Instigator / Pro
14
1514
rating
4
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#5657
Is it probable that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
CatholicApologetics
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
8
1453
rating
43
debates
56.98%
won
Description
This debate will focus on evaluating the evidence regarding the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
However, the aim of this debate is not to declare a 'Winner' or 'Loser.' The true purpose is to educate and expand the understanding of all who read the debate.
Resolution: This debate will determine whether it is more probable, based on available evidence, that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
Definitions:
Probable: More likely to be true than not, based on the assessment of evidence.
Resurrection: The action of restoring someone to life from death.
The debate will focus on evaluating whether the available evidence supports the probability of Jesus’ resurrection.
Rules:
1. Both parties agree on the historical existence and death of Jesus.
2. For consistency, the NRSV Bible will be used as the reference when citing scripture.
3. In the final round, only counterarguments addressing previous points will be allowed; no new arguments may be introduced.
4. Failure to comply with rule #3 will result in an automatic forfeiture.
If there are any concerns with these rules or the description, feel free to address me in the comments or in PM.
Round 1
Pro
#1
INTRODUCTION.
I would like to start the debate thanking the opposing party for accepting and dedicated time to participate, your efforts does not go unnoticed. I hope we will have a knowledgeable and enjoyable debate.
The discussed topic attempts to answer "Is it more likely than not that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?" This is an important question to discuss because it has many historical and theological implications. In this debate, I will argue in favor of the resurrection of Jesus as the most plausible explanation of the historical evidence.
PREREQUISITE.
Before diving into the main arguments, it's crucial to establish the foundational approach taken in this debate regarding the sources and historical context.
In presenting my arguments, I will refer to Christian sources. However, it is important to clarify that these sources will be treated not merely as theological texts but as historical documents. While some may view this approach as biased, it is worth noting that these texts are widely recognized by scholars for their historical content, independent of their theological claims, using historical-critical methods to analyze these texts [1].
We are not assuming inspiration or even the general reliability of the New Testament in Jesus' resurrection. We are only regarding the New Testament as an ancient volume of literature containing twenty-seven separate books and letters. Our focus will be on data that is well-evidenced and widely accepted by nearly all scholars who study the subject, regardless of their personal beliefs. Notably, the apostle Paul, whose writings are independent of the original disciples, provides a valuable source of early Christian testimony. Although all New Testament writings were composed during the first century [2], they were only later canonized and compiled into the single volume we now refer to as the New Testament [3].
The Gospels, in particular, have been treated as valuable historical documents in scholarly circles [4] [5]. For the purposes of this debate, we will likewise treat the Gospels as historical accounts. That being said, I will mostly consider content that is strongly evidenced and considered historical by virtually all who study the subject. This debate will focus on assessing the evidence as presented in these texts, and I welcome my opponent to critically analyze their historical credibility.
MAIN BODY #1
The empty tomb remains an authenticative testament of Jesus' resurrection. At that time, anyone in the city could have easily visited the tomb to verify whether Jesus' body was still there. Yet, we have no historical records indicating that the disciples were caught in a lie or that Jesus' body remained in the tomb. Consequently, Roman guards were posted and they sealed the entrance of the tomb with a stone, making it as secure as possible (Matthew 27:65–66). Roman officials would not have bothered to guard a tomb that was unoccupied.
As noted by Gary Habermas, a leading scholar on the resurrection, approximately 75% of scholars today accept the empty tomb as a historical fact [6].
The resurrection was first publicly proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus had been executed and buried [7] [8]. It would have been otherwise impossible for Christianity to start had Jesus' body remained in the tomb. Had the body remained in the tomb, the nascent Christian movement could have been easily debunked by a simple visit to the tomb to verify that it was occupied, or by an exhumation and public display of the corpse by the Roman government. In Jerusalem's climate, a corpse's distinctive features (i.e., the wounds of the crucifixion) would have been identifiable after fifty days [9]. How did Christianity grow so rapidly in the very place where Jesus was buried if it could have been falsified so easily? Regardless of the condition of His body, the enemies of Jesus would still have found benefit in producing the corpse. Even a decomposing or unrecognizable corpse could have severely undermined the disciples' claims, possibly extinguishing the movement before it spread. Jesus' enemies had every reason to produce His body, regardless of its condition.
Perhaps the strongest argument for the empty tomb is the attestation of the Roman government. Jesus' enemies indirectly testified the tomb was empty. Rather than point to an occupied tomb, early critics accused Jesus' disciples of stealing the body, confirming that the tomb was indeed vacant [10] [11]. There would have been no need for an accusation of theft had the body remained in the tomb. The earliest Jewish claim reported regarding Jesus' resurrection was to accuse the disciples of stealing the body, an indirect admission that the body was unavailable for public display.
The accusation that the disciples stole the body is highly implausible, given the extensive measures taken to secure the tomb. Had Jesus' body never been placed in the tomb, the Chief Priests would have pointed that out. However, if the body never left the tomb, they would have pointed out the fact that the tomb they were guarding was left undisturbed. They would have been able to say, “The body is still there. Look for yourself.” But rather than disputing that the tomb was empty, they accused others of taking the body. By accusing the disciples of theft, the Chief Priests inadvertently confirmed that the tomb had once held Jesus' body but was later found empty.
MAIN BODY #2
After the death of Jesus, the disciples were transformed to the point that they willingly endured persecution and martyrdom [12]. This level of conviction clearly indicates they were not merely claiming that Jesus resurrected for personal benefit, but they genuinely believed it. Compare this courage to their character at Jesus' initial arrest and execution. The disciples denied and abandoned Jesus, then they hid in fear. However, upon witnessing the risen Christ, they willingly endangered themselves by publicly proclaiming that He rose from the dead [13]. This dramatic change in behavior suggests they were not merely advancing a story for personal gain; they genuinely believed in the resurrection.
On his way to martyrdom in 110 A.D., St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote seven letters — six to churches and one to his friend, Polycarp. Since Polycarp was personally trained by the apostles, St. Ignatius is certain to have been well acquainted with apostolic teachings. Ignatius recorded the willingness of the disciples to suffer for their beliefs. In his letter to the church in Smyrna where Polycarp was bishop he wrote,
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]
Having seen the risen Jesus, Ignatius wrote that the disciples were so encouraged that they "also despised death." The Greek word for "despised" is better translated "cared nothing for" or "disregarded" [15]. The disciples, having witnessed the risen Jesus, were emboldened to the point where they no longer feared death. They acted with such disregard for death that Ignatius describes them as "death's conquerors" or "found beyond death," meaning their attitude towards death was proven by their boldness when facing execution. Ignatius tells us that the disciples were so deeply strengthened by witnessing the risen Jesus that they preached fearlessly, indifferent to their earthly fate, knowing that immortality awaited them.
Origen, an early church father, also highlighted the disciples' dedication to Jesus' teachings:
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 disciples all faced horrific and gruesome deaths. For example, Mark faced martyrdom. He was arrested while celebrating mass and was dragged through the streets of the city with a rope tied around his neck until he died. John faced attempted martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. Andrew was crucified on an X-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being brutally scourged by seven soldiers, he was bound to the cross with ropes to extend his suffering. His followers recounted that as he approached the cross, Andrew greeted it, saying, "I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it." He continued to preach to those who tormented him for two days until he passed away [17 - repeated source].
The other apostles also died with in torturous deaths. These apostles willingly faced horrific deaths, and they had nothing to gain from maintaining a falsehood. To save themselves from excruciating suffering, they only needed recant their faith in Christ. Their chosen compliance with these deaths truly indicates they "cared nothing for" it. 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. Unlike later martyrs, the apostles were in a unique position to know whether the resurrection was true. They were firsthand witnesses, making their willingness to die especially significant.
Moreover, if the direct witnesses really believed that he rose from the dead, we can dismiss contentions that they stole the body and made up the story. Liars make bad martyrs.
Atheistic New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann concludes, "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" [18]. Paula Fredriksen of Boston University comments, "I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that's what they saw." [19].
NOTES: CHANGE FROM DEVESTATION AND UNBELIEF TO FAITH
CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is compelling and far-reaching, standing up to rigorous scrutiny from historical, theological, and psychological perspectives. The empty tomb, a cornerstone of the resurrection narrative, stands as a significant testament to this event. The fact that the tomb was empty and that no historical accounts from the time claim otherwise speaks volumes. The early critics of Christianity accused the disciples of stealing the body rather than denying the empty tomb itself. This indirect admission by Jesus' enemies corroborates the disciples' claims and eliminates natural explanations, such as theft or misplacement of the body, as more plausible than the supernatural event of the resurrection.
Moreover, the profound transformation of the disciples, who shifted from fearful, hiding individuals to bold proclaimers of the risen Christ, is another powerful testament to the resurrection's validity. Unlike modern martyrs who die for beliefs passed down to them, the disciples were firsthand witnesses, willing to suffer and face gruesome deaths for what they claimed to have seen with their own eyes. This willingness to endure extreme persecution and martyrdom without any apparent benefit—no wealth, power, or earthly gain—demonstrates that they genuinely believed in the resurrection, for they would not have gone to such lengths for something they knew to be false. The psychological argument holds immense weight here: liars make bad martyrs, and it is unreasonable to think that all the disciples would unanimously endure such suffering for a lie they themselves concocted.
