The Resurrection of Jesus likely did not happen.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Round 1: Opening Statements
Round 2-4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing Statements (No new arguments introduced; any arguments presented in rounds 1-4 are allowed)
Is the Bible reliable? Lets delve into the stories by the different Gospels.
The resurrection stories differ on some main points about the story. I will break down some of the differences the stories have and show they cannot be reconcilable.
Who visited the empty tomb?
Mark 16:1 Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome
Matt. 28:1 Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary
Luke 24:10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women
John 20:1 Mary Magdalene
I have heard some try to make the case they were all there, the writers were just leaving them out, but the number of women plays into the narrative of the story.
How many angels were there?
Mark 16:4-5 The stone was rolled away; They entered and saw a young man sitting on the right side.
Matt. 28:2 There was an earthquake; The angel descended from heaven, rolled the stone away, and sat on it.
Luke 24:2-4 Stone rolled away; No body found; Two men stood.
John 20:2,11-12 Mary first told the disciples; Mary wept, stooped down, looked into the sepulcre, and saw two angels sitting.
There are many notable differences between these stories already. Were there two angels or one? Were they sitting or standing? Were they inside the tomb or on the stone? Did they see them before the disciples knew or after?
At what time of day?
Mark 16:2 Very early in the morning the first day of the week.
Matt. 28:1 As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.
Luke 24:1 Very early in the morning.
John 20:1 When it was yet dark.
The three Synoptic Gospels agree on this point for the most part, but John’s Gospel stands out in almost every way. It was still dark in his account. She came alone, she went and told the disciples before she saw the angels, and how she saw them was different from the other three accounts.
What happened at the tomb?
Mark 16:7-8 The women were told to go tell the disciples; They were afraid and told no man.
Matt. 28:7-8 The women were told to go tell the disciples; They had great joy and told the disciples as was commanded.
Luke 24:5-9 The angels talked to the women about what happened to Jesus; The women went and told the disciples.
John 20:1-14 Mary was talked to the angels, then told the disciples, then saw Jesus.
There was one angel in Mark and Matthew. There were two angels in Luke and John. Who spoke to whom, and said what, at what time, and in what order? The stories contradict each other. Is it possible to reconstruct what happened that morning?
The Bible is the only source of knowledge about the resurrection, and it does not paint a plain picture. If we had four eye witnesses, and their accounts of the events differed in the way the four Gospels differ, would it hold up in court?
The resurrection claim is an extraordinary claim with less than ordinary evidence to support it. Is there sufficient evidence to support such an extraordinary claim as the resurrection of Jesus from the dead?
The Conspiracy Theory
Theories to falsify the resurrection:
So imagine four friends at the carnival when all of a sudden something appears in the distance. Of course they broke away from the carnival for a few and went into the woods a little ways off until they reached a clearing when it happened.
They saw something in the woods that night. They told some of their friends and word got out to a reporter who was interested in this encounter. They agree to be interviewed separately. The reporter asks, what happened that night? The first person said they saw a UFO hovering above them in plain sight. It was around sunset. It hovered there for a few minutes and then flew away out of sight. The reporter then questioned the second person. What happened that night? The second person said they saw two UFO’s hovering overhead. It was late evening when the event happened. The UFO’s flew around for a bit and then flew out of sight.
The reporter asks the third person to tell his side of the story. So what happened that night? The third person says they saw two UFO’s fly into view. They were spinning saucers with lights hovering around, back and forth they went. It looked as though they were interested in the friends. The person said they flew around for a little bit and then took off out of view. Finally the reporter interviews the last of the friends. So what did you see? The fourth friend said there were two UFO’s. It was dark outside by this point. They looked like flying saucers spinning around and around. One of them landed on the ground for a few seconds and then they took off.
This story has an extraordinary claim of seeing UFO’s and a close encounter. The stories of the friends differ in much the same way as the stories in the Bible. I can make them say the same thing by suggesting like you did that the others were just leaving out facts. Under most circumstances we would doubt what they saw was accurate if they could not agree on what exactly it was they saw. Plus the UFO part makes the claim a little bit more unbelievable.
Law enforcement interrogates people separately to find out if their stories line up. If they do not, then they are lying. My opponent says “we can see that the stories differing shows a lack of collusion and bolsters their authenticity.” Why does this increase your confidence in the narrative? The resurrection is an extraordinary claim. Where is the proof that it really happened?
Anyone of any faith can use the method my opponent used to conclude their religion is correct. Religion often works backwards from their conclusions to the evidence they use to support it. For instance, the resurrection story is only believable if the Bible is presupposed to be true, accurate, and the inspired word of God. Without this presupposition, what evidence is there? Jesus could presumably end this debate by showing up in his own flesh and blood to the Earth, but he will not do that. Why not? (I am aware he has a glorified body, but he is God)
What is even more problematic, the Bible is full of extraordinary claims from the very first page all the way to the last. It has talking animals, people walking on water, healed by sneezing or filthy water from a river, floating iron axe head, world wide flood, the exodus story with the cloud by day and fire by night, manna, etc. I could go on and on about these unbelievable stories that supposedly happened in the Bible. Why are these stories believable? They do not seem to match the reality we live in. What other book with these types of claims would we even consider to be true?
