss the possibility that the story is indeed fabricated. There is essentially no evidence to support it but hearsay as eyewitness, no matter how many cannot constitute alone as evidence. The gender of the witness or what the author thought about them at the time is also irrelevant.

The Gospels are considered to be based on eyewitness testimonies of Jesus’ life [1]. If any source provides deeper insight into Jesus’ life, it is these texts, whose authors were directly associated with Him during His ministry. Their claims are crucial, especially as they are founded on firsthand observations. In his work Against Heresies (Book III), St. Irenaeus defends the authenticity and apostolic authority of the Gospels. He argues that the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written by the apostles or their close associates and that these texts are trustworthy testimonies of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus [2].

My opponent also claims "what matters is what can be proven." Refer to my Round 2 "Prerequisite." The opposing party continues to use erroneous language with regards to this debate. Notice, for instance, how the description of the debate states "This debate will determine whether it is more probable, based on available evidence, that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead." 

Insofar as my opponent's naturalistic perspective goes, it fails to account for the resurrection's divine factor. In the pursuit to clarify this positional cornerstone, I attempted to convey that the resurrection transcends naturalistic supposition and oversteps into divine territory. 

My opponent has dismissed this by labeling it “magic.” It’s essential to differentiate: magic involves manipulating natural laws, while divine power transcends them. When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, we are not claiming that Jesus came back to life naturally. The writers of the New Testament and I both assert that it was God who raised Jesus from the dead [3].

It seems the only counterargument my opponent seems to be able to conjure is to disregard the divine claim, holding steadfast to the idea that the divine cannot surpass known natural laws. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead is not a point of view. The resurrection claim is not merely a theological assertion but a historical one. Paul, in Acts 26:26, emphasizes that these events were not done "in a corner," implying they were public and verifiable events [4]. It may be investigated like any alleged historical event. Is there any historical merit to the claim? Jesus’ death on a cross, burial in a tomb that was empty three days later, and the disciples’ testimony of His resurrection are all well-established facts. So much so that skeptics have focused on undermining Christianity by attempting to explain them away.

My opponent notes that scholars study the New Testament for different reasons but doesn’t deny its value for historical content. This inadvertently supports my stance. The only sources they have provided throughout their round support this narrative as well [5] [6]. For example, my opponent's first source acknowledges that the Gospels are the biographies of Jesus.

My opponent attempts to draw a parallel between the apostle martyrs and German soldiers who died for Adolf Hitler during World War II. However, this analogy is not apt. The German soldiers were fighting for a cause they believed in, but they did not have firsthand knowledge of Hitler’s true intentions or the full scope of his actions. Many were loyal to him and believed he was leading them to greatness, but their beliefs were based on misinformation and propaganda [12], not on direct personal experience.

In contrast, the apostles were not merely fighting for a cause based on secondhand information. They claimed to be direct witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. If their testimony were false, they would have knowingly faced persecution and death for something they knew to be untrue — a much more unlikely scenario than dying for a cause in which one is sincerely, albeit mistakenly, invested. The comparison, therefore, fails to recognize the crucial difference between dying for a belief one holds without direct evidence and dying for a claim of a firsthand encounter.

It is anything but irrelevancy. Had the story indeed been fabricated, with the express purpose to deceive as many people, the authors would not have included information that would hurt its credibility and its potential to deceive. Had the writers wanted as many converts, they would not have listed women as the primary witnesses of the empty tomb — especially not in a society where the testimony of women were not believed. Including a testimony that would not be believed in a writing intended to be believed is contrary and self-refuting.

Actually, as I explained earlier, there is a fundamental difference between viewing the gospels based on theology and academia.

In other words, you have to prove it. So, no, it is not erroneous to say that It falls on you to prove the probability of the resurrection.

academics, on the other hand, study the bible because they focus on the historical impact the stories had on the ancient world rather than what the stories themselves mean.

Pro, you have just as much luck at convincing a German soldier that Adolf Hitler was a genocidal madman during World War 2 as you do the disciples that Jesus never rose from the dead. There is no difference.  The concept is that you believe in something so strongly that regardless of if that belief is true or not, you will die for it

If you insist that your argument, be based on historical probability. Then right off the bat, you prove that A. Divinity is real, and B. It can override physical science. So far, you have not done so.

True, women were not well regarded at the time, but that is where the true deception lies. What better way to sell the idea that Jesus came back from the dead, which would be seen as impossible if not also uncommon witnesses such as women in a time where women were seen as less than a man?

I can claim right now that I saw Aliens, I could even be fully convinced that I saw what I saw. However, just because I might believe my own story and even die for it does not mean what I said was true.