In evaluating all the evidence, from the empty tomb to the unwavering testimony and martyrdom of the disciples, it becomes clear that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not just a matter of faith but one supported by substantial historical and psychological evidence. This event is the cornerstone of Christianity, a faith that has withstood the test of time. The resurrection is more than a mere possibility—it is the most probable explanation for the events that followed Jesus' crucifixion, and it demands a serious and thoughtful consideration from all who seek the truth.
FINAL REMARKS.
Thank you to my opponent for graciously having accepting this debate. The aim of this debate is not intended to offend anyone, but for all who participate, both audience and debaters alike, to grow and learn together. Hopefully, this debate has provided points worth reflecting over, as the resurrection is a very important moment. Thank you very much for reading, I patiently await my opponent's counterarguments.
May the Lord bless you and keep you.
SOURCES.
[9] - https://www.scribd.com/document/674634418/The-Case-For-The-Resurrection-of-Jesus-Gary-R-Habermas
[13] - (Book of Acts) - https://biblia.com/books/nrsv/Ac
Con
#2
Introduction:
Hello voters, this is my introduction to my argument for why I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead. I will present three arguments and three rebuttals. Without further delay, let us dive right in.
Hello voters, this is my introduction to my argument for why I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead. I will present three arguments and three rebuttals. Without further delay, let us dive right in.
First argument: Medical impossibility.
The first argument I would like to present is the medical impossibility of Jesus coming back from the dead. When a person dies, they enter several stages of death. These stages include pallor Mortis, Algor mortis, and finally Liver Mortis. All of these stages involve the subject's body becoming pale due to a lack of blood circulation, cooling of the body, and the stiffening of the muscles hours after death.
finally, the subject's body begins to break down due to Autolysis, which causes the body's cells to be destroyed due to the body's digestive enzymes. And Putrefaction, which is the process where the body's tissue begins breaking down due to bacteria. Furthermore, although it is possible to bring someone back from the dead when they are clinically dead. This is only possible if the person has been brought back within 5 to 10 minutes of the heart-stopping. however, When the subject's brain has ceased receiving Oxygen within 5 to ten minutes, they enter a stage known as brain death, which is irreversible.
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. Brain death occurs within minutes, and it took Jesus 3 days to supposedly return to life.
Second Argument: Bible Jesus and Histrionic Jesus are not the same
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.
One such reason is 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. The only thing that can be accepted about Jesus from a historical point of view is that he was born and raised in Palestine. Was a carpenter, became a preacher, gained a following, and was later executed by the Romans for suspicion of encouraging rebellion.
Everything else is supported by nothing but hearsay by Paul of the bible. There is no confirmation that Jesus was the son or was God himself. No proof he came back from the dead, or anything else.
It is always important to know the difference between something that can be supported by logic and something that can be supported by logic and empirical evidence. 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.
pro neither knows that his faith in Jesus is true nor have they ever met Jesu in real life to say Jesus was the genuine article. All Pro, and anyone else has is a book written by a completely different person that equally could not prove Jesus of the Bible was the same Jesus we know Historically.
Third argument: The Tomb of Jesus fallacy
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 same logical argument could be made about the Greek Gods, who Christians today regard as false Gods. We know where Mt Olympus is and therefore, that proves The Greek Gods of Olympus were once real. The fallacy in such an argument is obvious. And yet, it is no different than the justifications of believing Jesus once died and came back to life. 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.
The sources and arguments presented indicate that the resurrection cannot be substantiated empirically and is medically refutable. Therefore, specifying a location where Jesus, who did not author the Bible and was subject to the laws of physics as a human, could not have been revived after three days of death, does not confirm his resurrection.
It's no different than if I told you that I died and came back three days, and when you naturally were skeptical of this claim, and I told you the location 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. No matter how convinced you might be, you still would not know it for a fact. That is why the argument that the existence of a tomb where events are claimed to have happened is not proof but a logical fallacy.
Rebuttals:
Rebuttal 1: The Apostle fallacy
In the pro's argument, they make several mentions of apostles dying while never renouncing Jesus or supposedly lying in their testimony about Jesus' resurrection. The problem with using the Apostle's lack of confessions and dying for what they believe in as evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead is that it does not prove anything objectively.
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.
In the case of Jesus's resurrection, pro might indeed be right that the Apostles were not lying because they were genuine in their conclusion that Jesus came back to life. Nevertheless, hearsay believed by die-hard believers is still hearsay. What the Apostles thought, or died for does not prove the resurrection happened, and Pro needs to find ways to prove the resurrection happened for a fact, not because he is convinced by personal testimony.
Rebuttal 2: Trying to use atheists to support that the resurrection was historical
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.
This is a common tactic used by Christians to say, "Hey even atheists support the idea that Jesus dying and coming back to life was historical," but it's a false narrative and easily debunked. Gerd in particular said that he believed that the apostles seeing the resurrection of Jesus was the result of hallucinations rather than it being a historical event that happened in reality.
Pro cannot use atheists or academia to validate the resurrection of Jesus. Atheists firmly reject the idea of deities and thus do not believe Jesus was anything but a man, and Academics do not accept faith-based research. The only source that Pro can use to defend the idea of Jesus being raised from the dead and coming back to life after three days is the bible. and the bible is not a historical book.
Rebuttal 3: Pros definition of evidence.
Despite Pro's claim to have evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus, they are lacking in evidence. All they have is hearsay based on biblical texts and their sources amount to, "The Resurrection happened because we have testimonies from Jesus followers and no evidence has been found that the body was stolen as well as the fact we know where the tomb is."
That is hardly what I or anyone in the academic community would qualify as proof. We never know if Hearsay is true or false, and that is why we cannot rely on it. That is all testimonies are at the end of the day, hearsay. And the location of the Tomb doesn't prove anything. There are endless places where people have made stories claiming both historical and Divine events have taken place, does that mean they are all true because the location might have been real? Of course not.
Yet, that is all Pro has to offer in terms of proof aside from Pro's misrepresentation of a bible scholar who became atheist and even said that the resurrection was likely just a hallucination.
In conclusion:
The resurrection did not happen. It is medically impossible to have occurred based on our understanding of the human body and the complex stages of death. The Jesus of the Bible which was written by a follower of Jesus 10 years after he died is not consistent with the Historical Jesus, who we know little about. And the use of the Tomb of Jesus supposedly came back from the dead is nothing, but a fallacy supported by faulty reasoning. Said faulty reasoning is the same seasoning that supported the idea of locations other divine beings now considered false by Christians today as being real and done amazing things we know are not true.
Additionally, Pro's main source of information comes from unreliable testimony supported by hearsay. They also use a classic tactic of using atheists as an example to try and prove that even atheists acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus when they in fact do not. Finally, Pro, just lacks sufficient evidence outside of Christian accepted standards that prove Jesus came back from the dead. The only ones who believe it are Christians. And their only source of information comes from their own bible as opposed to modern science or academic sources.
Round 2
Pro
#3
INTRODUCTION.
Thank you, Americandebater24, for having dedicated your time into this debate, your efforts do not go to waste.
PREREQUISITE.
Before delving into the literature, I must address a recurring issue with the language being used. My opponent has repeatedly referred to "proof" or "proving." When it comes to any event that occurred in antiquity, the historian attempts to decide the matter with some degree of historical certainty. He employs certain criteria using the known data in order to reach conclusions [1] [2].
When it comes to history, we can only speak of probability, and certainly not "proof." Consider how we know that figures like Genghis Khan, George Washington, or Napoleon Bonaparte ever existed. Could these figures be entirely mythical, with documents forged and stories invented to serve some grand conspiracy? While we cannot achieve absolute certainty in history, we can know with a high degree of probability that these individuals did indeed live. This is the standard historians use: they speak in terms of probabilities, not certainties [3]. To demand irrefutable proof of historical events is an unrealistic expectation that undermines the very nature of historical inquiry.
In this round, I will address each of my opponent's objections, refute them, and continue to strengthen my initial position with new arguments. I encourage my opponent to engage with these arguments thoughtfully and constructively.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT #1
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.
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].
The New Testament writers did not assert a natural resurrection; they consistently attributed it to divine intervention. The resurrection, therefore, must be understood within its religious and historical context, where Jesus' claims to divinity, His miraculous deeds, and His predictions about His resurrection all align with the event [6].
The apostles and early Christians believed that God was at work in Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Their beliefs were based on what they perceived as overwhelming evidence, not on a rejection of natural laws. The objection "science proves resurrections do not happen" does not apply to the resurrection of Jesus.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT #2
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.
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.