The AnswersInGenesis Claim:
I can summarize this whole article in the final sentence of the conclusion, ”No matter how many objections unbelievers raise, Christians can be confident there are no contradictions in the Word of God.”  The author of this post just admits nothing will change his or her mind. It does not matter how many objections I bring up, the answer will always be the same. If I were to use this method, what world view would be falsified? If all we ever did was reassure ourselves every time we see red flags, we would never change our minds. This is closed minded thinking. I am open to new ideas if they can be substantiated.
The Questions at the End:
“What happened to the body? Why was it never found?”
Plurium Interrogationum (Logical Fallacy)
“Description: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as a fact.” 
Everything to this point presupposes the Bible is absolute truth. This is a sticky point to me, because I find many issues in the Bible. Presuppositionalism is an unreliable method to determine truth. All religions presuppose certain facts which leads them to believe. The problem with this method is the sheer number of religious beliefs. Presupposition can lead to any conclusion you want to believe. The questions above assumes the events happened as described in the Bible, and I am convinced there is no way to know for sure.
I believe the best method for determining truth is the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method: (Short Hand) 
1. Make an observation
2. Ask questions
3. Form a hypothesis
4. Test hypothesis
5. Analyze data
6. Reproduce experiment (Try to falsify the hypothesis)
This method is why we are able to have this debate online. When I was growing up we did not have smart phones, Youtube, Facebook, tablets, and all the realistic games kids do now. This innovation is due to the Scientific Method. We have trains, plains, automobiles, the Space Station, rovers, satellites, flat screen TV’s, electricity, etc. All of our understanding of the natural world is a testament to the quality of this method. Theoretical Science deals with the unknowns, but the bulk of science agrees unlike religious perspectives.
The problem with the Bible is even when you go back to the second and third centuries, there was still disagreement about the proper interpretation of it. There are thousands of sects of Christianity and almost every point in the Bible is debated. Not only can we not prove the Bible is factually accurate, we cannot determine the proper interpretation of it.
Considering the differences between the four stories, it is entirely conceivable this is completely made up. I am not a mythicist, but I can see why people believe Jesus never really existed. He is mentioned no where else other than the Bible, and that was not written during the time of Jesus. I do not believe Jesus was the Son of God or that he did any of the miracles claimed in the Bible, so in that sense I am a mythicist.
These claims are irrefutable. The time to believe a claim is true is when it meets its burden of proof.
All we have are copies of copies of translations of copies of books and letters written decades after the life of Jesus. Should this be a convincing way for a Deity to communicate his words to us?
Even if someone did find the body, how could anyone know it was Jesus?
My opponent brought up martyrs. Islam has martyrs, and so do countless other religions. It is possible to be convinced of something untrue and be willing to die for it. Study the start of Mormonism and you will find martyrs. Joseph Smith Jr. himself was a martyr. Under this logic Mormonism would be true.
Elvis was seen after his death, are we to believe this is true until the evidence says otherwise?
Allow me to organize my opponent's points of views.
Friend 1: Hovering UFO around sunset, hovered for a few seconds then flew away
Friend 2: 2 UFO's, late evening, flew around for a bit,
Friend 3: Two UFO's, went back and forth
Friend 4: Dark outside, two UFO's, one landed
First of all, this is only four people. As I said in my 4th round, over 500 people saw Jesus. There is a huge difference there. Secondly, many of these differences are not as reconcilable as the ones that my opponent pointed out in round 1.
The AnswersInGenesis Claim
Here, my opponent is simply referring to a link that I provided. Please note that I never said that that link was a source, nor did I use it as justification for any of my claims. I just thought that the graphic was nice and might help voters and/or my opponent, but it was in no way evidence. Because of that, everything my opponent said is irrelevant.
Everything to this point presupposes the Bible is absolute truth. This is a sticky point to me, because I find many issues in the Bible.
Presuppositionalism is an unreliable method to determine truth. All religions presuppose certain facts which leads them to believe. The problem with this method is the sheer number of religious beliefs. Presupposition can lead to any conclusion you want to believe. The questions above assumes the events happened as described in the Bible, and I am convinced there is no way to know for sure.
The problem with the Bible is even when you go back to the second and third centuries, there was still disagreement about the proper interpretation of it. There are thousands of sects of Christianity and almost every point in the Bible is debated.
b) John’s account seems completely different from the other accounts.
c) The Bible is our only source for the resurrection of Jesus.
i. The Bible has errors in it.
ii. The Bible is inconsistent about the events of the resurrection story.
iii. The Bible has been tampered with throughout history.
1. Ending of Mark differs from manuscript to manuscript.
2. There are numerous scribal errors and some intentional changes.
B、I provided reasonable doubt for the reliability of the NT.
a) The manuscripts we have are...
i. Copies of copies of translations of copies passed down.
ii. Over 94% written after ninth century.
iii. The bulk of them are fragments, and many are really small fragments.
b) The witnesses of Jesus
i. We have no written testimony of any of the witnesses.
ii. We have no idea who these 500 witnesses are.
iii. All witnesses mention in the Bible are believers.