The approach I advocate is not about imposing a religious view but about adopting a methodologically sound historical approach. By focusing on well-evidenced content that is widely accepted by scholars, we ensure that our debate remains grounded in credible historical inquiry. Dismissing these texts simply because they are religious in nature would be a disservice to the historical method, which aims to understand the past as fully as possible using all available sources.
... 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.
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 raised the claim that "the Bible is rendered as unreliable by academic standards." For the sake of not repeating myself, refer to "Counter-Argument #1," "Counter-Argument #2," and my Round 1 "Prerequisite."
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.
My opponent also claims the Bible is "unreliable by academic standards" without evidence. Many scholars recognize the Gospels as valuable historical documents. Dismissing my points as "logical but untrue" without counter-evidence only concedes that my arguments are persuasive.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT #3
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.
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.
I urge all who are reading to refer to my opening arguments from Round 1, for I have extensively expanded there. Rereading would provide further understanding that this summary would not. You can find the case for the empty tomb in the first Main Paragraph.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT #4
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.
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].
The distinction here is vital: the apostles were either telling the truth or deliberately lying. If they were lying, their willingness to die for a known falsehood is inexplicable. Their martyrdom, therefore, adds weight to the credibility of their testimony. I welcome my opponent to offer an alternative explanation for the apostles' experiences than that Jesus actually appeared to them.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT #5
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.
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.
MAIN PARAGRAPH #1
If someone concocted a story in an attempt to deceive others, they would not knowingly invent data that could hurt the credibility of their story. On the account of the empty tomb, women are listed as the primary witnesses, mentioned in all four gospels [14], whereas male witnesses appear only later in two gospels. This is particularly noteworthy given the low esteem in which women's testimony was held in the first century.
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]
Josephus clearly did not regard women highly, and this sentiment is echoed in the Talmud:
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]
Given the cultural context, it is highly unlikely that the Gospel writers would invent a story featuring women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb. If the account had been fabricated, it is far more likely that men would have been depicted as the first to discover the empty tomb and see the risen Jesus.
If the account of the empty tomb had been invented, it would most likely not have listed the women as the primary witnesses, since in that day a woman's testimony was not nearly as credible as a man's. The empty tomb appears to be historically credible in light of the principle of embarrassment [17]. Therefore, the empty tomb is well evidenced for historical certainty. Former Oxford University church historian William Wand writes, "All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history" [18] [19].
CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is strongly supported by historical evidence, making it a highly probable event and a cornerstone of Christian faith. Despite the challenges of historical inquiry, the Gospels provide valuable eyewitness accounts, similar to those used for other historical figures. The empty tomb, despite the naturalistic assumptions, is a significant piece of evidence, as it would have been easily disproven by Jesus' opponents if it had not been empty. The absence of the body, despite heavy guarding, points to something extraordinary. Furthermore, the apostles' willingness to suffer and die for their beliefs adds weight to the credibility of their testimony.
To dismiss the Gospels solely because they were written by Jesus' followers or were composed decades after the events is to ignore the standard historical practice of relying on primary sources. The principle of embarrassment supports the historical credibility of the empty tomb narrative, highlighting its authenticity given the cultural context.
The arguments against the resurrection, whether based on scientific impossibility or biases against Christian sources, do not undermine the historical probability of the event. The resurrection of Jesus Christ stands as a compelling historical claim supported by substantial evidence, affirming the foundational belief of Christianity and Jesus' divine nature.
FINAL REMARKS.
I look forward to the next round of this debate, where I will continue to defend the historicity of the resurrection with further evidence and arguments.
SOURCES.
[5] -For example, see Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4-10; 10:30;13:30, 37; Romans 10:9; Galatians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 1:21.
[6] - See Mark 8:31, 9:31; 10:33 - 34; Matthew 12:38-40; 16:1-4; John 2:18-21.
[14] - Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-10; John 20:1-18
Con
#4
Thank you, Pro, for submitting your argument.
Rebuttal 1:
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].
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. So far, you have proven nothing as the basis established by hearsay, nothing more.
Rebuttal 2:
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.
What my opponent is claiming is not true. Ever since the establishment of the First Amendment was established, in 1789, there has been a strong emphasis to separate religious teachings and academia. while my opponent is right that the bible is studied, it is studied for different reasons. Secular scholars study the bible to understand the texts and its impact on history while not actually believing the story of the bible itself. Biblical scholars, however, study the bible believing it to be a historical document due to their religious beliefs.
So, no, we cannot treat the bible as acceptable in terms of academia because there is a difference in studying the bible based on its impact on society and studying them because you actually believe the events happened.
Rebuttal 3:
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.
Again, as I established that there is a fundamental difference between studying the Bible's impact on humanity, which is what secular scholars do, and treating the bible as an historical event, like bible scholars due. We cannot treat the bible as historical since it cannot be established to be such.
Rebuttal 4:
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.
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. Jesus, on the other hand, is not. Jesus of the bible and Jesus of history are not the same person. When it comes to sources outside of the Bible, Jesus is essentially a nobody. Born in poverty, possibly a carpenter at some point. Becomes a spiritual leader, gets crucified, and dies. There is no historical proof that he healed the sick, no evidence that he could turn water into wine. Or that he was or the son of a God. George Washington and Khan have no cartoon counterpart, unlike Jesus. Thus, we can give more credibility to these two known historical figures more than we can of Jesus.
Rebuttal 5:
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.
This is why the argument is fallacious. 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. People who don't buy that story are not obligated to prove the Resurrection didn't happen. The Christians have to prove that it did, which they cannot due because their standard of evidence is that the tomb was empty and that alone is not proof.
Rebuttal 5:
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].
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. furthermore, I established back in round 1 that you can be wrong something while not lying. My entire point was that it is irrelevant if the disciples were lying or not. They can't validate their beliefs that Jesus rose from the dead.
You say is that they knew for a fact they were not wrong and would not risk torture or death if they knew they could be wrong. Not only are you repeating what I already debunked, and you said you still agree with. But you are also ignoring human nature. 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.
If it can be established that humans can die for false causes willingly due to the fact they are convinced that something is true, then it is entirely undeniable that the disciples being human are no different. They may have been whole heartedly convinced, they may not have been lying to themselves, but that does not mean their opinions were true and it does not mean they knew for a fact Jesus rose from the dead.
Rebuttal 6:
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.
Wrong. You tried to use Ludernman as an example that he supports the resurrection. He in fact, does not. as I provide you a source that shows Ludernman actually theorized the disciples hallucinated the resurrection of Christ rather than acknowledging their experiences. Therefore, you did indeed misrepresent him.
Main point:
My opponent has effectively no answer for the medical improbability of Jesus. They can only fire back that it was supposedly magical and therefore somehow outside of the realm of science. This in of itself is mere speculation and conjecture. We need physical evidence, or we have no evidence. that is how empirical evidence and historical data works.
Pro also claims that if the story of the resurrection was meant to deceive others were true than these same people would not add details that would hurt their credibility, However, there example boils down to the fact that many of the eyewitness's accounts were women. 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.
What comes down to it is can pro prove the resurrection happened as a historical event? No. And neither could the thousands of humans before them. Why? Because the standard in which we judge something to be true has evolved to such a height that Pro cannot match up. To prove something is true in 2024 to the average human you need 3 things. Logic, empirical evidence, irrefutability. My opponent has logic. As he uses the fact people died for the belief in Jesus, and he points out the fact there was no evidence of Jesus body being stolen.
Nevertheless, he does not have evidence. His understanding of historical evidence is biased as he does not see the difference in approach to the bible in academic and theologian studies. He has no scientific methods to prove Jesus died and came back. He only has an empty tomb, and hearsay accounts. Thus, he also lacks irrefutability.
My argument on the other hand has all three. What is my logic for the lack of belief in Jesus dying and coming back? The fact it has not been proven for over thousands of years and is completely at odds with medical science. Where is my evidence? The fact that a human body cannot be brought back to life after it has entered into a brain death stage, which occurs within hours when the blood ceases to flow to the brain. Has pro been able to refute this fact? No, in fact they cannot even challenge this fact and have to use a flimsy excuse claiming the event was magical and thus not limited to science.
Conclusion:
While my opponent would have you believe there is still historical evidence for Jesus coming back to life despite the scientific impossibility, there is no such historical evidence. Pro is operating on a theologian understanding of history, which is not credible. Pro has not addressed my point about Jesus of the bible being a different person than what is known to us historically. essentially offered no new arguments except to add a completely new and equally unproven claim that the resurrection was magical, and that the story is true because the authors of the bible used women as witnesses. It would be an extremely low bar both in history and this debate to claim this counts as evidence for Pros argument. The resurrection of Jesus is no different than the parting of the red sea or the story of Joshua. Interesting, but entirely lacking in authentic evidence.
Round 3
Pro
#5
INTRODUCTION.
Welcome to the beginning of Round 3. In this round, I will address each of my opponent's points, refute them, and expand on several key arguments to enhance the understanding of those reading this debate. Let's dive straight into the content.
COUNTER-ARUGMENT #1
My opponent begins their round with a fundamental misunderstanding, stating:
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.
There are a few issues with this statement. To start off, it absolutely matters what the New Testament writers, especially the Gospel authors, assert. 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." As per the debate's description, the goal is to determine the probability, based on available evidence, that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. The focus is not on "proof" in the mathematical or scientific sense but on assessing historical probability. The goal is not to prove His resurrection, but to determine the probability of the resurrection claim. To continue using the language "proof" is to dismiss the very foundation upon which this debate rests.
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.
There is no evidence to the contrary. Those in a position to produce contrary evidence — the Jewish and Roman authorities at the time — had every means, motive and opportunity to disprove the resurrection, and they did not. The naturalist objection prejudges Jesus’ resurrection and fails to take seriously its historical claim. It denies the resurrection based on a faith-like commitment — a judgment made before looking at the facts — rather than a claim of fact about Jesus’ fate after His crucifixion.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT #2
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. All the more reason to consider them in this debate. My opponent's second and last source, outlines contributions from various New Testament scholars who have made significant impacts on how the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is understood in theological, historical, and cultural contexts. Scholars like N.T. Wright are specifically noted for their work challenging traditional views of the resurrection of Jesus, offering fresh insights, and using rigorous academic methods. This scholarly engagement underscores the Gospels' importance in historical and theological discussions, including debates like ours.
My opponent’s sources acknowledge the historical value of the Gospels, indirectly supporting the stance that these texts are crucial for understanding the resurrection. By recognizing the Gospels as biographies of Jesus and noting the contributions of scholars who analyze these texts, my opponent’s own references reinforce the credibility and importance of the Gospels in our debate. Moreover, historians do not reject evidence merely because of its potential biases [7]. They critically analyze all available data. To ensure a rigorous and correct examination of evidence, we ought to follow in the footsteps of renowned scholars.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT #3
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.
My opponent has made quite an outlandish claim. My opponent's statement overlooks the point that coherence does not automatically equate to validation. Coherence must be paired with corroboration from independent and reliable sources. For instance, the historical accounts of figures like George Washington and Genghis Khan are validated not merely because they are coherent, but because they are corroborated by a variety of independent sources that align with known historical facts. Similarly, the accounts of Jesus Christ in the Gospels demonstrate coherence and corroboration from various early Christian writings, archaeological findings, and non-Christian sources. For example, Britannica, when establishing the biography of Genghis Khan, used historical accounts such as the "Secret History of the Mongols," a primary Mongol account believed to be from around 1240, and contributions from scholars whose studies are based on such historical accounts [8]. Following in their footsteps, we will also use historical accounts like the Gospels and contributions from scholars to establish the probability of the resurrection.
Much of what we accept about Genghis Khan comes from the "Secret History of the Mongols," which was written nearly two decades after his death. Likewise, the Gospels and early Christian writings, although written within decades of the events they describe, provide a coherent narrative of the resurrection. The argument that we should trust these accounts follows the same principles of historical analysis applied to any ancient texts.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT #4
The claim that Jesus rose from the dead comes from Christians. Thus, it is the Christians job to Prove Jesus rose from the dead.
Regarding the claim that it is the Christians' job to "prove" Jesus rose from the dead, I direct readers again to my Round 2 "Prerequisite" and this Round's "Counter-Argument #1". We are discussing probabilities, not mathematical certainties or proofs. The use of “proof” language fails to engage with the debate's actual framework.
Your argument is again that the tomb was empty thus it proves he resurrected, which is exactly what I said in the first round.
My opponent's argument claims that my position is simply, "we know where the tomb was; thus, it proves He resurrected," which is a misrepresentation of my argument. I invite the readers to evaluate whether that is truly "exactly what you said in the first round." Here’s the quote:
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.
From this, it is evident that your argument is focused on dismissing the idea that merely identifying the location of the tomb has any bearing on the resurrection claim. However, my argument in Round 1 (Main Body #1) does not hinge on the identification of the tomb's location as proof of the resurrection.
Rather, I presented the empty tomb as one component within a broader argument. If the tomb were still occupied, it would indeed discredit the claim that Jesus resurrected and appeared to many people. However, because the tomb was empty, the logical question then becomes: What happened to the body? The empty tomb, when considered alongside other evidence such as the post-resurrection appearances and the willingness of the apostles to die for their testimony, provides a cumulative case for the resurrection.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT #5
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.
My opponent argues that many people are willing to die for beliefs they think are true, implying there is no difference between the apostles and modern martyrs. However, this misses the nuance: unlike modern martyrs, the apostle martyrs died for holding to their own testimony, not merely for holding to a belief system passed down to them like contemporary martyrs. There is a fundamental distinction: The disciples died for holding on to what they experienced, witnessed, and felt. They witnessed and saw Jesus in bodily form after the resurrection [9]. They felt his body and poked their fingers through His resurrection wounds [10]. They lived the experience of Jesus' visitation over the course of forty days, where He taught and ministered to His disciples in what must have been an intensely powerful experience, preparing them for His Ascension into heaven [11].
Modern martyrs do not hold such a testimony. Instead they die for what they believe to be true, not for having experienced, witnessed and lived in the way that the apostles did. 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. There is a difference between dying for a belief and dying for an experience.
My opponent also mentions that people can die for "wrong beliefs." The apostles were in a unique position to know whether or not Jesus appeared to them. The apostles knew whether they were holding onto "wrong beliefs."
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.
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.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT #6
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.
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.
CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, the historical and psychological evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ presents a powerful case that withstands even the most rigorous scrutiny. The unanimous attestation to the empty tomb, found in multiple independent sources, provides a foundational basis for the resurrection claim. Notably, the fact that no historical accounts from the time refute the empty tomb — coupled with the silence of early critics on this point — speaks volumes. Instead of denying the empty tomb, these critics propagated a narrative of theft, indirectly affirming that the tomb was indeed empty. This not only corroborates the testimony of Jesus’ followers but also casts doubt on naturalistic explanations, which fall short when considering the historical context and the lack of any reasonable motive.
Furthermore, my opponent’s argument that the apostles' martyrdom is akin to modern martyrs misses a key distinction: the apostles willingly faced death not for a secondhand belief but for a firsthand experience they claimed to have witnessed. Unlike modern martyrs who die for beliefs passed down to them, the apostles were uniquely positioned to know whether their testimony was true or false. Their unanimous willingness to suffer and die without any personal gain suggests the resurrection was a genuinely experienced event, not a fabricated story. Additionally, my opponent's dismissal of the women's testimony at the empty tomb ignores the cultural context; the inclusion of women as primary witnesses — a detail unlikely to be invented in that era — indicates authenticity rather than deception.
In light of the empty tomb, the steadfast conviction of the disciples, and the absence of viable natural explanations, the resurrection of Jesus Christ emerges not merely as a tenet of Christian faith but as a historical event with profound implications. It challenges both skeptics and seekers of truth to reconsider their positions, inviting a deeper exploration into what could be the most extraordinary event in human history — the defeat of death itself.
SOURES.
[3] - For example, see Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4-10; 10:30;13:30, 37; Romans 10:9; Galatians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 1:21.
Con
#6
Thank you, pro, I will also make rebuttals and enhance my point.
Rebuttals:
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].
Actually, as I explained earlier, there is a fundamental difference between viewing the gospels based on theology and academia. This is also the reason I told you, Pro that the character you call Jesus from the bible is not the same as the one viewed in history. The Historical Jesus: Then and Now | Reflections (yale.edu) So, no. The gospels are not considered to be based on eyewitness testimonies of Jesus' life, because the Character is different from the man's. The only people who view the bible as evidence are Christians. Not academia.
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."
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. I merely need to either prove its improbability or that the evidence is inconclusive. I have done so by proving it a physically impossible achievement.
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.
First, there is no divine factor. 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. I provided scientific research that proves the human body cannot be brought back when the subject enters into the stage of brain death, which occurs within hours of a subject's death. Your Jesus supposedly came back after 3 days. If you can't prove divinity, then you have to concede the physical impossibility of the resurrection.
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].
And you cannot prove such an assertion. Prove God first before claiming said God did anything.
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.
Pro, I have made many counterarguments to your claims. I proved the physical impossibility of the resurrection. I provided sources that show the difference between viewing the bible from a theologian's point of view and a historical point of view, which you falsely tried to deny the difference. I also proved that you misrepresented a former bible scholar who turned atheist by claiming he said that the disciple's experience of seeing Jesus was resurrection was real when in fact he said the opposite arguing that what they saw was a hallucination.
You try to say that the resurrection was a historical event, yet your main source to argue that does not come from Academia. They come from the bible, which is not only biased but is not recognized as such by the academic world. History deals with natural events, not spiritual phenomena. Past Facts and the Nature of History in: Journal of the Philosophy of History Volume 16 Issue 2 (2022) (brill.com)
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.
What Isaid doesn't support your stance because those "different reasons" were that theologian scholars study the bible because they believe the events as true. 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. In other words, the bible itself may have historical value, but not from the content in itself.