1. Believers have conformation bias.
iv. The only place to find these witnesses of Jesus is in the Bible.
1. You have to presuppose the Bible is true.
2. The Bible has been tampered with, can it be trusted?
C、Presuppositions can lead to any belief.
a) All religions use this approach.
b) Presuppositions require no actual evidence.
i. Instead of actual evidence, people will use their presuppositions.
a) The Bible.
b) The Quran.
c) Tao Te Ching.
d) The Vedas.
2. All religious followers will point to their respective texts.
a) Notice none will give good evidence for the claims they make.
3. The only presupposition Christians need is the Bible.
4. All beliefs can be found in the Bible only.
a) The resurrection
b) Feeding of the 5000
c) Moses parting of the waters
d) Walking on water
e) Talking serpent and donkey
5. The Bible has not met its burden of proof
i. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.
i. Miracles are unexplainable.
1. Every time we explain something, it ceases to be supernatural.
2. We should wait for evidence before assuming it is supernatural.
ii. The resurrection would be a miracle.
1. We have never witnessed a resurrection.
a) All men are mortals.
b) Once mortals die (fully) they never come back to life.
c) Biological evidence shows that once the bodily fluids have drained, you remain dead indefinitely.
d) Jesus was a mortal.
e) Therefore Jesus remains dead indefinitely.
i. Unless there is proof of the contrary, we should except this conclusion.
i. What method should we use to determine truth?
a) Can lead to any conclusion.
b) All religions use this method with wildly different results.
2. Scientific Method
a) What is it?
i. Make an observation
ii. Ask questions
iii. Form a hypothesis
iv. Test hypothesis
v. Analyze data
vi. Reproduce experiment (Try to falsify the hypothesis)
b) This method is consistent.
4. Space Station
a) All of these are a result of this method.
c) This method will only lead to a single conclusion.
i. If you cannot prove the hypothesis, it remains unknown.
1. Remain agnostic until the evidence is found.
d) This method is by far the best approach to finding truth.
i. If a method yields consistent results, it should be trusted.
My opponent has referenced the reliability claim made in his opening statement a few times throughout this debate. I reject this claim. I have demonstrated that the work of Josephus was tampered with by Christians, and if a prominent late first century historians work was changed, what else might have been changed? We know manuscripts have been changed because the manuscripts we found have differences. Not only do we not know what the originals said exactly, we have no evidence to support the claims made by the NT writers. My opponent has made no attempt to show the claims have merit and should therefore be taken seriously.
As I have already mentioned, I do not have a problem with saying that the narrative of the stories in the Bible are probably reliable in the sense that it keeps the overall meaning the same as the original, even though there is no way to actually prove this to be the case. The best we can do with history is say something probably happened or it possibly happened. To say that Jesus probably resurrected is absurd because a resurrection by definition is naturally impossible and therefore improbable.
Debunk means to “expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief)”.  In no way has Con demonstrated my position is false or hollow.
History is best understood through unbiased sources. No first century historian mentions Jesus’ life, death, or resurrection accounts explicitly.
This is known to be a forgery, and if Christians can add this to a famous historians work, how much more would they be willing to change other books
I have heard somewhere Bart Ehrman say there are more variations in the different manuscripts than words in the New Testament. I could not find that quote, but I am confident in saying there are a lot of variations within the manuscripts themselves.
This statement coming from a critic is undoubtedly presenting a case against the resurrection. If the resurrection happened, why not mention it, or at the very least his miracles? This event, or any event of Jesus’ life, was not even worth a mention by a contemporary historian.
The only place we have the life, death by crucifixion, and the resurrection of Jesus is in the New Testament written by believers. We also know there have been additions and changes made to the New Testament since they have been in circulation. So we have bias accounts written decades after the fact, by unknown authors,  with unknown sources, with the intent to convince the reader of the truth of the claims without a shred of evidence outside of these accounts which disagree with each other about certain events, locations, and order of events along with the fact that they have been changed by scribes over the centuries. Again, even if I conceded the reliability of the information written in the Bible, it still does not prove the reliability of the claims in the Bible.
Reliability should yield consistent results. If the New Testament accounts were reliable, they should be consistent, but they are not. If Christianity were reliable, it should be consistent in practice, but it is not. There are thousands of sects of Christianity.
When I pray, I get inconsistent results.
If we apply this same logic to Jesus of Nazareth, we end up with Jesus being mortal, and all mortals die. On the other hand, use this type of logic to talk about the resurrection. All men are mortal, once mortals die (fully) they never come back to life. Biological evidence shows that once the bodily fluids have drained, you remain dead indefinitely. Jesus was a mortal. Therefore Jesus remains dead indefinitely. If I am to proportion my beliefs to the evidence, this argument is true. There is no evidence to the contrary, yet this is a claim made by the Gospel writers about the man Jesus.