Also, my first does not acknowledge the gospels of biographies of Jesus. It asks which New Testament scholars should be trusted. And the point of that was to show the diversity of thought when it comes to scholars and the bible.
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.
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. All loyal to Jesus, believed he did something great. Does that mean he did? No. Personal experience is also subjective by nature and thus cannot be used as evidence.
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.
Emphasis on the word claimed. And that is the problem, Pro. People can claim anything. 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. And that is the annoying part about your argument. You keep repeating the same claim. "The apostles were telling the truth because otherwise, they would not have willingly died for it." But what do you base this assertion? Their words. Not anything empirical. Hearsay only.
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.
The problem with this argument is that you assume that using women somehow hurts credibility. However, that is mere conjecture. 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? The bottom line is that it is indeed irrelevant regardless of whether the witness is a man, a woman, or even a walnut. The problem remains the same: Personal testimony is not evidence.
Conclusion:
The reassertion has still yet to be proven by Pro. Pro wants us to believe that divinity is real and "Transends" the physical world. Yet is there any proof of that? No. It is merely a tale that Pro has fabricated to combat the scientific research that debunks the probability of Jesus coming back from the dead. Not only does Pro lack any scientific or medical evidence, but their so-called "historical" evidence for it lies mostly in theologian-based sources. Even worse, Pro tries many times using the bible to say Jesus's resurrection is a historical event, however, I have shown that this is not the case through my sources. Moreover, Actual history focuses on natural events. The resurrection of Jesus however is a supernatural event and thus cannot be proved historically.
Furthermore, Pro has no actual rebuttal to my point about my analogy between the apostle's conviction to be on par with a German soldier's conviction of Hitler in World War 2. Yes, they try to claim that the difference lies in that the apostles supposably had firsthand knowledge of Jesus while a German soldier did not. However, that is mere conjecture. Pro is not the apostles and cannot say with any empirical evidence that the beliefs of the apostles are based on truth.
Their only argument seems to be that if a person's belief is based on truth, they will not be as willing to die as someone whose beliefs are false. Unfortunately for Pro, that is simply not how human psychology works. Dying for the group: what motivates the ultimate sacrifice? | University of Oxford The apostles were human, and humans are deeply flawed. Therefore, Pro cannot merely make the argument: "The apostles died for what they thought because what they thought was true because the bible says so," and hold that as evidence that Jesus did come back from the dead.
If Pro wants to say that the apostles died as men convinced of what they believe in, I grant them that. However, Pro is saying they died because what they believed in was True. That is something I cannot agree with because there is a fundamental difference in dying for what one thinks. And dying because you told the truth and refused to lie.
In the end, the Belief that Jesus died and came back three days after he was executed is only a belief supported by theologian scriptures and superstitious beliefs. History, science, and everything concerning evidence-based sources hold a higher standard than pro can provide, as his sources are faith-based, not empirical.
Round 4
Pro
#7
INTRODUCTION.
Welcome, readers, to the debate's last round. As we reach its final round, I will not bring new arguments to the table. Rather, taking inspiration, I will focus on summarizing the key elements.
PREREQUISITE.
My opponent's previous post is mostly a stubborn repeat of already-refuted arguments. To focus on a compelling case, I will focus less on addressing counterarguments, and more on the consolidation of my position.
REFERRALS.
Actually, as I explained earlier, there is a fundamental difference between viewing the gospels based on theology and academia.
Refer to Round 3, Counter-Argument #2.
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.
Refer to either (1) Round 3, the first paragraph of Counter-Argument #4, (2) Round 2, Prerequisite, or (3) Round 3, the second paragraph of Counter-Argument #1.
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.
Refer to Round 3, Counter-Argument #2.
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
Refer to either (1) Round 3, Counter-Argument #5, (2) Round 2, Counter-Argument #4, or (3) Round 1, Main Body #2 (the third paragraph before the Conclusion).
And you cannot prove such an assertion. Prove God first before claiming said God did anything.
Refer to (1) Round 3, the second paragraph of Counter-Argument #1, or (2) Round 2, Prerequisite.
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.
Refer to (1) Round 3, the third paragraph of Counter-Argument #1, or (2) Round 2, the second paragraph of Counter-Argument #1
My opponent claims that my argument, based on historical probability, assumes the reality of divinity and its ability to override physical science. However, this is a misunderstanding. I do not begin by assuming divinity; I assess the evidence for the resurrection objectively. The evidence—such as the empty tomb, the transformation of the disciples, and the lack of plausible natural explanations—leads logically to the conclusion that divine intervention is the most probable explanation. It is not an assumption but a conclusion drawn from the overwhelming historical evidence itself.
REBUTTALS.
So, no. The gospels are not considered to be based on eyewitness testimonies of Jesus' life, because the Character is different from the man's. The only people who view the bible as evidence are Christians. Not academia.
My opponent argues that "only Christians view the Bible as evidence, not academia." However, this is a circular assertion. If an atheist scholar were to examine the Bible and find it credible, leading them to faith, they would then be labeled a "Christian" and dismissed as non-academic. The truth of a claim isn't diminished by the beliefs of those who accept it; rather, it's strengthened by the rigorous scrutiny it withstands, regardless of who accepts it.
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?
My opponent suggests the apostles used a "double-bluff" by having women as witnesses to the resurrection. However, this argument collapses under scrutiny. In a culture where women's testimonies were seen as unreliable, using them would undermine credibility, not enhance it. The apostles would not risk such a strategy if their goal was to convince others. A double-bluff would have worked against itself, deterring more converts than attracting.
You try to say that the resurrection was a historical event, yet your main source to argue that does not come from Academia
I do not have a main source. My arguments are backed with various sources. Refer to the "Sources" section of all my previous rounds. The sources mostly come from books and trusted or scholarly sources. If I had a main argument, it would be the logical reasoning deduced from the sources.
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.
My opponent overlooks the other evidence supporting the resurrection, such as the empty tomb, the women's testimonies, and the authorities' inability to disprove the event—something they could have easily done if it were false. Their analogy also fails to consider that, unlike a delusion about aliens, the apostles faced severe persecution—being boiled alive, dragged through the streets, or crucified in ways that prolonged suffering. If multiple people claimed to see and touch aliens, and were willing to die or risk their lives for that belief, then my opponent's analogy might hold weight. But as it stands, it falls far short of the evidence supporting the resurrection.
MAIN BODY #1
To briefly summarize the debate, I will reiterate the main arguments I have presented.
The empty tomb stands as a powerful testament to the resurrection. If Jesus' body had remained in the tomb, anyone in Jerusalem could have easily checked to see for themselves, and that alone would have ended the Christian movement before it even began. The Roman authorities and Jewish leaders, who had every incentive to disprove the resurrection, would have eagerly presented Jesus' body, regardless of its condition, to silence His followers and halt the spread of this new faith. Yet, no body was ever produced. How could Christianity have flourished so rapidly in Jerusalem—the very city where Jesus was buried—if His body had remained in the tomb? Even a decomposed or unrecognizable body would have served to discredit the resurrection claims. Instead, the critics accused the disciples of stealing the body, unintentionally confirming that the tomb was indeed empty. Such accusations would have been unnecessary if the body had been there all along.
The claim that the disciples stole the body is implausible given the strict precautions taken to secure the tomb. If Jesus' body had never been placed there, the Chief Priests would have been quick to point it out. Conversely, if the body had never left, they could have simply said, "The body is still here. See for yourself." But they did neither. Instead of denying the empty tomb, they accused the disciples of theft—an accusation that, ironically, confirms that Jesus' body had indeed been placed in the tomb and later disappeared. Hallucination also occurs on an individual basis. There has never been a recorded instance of synchronized group hallucination. It would be foolish to think the disciples had a group hallucination where Jesus appeared to them.
MAIN BODY #2
If someone were fabricating a story to deceive others, they would avoid including details that could damage the story's credibility. In the case of the empty tomb, the Gospels consistently name women as the primary witnesses—despite the low regard for women's testimony in the first century. Male witnesses are only introduced later, and only in two of the Gospels. Given the cultural context, it is highly unlikely that the Gospel writers would have invented a narrative featuring women as the first to witness the empty tomb. If the story were fabricated, it would have been far more logical to present men as the initial witnesses, as their testimonies would have been considered more credible.
The principle of embarrassment strongly supports the historical credibility of the empty tomb. If the account had been invented, the writers would not have risked their message by relying on the testimony of women, whose words were less trusted at that time. Instead, they would have portrayed men as the first to discover the empty tomb and see the risen Jesus. The fact that women are named as primary witnesses points to an authentic account that aligns with historical realities, rather than a manufactured story.
The resurrection stands as the most logically consistent explanation for the historical evidence presented. The coherence of the resurrection narrative, supported by multiple independent sources, aligns with standard historical practices, providing a plausible and comprehensive explanation that outweighs other speculative alternatives.
MAIN BODY #3
After Jesus' death, the disciples underwent a profound transformation, willingly facing persecution and martyrdom. This unwavering conviction shows that they weren't simply promoting the resurrection for personal gain—they genuinely believed in it. Compare their courage after the resurrection with their earlier actions at Jesus' arrest and execution. At that time, the disciples denied and abandoned Jesus, hiding in fear. Yet after encountering the risen Christ, they openly risked their lives to proclaim His resurrection. This drastic change in behavior indicates that they truly believed what they were preaching. Consider the example of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote on his way to martyrdom:
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
The disciples faced horrific deaths with remarkable courage. For instance, Mark was martyred by being dragged through the streets of the city with a rope tied around his neck until he died. John survived being boiled in a cauldron of oil. Andrew was crucified on an X-shaped cross and, after being scourged by soldiers, was tied to the cross to prolong his suffering. As he approached his death, Andrew welcomed it, stating, “I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.” For two days, he continued preaching to his tormentors until he passed away. The other apostles faced equally gruesome deaths. None of them recanted, even though they could have spared themselves by denying their faith. Their willingness to endure such suffering clearly shows that they "cared nothing for" death. The disciples’ fearless preaching, even in the face of death, strongly suggests they were empowered by a real encounter with the risen Jesus.
The apostles chose to die for their personal testimony that they had seen the risen Jesus. Unlike modern martyrs, who die for beliefs passed down to them, the apostles died for what they knew was either true or false. They were in a unique position to know if the resurrection had occurred. Their willingness to endure excruciating deaths underscores the authenticity of their belief—they would not have faced such agony for something they knew to be a lie.
SIDE NOTE.
Acknowledging potential doubts is crucial to a balanced evaluation of the resurrection. While skeptics may question the reliability of the Gospel accounts or the plausibility of miracles, these concerns often stem from a presupposition against supernatural events rather than from the evidence itself. Scholars—including many who began as skeptics—have found compelling reasons to affirm the historical credibility of the resurrection narratives, citing factors such as early dating, eyewitness testimony, and corroboration from external sources. Addressing doubts head-on reveals that the obstacles to belief are not insurmountable and that an open-minded examination of the evidence leads to a reasonable and informed conclusion in favor of the resurrection.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not just a matter of historical inquiry—it touches the very core of human existence. If true, it offers profound hope in the face of suffering, death, and the apparent meaninglessness of life. The resurrection asserts that life has purpose, that love triumphs over hate, and that justice will ultimately prevail. It offers the promise of redemption and the assurance that death is not the end. For centuries, this message has transformed lives, inspired acts of profound goodness, and shaped societies toward compassion, forgiveness, and peace. The resurrection is not only historically credible but also morally transformative, inviting every reader to consider the implications for their own lives and the world we share. In light of the historical, logical, and moral dimensions presented, I invite every reader to thoughtfully weigh the evidence and consider the profound implications of the resurrection claim. This is not just an intellectual exercise but an opportunity to engage with one of the most transformative events in human history.
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." - C. S. Lewis
CONCLUSION.
As we reach the end of this debate, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ emerges not just as a theological claim but as a compelling historical reality that defies simple dismissal. The empty tomb, acknowledged by both followers and critics, stands unchallenged by any credible counter-narrative. No plausible natural explanation can account for its vacancy, especially when its most vocal opponents of the time failed to produce the body that would have silenced the burgeoning Christian movement. Furthermore, the dramatic transformation of the disciples—from fearful deserters to fearless martyrs—cannot be adequately explained by psychological theories of conspiracy or mass hallucination. These men willingly faced brutal deaths, not for abstract ideals or inherited beliefs, but for what they claimed to have seen with their own eyes. It is implausible to suggest that such a diverse group, scattered across different regions, would endure unspeakable suffering for what they knew to be a lie.
Taken together, the convergence of these facts—the empty tomb, the disciples' unwavering testimony, and the absence of any satisfactory naturalistic explanation—compels us to recognize that the resurrection is not just a matter of faith but the most reasonable conclusion based on the historical evidence. This event, which has withstood the scrutiny of time and transformed the lives of countless millions, stands as a testament to the triumph of life over death. It calls to the deepest part of our human experience, whispering that perhaps within this ancient story lies the answer to the greatest questions we have ever dared to ask. It beckons each of us to confront the profound question it raises: if this is true, what else is possible?
FINAL REMARKS.
There are no sources this round because it was merely a restating of previous arguments. You may find the sources in the previous rounds.
I have observed that my opponent frequently distorts and misrepresents my arguments, often repeating previously refuted claims without regard for factual accuracy. I urge all readers to scrutinize my opponent's statements carefully and verify their accuracy by checking if I have already addressed their claims in previous rounds. Rest assured, all of their arguments have been addressed and refuted. Thank you to all the readers who have followed this debate so diligently. Your engagement and thoughtful consideration of the arguments presented have been deeply appreciated.
Con
#8
I want to begin by thanking Pro for a good debate.
Opening:
Throughout this debate, you have heard Pro make many arguments to support the resurrection of Jesus. He has provided religious-based sources and many logical “what if” arguments. However, what they haven’t provided is essentially any evidence outside their religious circulation that Pro mistakes as historical evidence.
Ask yourselves, if Pro’s evidence could be considered historical, why do they not use academic-based sources like history.com or any website with a .gov? Even better, why is this supposed historical event not treated as such in schools? The answer is simple. Pro is imposing his religious views rather than anything based on fact. Pro is even quoting scripture straight from the Bible, a book written by Paul decades after Jesus died. Rather an objective and unbiased source.
First argument:
If you remember, I had pointed out the medical impossibility of Jesus coming back from the dead. Pro’s response to that was to argue that Jesus was resurrected by God and that transcends physical science. However, did Pro provide any evidence for that claim? No, in fact, they had no counter source. All they gave was a claim in which they could not prove beyond hearsay. If we can prove Jesus coming back to life was medically impossible, why can’t Pro disprove that by providing evidence that God both exists and can bring people back from the dead?
If Pro wanted us to believe that Jesus coming back from the dead was historical, then they should have provided a basis for that possibility, but they did not do so during the debate. I, on the other hand, provided multiple sources showing that the resurrection was not only impossible but defied everything known to modern science. Thus, my argument was stronger overall.
Second argument:
Pro has also tried to claim that the resurrection was a historical event, and yet their basis for this claim lies in the Gospels, which are theological. When I provided a source to show that you cannot use history to justify events in the Bible since history, like science, studies natural phenomena and that the resurrection is a supernatural event, which can neither be called historical nor be within the bounds of empirical evidence since history and science deal with what can be seen and proven. In contrast, spirituality cannot be proven within an empirical framework.
Pro has also tried to claim that the resurrection was a historical event, and yet their basis for this claim lies in the Gospels, which are theological. When I provided a source to show that you cannot use history to justify events in the Bible since history, like science, studies natural phenomena and that the resurrection is a supernatural event, Pro had no answer for it and has not mentioned it anywhere in their argument to counter that point.
If my opponent cannot counter the fact that history is based on natural phenomena and not supernatural claimed events, like the supposed resurrection, then their entire argument that the resurrection of Jesus is historical falls apart. One cannot claim something is historical when their basis of history goes outside of natural phenomena.
Third argument:
Pro is also inconsistent in their arguments. For instance, Pro tries to argue that if an atheist scholar can be convinced, then that is proof that the Bible is a good source of historical accuracy. However, their only supposed example was Gerd Ludemann, who not only is known for renouncing Christianity but also sparked controversy by arguing that the apostles never actually saw Jesus come back to life but rather hallucinated the event. Pro incorrectly argued that Ludemann believed the apostles saw Jesus come back to life. What Gerd actually said was the opposite, and Pro never addressed that point.
Pro also claimed that the resurrection of Jesus was not just a historical inquiry but the very core of human existence. However, Pro also claimed that the resurrection went beyond physics and natural science. So, how can the resurrection be about the core of human existence if Pro also argues the resurrection transcends the very thing that they say the resurrection is supposedly about?
Pro cannot have their cake and eat it too. If the resurrection is indeed centered on the core of everything that makes us human, then Pro needs to explain why the resurrection cannot be proven to have occurred scientifically since physics and biology are also the core of what makes humanity possible. And if Pro instead wants to argue that Jesus dying and coming back goes outside of physical limitations, then Pro is making a different argument altogether. That the event wasn’t historical or factual but indeed supernatural. And there is no way to prove a supernatural event.
Argument 4:
Pro has tried very hard to argue that the apostles dying for their beliefs give credit to the accounts of Jesus being resurrected. However, their arguments are conjecture at best. They have no sources to prove that simply refusing to recount one’s claims is sufficient proof that the claim itself is true.
In contrast, I have given not only historical comparisons but have also provided psychological-based research on why people tend to die for groups and ideologies they believe in. The bottom line is that Pro cannot dismiss the possibility of the apostles being wrong, nor can they use the fact they died for their beliefs to say their beliefs are true. They can only argue from a logical perspective, not a factual one.
The apostles were human and like all humans, they had flaws. Because they had flaws, there can be no denying that their supposed experiences could be different from what they actually saw or even remembered, considering the extended period they waited to recount their claims in the Bible.
In conclusion:
The probability of the resurrection of Jesus has not been established. Pro has tried using every method to establish the possibility of Jesus coming back from the dead in every manner from logic to spirituality. However, they did not establish Jesus's coming back as a genuine possibility. Their framework relies entirely on conditions that they cannot confirm to be true. Furthermore, Pro has asked you, dear voters, to go beyond what can be proven, such as brain death and the various stages of decay, and rely on things that cannot be proven, such as God and the scriptures based on their own beliefs, to say Jesus coming back is a possibility.
Not everyone is Christian. Not everyone is a Jew, or an atheist, or anything in between. For Pro to make an actual argument of probability, they must present a neutral argument devoid of personal beliefs, spirituality, or presumptions. Pro has failed to do so. Pro did not use any form of science like math or physiology to give us probability. He only provided us with scripture, which they also incorrectly argued was no different than academic research. Outside of Pro’s personal beliefs and subjective perspective standard of evidence, nothing substantial was provided to give Jesus, a man whose character is viewed differently in history than the Bible, the ability to be brought back from the dead.
In contrast, I have used the nature of the human body, and the varying rates of both decay and stages of death to highlight the improbability of such an event. I have also pointed out that theology and history are not the same, and neither is Jesus viewed as the same character. To argue that Jesus did indeed come back from the dead is equal to saying that science and its rules do not exist. And it was certainly a mistake on Pro’s part to argue that the resurrection happened because God, an unproven being, decided to do it.
The resurrection did not occur. It is by all standards of academia to be outside of empirical possibility. We should not entertain supernatural claims supported primarily by theology and give them the same consideration as a scientific or historical event that can indeed be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
If the resurrection actually occurred with as much certainty as Pro claims, then there would be no reason why society does not treat it as such. However, as I have explained in many rounds of the debate, that is simply not the case. There are those, such as Christians, who believe with little doubt that Jesus came back to life. And then there are those of us who are indeed non-Christian or even atheists who do not believe it happened because the standard of evidence required to convince has not been met. Pro did not give an argument or evidence to satisfy everyone in the premise of the resurrection and thus has not proven the possibility of Jesus coming back from the dead.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
A good debate, but I think Pro ultimately wins this one, and here's why.
Pro's main arguments revolve around the empty tomb and the martyrdom of the disciples. Pro argues that if Jesus's tomb really hadn't been empty like the apostles claimed, it almost certainly would have been proven, yet this never happened. Further, Pro argues that the willingness of the disciples to face even death for their faith is evidence that they truly did meet the resurrected Jesus. All in all, I find these to be fairly strong points, the first one more so than the second.
Con's responses seem to place an unduly strict burden of proof on Pro. Con complains that Pro's arguments are insufficient to prove the resurrection happened, but the resolution only states that it was probable, so that's all Pro needed to prove. Con says that the resurrection would have been medically impossible, which Pro accepts, but argues that it happened by supernatural causes. Con doesn't seem to dispute that a supernatural event could at least theoretically happen, so Pro really just has to show evidence that a fully natural explanation for the events around Jesus's death is less likely than the given supernatural one.
Ultimately, Con doesn't give me any reason to doubt Pro's claim that if the body of Jesus had remained in his tomb, it would have been proven by the enemies of the Christians, nor do they really argue that the disciples didn't experience what they believed to be a resurrected Jesus, and those are fundamental, core parts of Pro's arguments. Without these fundamentals being undermined, I feel as though Pro's case is not substantially weakened by Con's case, and it's enough for Pro to meet their burden of proof. Pro wins.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
As with most religious debates, both sides come in with radically different points of view and standards for evidence. I will do my best to judge this objectively, which means looking for points of agreement and trying to use those to determine what burdens either side has for evidence. I do think it helps Pro that the standard is "more likely than not" instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt," and in that case it's on the voter to determine how evidence can be considered sufficient while being fair to both debaters.
Pro gives a lot of documents attesting to the resurrection and attests to non-Christian scholars supporting certain historical conclusions. Con argues against this case on two fronts: first, that someone rising from the dead is medically impossible, and second, that Pro's evidence is weak or insufficient. The first point establishes what was kind of clear from the outset, in that Pro is arguing for a miracle. There doesn't seem to be a dispute that miracles are at best rare or unlikely occurrences, though it's never really proven that it's impossible for God to exist or for a miracle to happen.
That leaves Pro with the case of providing enough evidence for the resurrection to overcome the low initial probability of a miracle occurring. What's never really settled is how much evidence is enough. The reliability of the Gospels as historical sources gets a lot of back-and-forth and it's not entirely clear which parts of them we can and can't trust. Pro's case seems to boil down to "not everyone agrees that Jesus rose from the dead, but the disciples experiencing Jesus is a historical fact that even atheist historians agree on." Con had more room to push back on this, but from what I can tell, Con doesn't really dispute that the disciples experienced Jesus. That makes this a little simpler to judge.
There are two possible explanations raised for the appearances: the resurrection, or hallucinations. This comes down to the last round. Pro argues that there has never been a recorded instance of synchronized group hallucination, while Con argues that there has never been a recorded instance of someone rising from the dead. Con did have an opportunity to respond to the hallucination counter in the last round, but they never do.
What breaks the tie in favor of Pro is that they present an explanation (however strange) for a resurrection, while Con doesn't present any explanation for a group hallucination. Pro argues that Jesus was a religious figure, and religious figures might perform miracles. I guess Con had room to argue that a hallucination miracle would be just as likely as a resurrection miracle, but it's never established why Jesus would make people think he rose from the dead instead of just rising from the dead. Since natural laws don't really account for either the resurrection or group hallucinations, I'm forced to go with which "miracle" is more likely, and that ends up leaning Pro.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: three to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
>That's not really what I said. I said that "Con doesn't seem to dispute that a supernatural event could at least theoretically happen, so Pro really just has to show evidence that a fully natural explanation for the events around Jesus's death is less likely than the given supernatural one."
Thats the thing though, Pro never proved it was probable from a natural point of view. in fact, they conceded that it could not happen naturally. Hence why they invoked the name of God and claimed God was the reason it happened due to the events being Supernatural in nature. Plus, supernation events cannot be proven, so that would work against Pro, not for them.
> "I will say that I find it a little confusing that you both say that I did not give you a reason to doubt the possibility of Jesus resurrection when you also point out that I proved such an event is medically impossible and that Pro conceded that point."
That's not really what I said. I said that "Con doesn't seem to dispute that a supernatural event could at least theoretically happen, so Pro really just has to show evidence that a fully natural explanation for the events around Jesus's death is less likely than the given supernatural one."
And yes, you did draw a distinction between viewing the Bible as a religious text and viewing it as a factual, historical account, but there's a difference between doing that and actually arguing that a supernatural event simply can't happen at all. I agree that the medical impossibility of resurrection after brain death means that Pro has a difficult case to prove, but as I said, they just had to show that the given supernatural event was more likely than a completely natural explanation.
> "Lastly, I disagree with you saying that I put undue burden of proof is on Pro because ultimately the burden of proof is on pro. He is the one who must prove that it is possibility of Jesus coming back to life. My job as Con was to show reasons for why we should doubt it."
Well, yes, but there's different standards for the burden of proof. Compare civil trials and criminal trials in the US, for instance. In both types of trials, the one bringing the case generally has the burden of proof, but in a criminal trial the burden of proof is much stricter than in a civil trial (preponderance of evidence vs beyond a reasonable doubt). Pro only needed to prove that the resurrection was *probable*, not that there is no reasonable doubt that it happened. It seemed like you wanted Pro to be able to prove it as an absolute fact, when that was never necessary for them.
I will say that I find it a little confusing that you both say that I did not give you a reason to doubt the possibility of Jesus resurrection when you also point out that I proved such an event is medically impossible and that Pro conceded that point.
Obviously since this world is determined by physics then something being physically impossible is the prefect argument for why something wasn't possible. I also disagree with you claim that I did not dispute supernatural events because I actually did.
If you note in the debate, I kept drawing a contrast between theology and academia. I even specifically mention that supernatural events cannot be considered historical because like science, history only deals in the natural phenomenon. Not supernatural, and since Jesus' resurrection is a supernatural event, it cannot be claimed to be historically proven.
That is literally me disputing the existence of supernatural events. Lastly, I disagree with you saying that I put undue burden of proof is on Pro because ultimately the burden of proof is on pro. He is the one who must prove that it is possibility of Jesus coming back to life. My job as Con was to show reasons for why we should doubt it.
And if my argument could have been viewed in the manner I indeed, which was that the bible isn't considered a historical book outside of religion, The Apostles claimed experience is hearsay, Jesus was a human and the physical and thus impossible to revive after three days (a point that couldn't be refuted), and that theology based evidence of supernatural events cannot be conflicted with actual academia or history.
Instead, people choose to ignore these points for some reason and claim I made no effective argument, and for some reason tried to argue that "proof" and "probability" were somehow different, which made no sense to me. But I do get it, everyone's view is different. And I respect every voters' decision at the end of the day. Thank you for voting.
I see where the confusion happened. The nazi comparison had nothing to do with the existence of Adolf Hiler. The comparison was between a nazi soldier fully believing that Adolf Hitler was a person trying to make Germany a great nation and the apostle's belief that Jesus was in fact resurrected. Not about Hitler or Hitler's existence. The comparison was purely about believing in what they thought even if what they thought was not correct. That tied into my argument that my Apostles may not have been lying but may not have been correct in their belief either. So, you misunderstood that part.
\
The basis of my argument was the claim by Pro that the Apostles' conviction and readiness to die for their beliefs served as proof of the resurrection's occurrence. My rebuttal centered on the notion that one's firm belief in something and willingness to die for it does not necessarily mean it is true, thereby making conviction alone an insufficient validation of truth.
I feel I should add on a little bit to my vote -- a lot of the discussion in this debate was around the idea that the fact that the disciples believed they had seen Jesus after his death does not mean that they actually had. Pro did not disagree with this idea, but argues that it's still strong evidence in favor of the resurrection actually happening. Con tries to provide a counterexample with Nazi soldiers dying for the cause of Adolf Hitler. (Why do so many debaters feel the need to invoke Nazi Germany when it's not directly relevant?) However, as Pro points out, most of these soldiers did not directly interact with Hitler himself, but fell for propaganda. I agree with this point, but more broadly, I can't say that I really understand Con's comparison in the first place, as it's not as though Nazi soldiers believed that Hitler had supernatural abilities or anything. No one disputes that Adolf Hitler existed. On the other hand, people do dispute whether the supernatural events talked about in the Bible actually happened and whether Jesus even existed at all. I don't really see the comparison that Con makes, so I don't think the argument really counts for anything.
Owen_T your vote has been taken down for insufficient explanation of sources… There needs to not just be quantity, but something notable about how they were leveraged to bolster at least one contention.
Arguments could also do with more detail. Like what’s a contention pro excelled at? And (I haven’t read the debate, so I could be missing a big area of discussion) it seems odd on a debate about comparable probabilities, to agree that something is impossible, but then wholly dismiss that as missing the point of the debate.
Conduct would not have been warranted for annoyance with a flawed argument tactic. However it is something quite valid against arguments (not referring to this specific debate).
And in general every point other than arguments shouldn’t be for mild tipping of the scales, but for comparable excellence. I’ll even advise to consider winning arguments to make it a slightly higher burden to get any additional points on top of that.
Owen_T
09.07.2024 08:44PM
Reason:
I'm an agnostic, and I agree with Con, but CatholicApologetics knows his stuff.
Starting with arguments:
Pro presented a strong case, and backing it up with quite a few sources. And then there is Con, who's arguments did not make sense to me.
For example, the resurrection is medically impossible. Well yeah of course it is. That's literally the whole point.
He then goes on to argue the apostles being martyred means nothing, even though they knew the objective truth, as Pro pointed out.
These are just two examples, but there are more things like this.
As mentioned before, Pro used many sources to back up all of his arguments. Con didn't do a bad job with sources, Pro was just better.
I was tempted to give Pro the conduct point to, as Con kept bringing up arguments that had already been well debunked, and that makes me livid when it happens to me.
Thank you for your well wishes! I am already on the mend, thankfully. Getting my vote in on time shouldn't be an issue.
I hope you feel better soon. Please don't feel obligated to vote if you're not well, your health is more important. If you do recover in time, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on the debate and would appreciate your vote.
Its not an issue, I just felt that your reasoning was based on misunderstandings on the arguments I put forth IE focusing on hallucinations and claims that I did not argue against the Disciples testimony. And when you agreed that you didn't necessarily give more consideration, my suggestion was just to reevaluate your vote and then give it better and more accurate reasoning.
I do not see why You would think that it would cause people to accuse of rigging or undue influence. But if that is a major concern, then the vote can stay where it is and I will follow your suggestion. It was not to try and sway your vote, but to get a more accurate reasoning.
I'll address this in broad strokes since going into the minutiae of my vote after one side has asked me to revote risks allegations of vote rigging or undue influence.
I confess to not covering every detail of the debate, and there were points on both sides I could have described in more detail but didn't. There were parts I paraphrased. The reason being that in general, many of the minor points didn't change the way I weighed points at the end or weren't significant enough to outweigh other factors. There were some details brought up by either side that the other debater just didn't address, and I had to weigh which case was more directly arguing the resolution. I really do commend both sides for making a strong case for their side, but at some point arguments had to be weighed against each other.
That's not necessarily super helpful feedback, but even if I deleted my vote and added 3x as much detail, I don't think it would satisfy everyone or change the way I weighed arguments. At best, revoting or discussing the specifics of the vote would just lead to controversy over what caused me to revote or alter my interpretation of the debate, which is the type of thing that mods have gotten dragged into before.
If you think my vote or any other is insufficient or does not address both sides, I can only recommend you report it, as that allows the mods to evaluate whether it meets site standards. Really, I won't take it personally, although I do think it's unlikely to be removed.
Right, and that's why I said you misunderstood me. The hallucinations were just part of me disputing Pro's attempts at saying even atheist scholars like Gerd agreed that the disciples saw Jesus come back from the dead when he stated the opposite. The main focus of the debate was about the probability of Jesus coming back from the dead. And my position held three main points. The medical impossibility of Jesus coming back from the dead (which you got right) The inability to verify the claims of the disciples. (Hence the historical reference comparison and psychological sources.) And that the resurrection of Jesus is a supernatural event rather than a historical event. (which is why I brought sources that show the definitional difference between history and theology as well as the difference between a historical event and a supernatural event). Now, that we have that covered. Could you please consider recasting your vote to properly reflect my position and confirm the final determination of your stance?
I do realize I probably could have gone into more detail on that point. When I say you didn't dispute the historicity of the "experiences," I meant in terms of the disciples believing they had seen Jesus. It was clear to me you didn't believe that they were right about having seen Jesus, so in my view the debate came down to how the disciples could believe they had seen a dead person if they hadn't. I thought the main factor there was hallucinations, although that was mainly me focusing on the point of contention I thought was most decisive.
The only issue I take with your vote is that you say that I never dispute the disciple's experience with Jesus. However, I did argue against it by pointing out that eyewitness testimony is hearsay. I also go into great detail about the ability of a group of people to die for their beliefs even if that belief is false or not proven. I even provided a link to that effect. I am also confused about your point about hallucinations. You say I never address the hallucination counter. However, the only reason hallucinations were mentioned at all was because I pointed out that Pro's claim that a renowned atheist scholar named Gerd Ludemann said that the apostles saw the resurrection is not true since Gerd had taken the position that they experienced a hallucination.
So, I didn't respond to Pro's hallucination counter for two reasons. One because the hallucinations point was one, I brought up and it was used to counter their claims about Gerd and not if they actually experienced one or not. And two Pro never addressed my point about Gerd nor provided any counter-source to that point.
Just letting you know because I think you misunderstood some of my arguments.
I'm a bit sick right now, but I still plan on voting on this one.
Thank you for your votes.
Thank you for participating in this debate. It is a long, albeit important one. Your contribution is widely recognized and I am forever grateful for your participation.
I mean, this is difficult for Con because proving a negative is usually impossible. Pro just needs probability > 50%.
This debate is interesting so far. Tag me when all the rounds have been completed. I will vote on this one.
Thats a quite strong first round from both Pro and Con.
Alright, but don't post the video as a part of your debate. Keep the actual debate words-only.
Just to let you know, I will make a video response to your arguments as I found that doing this helps make my arguments more concise and easier to write.
I posted the debate, please disregard the sections which states "NOTES: CHANGE FROM DEVESTATION AND UNBELIEF TO FAITH." It was a note that I forgot to remove.
I'm quite busy today and tomorrow. Except a post in a few days.
Yes, this is a better debate to have. I look forward to hearing your first argument.
But Pontius Pilote did not exist, so how can there be a devil and his talking cat walking around Moscow?!
I’m referring to The Master and Margarita
agreed.
Maybe a better topic would be if Jesus appeared to people after his death, if resurrection is true.
To be fair, Jesus is acknowledged both historically and biblically as a real figure who died on the cross. Therefore, most people do not believe he was non-existent. However, there is a distinction between the Biblical Jesus and the Historical Jesus, as they are not considered the same entity. Bible Jesus is the one described as the son of God, died for our sins, etc. History Jesus is just a man who lived in Palestine, opposed Roman Rule, gained a following, gave moral teachings, and was eventually executed under suspicion of planning to overthrow Roman rule.
One could argue that the Jesus depicted in the Bible was not crucified as he represents a fictionalized version of the actual Jesus, whose divine paternity cannot be substantiated. But your topic is just about Jesus being crucified in general, which is undisputed.
Is there nobody that believes Jesus was not crucified?