Instigator / Con
Points: 7

Jesus's Resurrection

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
TheRealNihilist
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 3
Description
I am going to waive the first round and Pro would have to wave the final round.
Pro: Jesus did resurrect and I can prove it
Con: No he didn't
Burden of proof is on Pro. If I fail to counter his claims sufficiently then he wins. If I do counter his claims sufficiently then I win.
Kind of an extreme burden of proof since I would have to debunk all his claims to win but given there isn't a lot to discuss I don't think this is too much to ask for.
I don't really want to add rules since I know they ain't going to be enforced and think if the previous rules are going to be broken I still think I can win if I do post arguments as well.
Thanks for reading and participating in whatever way you see fit.
Hopefully this is worthwhile.
Round 1
Published:
Woooo.

Thanks for participating. 
Published:
Evidence that Jesus Resurrected

James

This man wrote the Epistle of James and was Jesus' half-brother, son of Mary and Joseph, and the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. During Jesus' ministry James refused to believe that his older brother was the Messiah. None of Jesus' bothers believed Him and tried to prevent Him from preaching (Jn. 7:5; Mk. 3:20-21). After His resurrection they are mentioned as part of His disciples (Acts 1:14). In Acts 15 we see that James is one of the leaders of the Jerusalem council. James eventually was martyred for his faith.
So what changed him from denouncing his older brother to believing in Him? James most likely remained unbelieving up until Jesus' death. Even though all Israel was at Jerusalem when Jesus died (it being the Passover) James is not mentioned as being at the foot of the cross with his other brothers and sisters, also Jesus entrusted His mother Mary to John, and not to James. The Bible doesn't tell us how James converted, but we know of one portion of Scripture than hints to why he converted. In 1 Corinthians 15:7 it talks about how Jesus appeared to 500 people and “After that He was seen by James”.
It is possible that James converted by hearing of his brother's resurrection, but it is more likely he converted when Jesus appeared to Him. Which ever way it happened, James believed the Resurrection so strongly that he was willing to die for that belief.

Saul's/Paul's Conversion

Paul wrote 13 books of the New Testament and is the most influential character in Christianity. However, he didn't always follow Christ. First, Acts 7:58 says that he watched as Stephen was stoned without any form of sympathy. The next verse on Paul, Acts 8:3, says he  “made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison”. He told the Jews in Jerusalem in Acts 22:4 that he persecuted Christians “to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women”. In Galatians 1:13 he says that he "persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it."
Obviously, this would not be the person to pick to preach the gospel throughout the Roman Empire, but God thought so. Acts 9:1 and 2 says, "Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem”. Paul was the greatest persecutor of the Church and very zealous in carrying out this persecution.
Acts 9:4 says that, on his way to Damascus Jesus appeared to him saying, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” Upon seeing the risen Savior, Saul converts and begins preaching the gospel, suffering very much as he does so and eventually becoming a martyr. 
What changed this man so much? He wasn't foolish. He described himself as a Pharisee of the Pharisees. His education had been topnotch, his teacher was Gamaliel, one that is well known even by today's Jews. He could not be persuaded from his points of view based on shifting public opinion. However, suddenly he is the strongest supporter of Christianity and promulgates it far and wide and even suffered for it.
The only explainable reason for this change is what he says in 1 Corinthians 15:8, “Then last of all [Jesus] was seen by me also”. Paul was so committed that Nero had him beheaded. He even wrote on why the Resurrection was absolutely necessary for the Christian faith in 1 Corinthians 15.

I had another point here, but I ran out of room. I still have more evidence as well. I am sorry you did not allow more words here. I still have 6 or 7 points
Round 2
Published:
Since I waived the first round I will make it clear here what my opponent must do in order to provide evidence for Jesus's resurrection.
 
Types of evidence GeneralGrant can use is:
 
For the purpose of simplicity, I will narrow it down to the few GG can use to provide the proof required. This would be testimonials, or scientific evidence.
 
So basically X person saw Jesus resurrect.
Or
Science can repeat it.
 
Now if it wasn’t clear already what GG did. I’ll make it clear. Neither of them meets the scrutiny even if it may seem so on the surface.
 
Repeatable
 
Given how sacred this is to Christians I don’t think they would even consider this can be repeated so we are left with only one way of finding proof. I’ll move on specifically talking about his argument before giving speaking about testimony given the context would be helpful to my point and to readers.
 
James conversation and Saul’s/Paul’s conversation
 
Under the evidences I gave both of these fit under only one of those I gave and since they both come from the same source if I provide the source to be wrong then they are both wrong. I want to make this as specific to the issue at hand instead of taking another jab at the Bible so I will be specifically talking about how it isn’t enough to be considered a testimony.
 
The syllogism if I basically removed X and put in James or Saul/Paul would fit right in but I left out key information which renders GG’s evidence useless. I will be demonstrating it by using the best use of testimony.
 
Best use of Testimony: In law
 
In law, testimony is considered admissible evidence. For something to be admissible it must be relevant or reliable. I will grant relevant but I won’t grant reliability. Being relevant doesn’t mean it is correct since I can simply say you are going to lose but since the information I gave doesn’t demonstrate how you would lose since I am talking about a future event there is not reliable data I can give thus relevancy is useless without it being reliable as well. Given the effectiveness of an eyewitness testimony. If you look at the second link below you would realize back in 1947 they realized how little the human mind remembers and what happens when dealt with a lot of tension. Participants were given time to give detail of what occurred and painted the worse picture possible instead of what actually occurred. Given that people are susceptible at over exaggerating what they saw it isn’t a stretch for me to state that the two people mentioned as proof were over exaggerating what was going on. The participants in Allport & Postman stated the person who was aggressing was black even though the person was white. The people GG mentioned were so distraught of a human dying that they have lied to themselves into thinking Jesus rose from the dead or became delusional and thought they actually saw Jesus. I stated this because using Occam’s Razor there are more simple answers then Jesus rising from the dead. So the only real way of proving this resurrection can’t be done and thus no evidence can be brought for Jesus’s resurrection.
 
Admissible Evidence
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-admissible-evidence.html
 
Effectiveness of Eyewitness testimony
https://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html
 
 
Stuff that GG said that I want to specifically answer

James believed the Resurrection so strongly that he was willing to die for that belief.
This argument is if a person was willing to die for a belief they are correct. I know GG cannot believe in such a statement given he would have to accept this argument for suicide bombers believing so strongly that they are willing to die for their belief. If GG does agree with this, then he is stating there is truth to Religions which practice said act like in this scenario Islam which goes against Christianity Abrahamic stance. If he disagrees then he must accept that this is not an argument for why this testimony is correct.

He even wrote on why the Resurrection was absolutely necessary for the Christian faith in 1 Corinthians 15.
Something can be based on a lie. This can be clearly seen with Bush’s speech about spreading democracy to the Middle East yet from his actions were are seeing lies. Given this Christianity can be based on a lie which is Jesus resurrected and still be treated as the truth however truthful it maybe. Hopefully I have demonstrated it isn’t.



Published:
First, I think TRN should take digital evidence off the table or else he could not believe in anything from the 1830s to the beginning of the universe.

Second, why do you not address how two people, one who was skeptical and did not believe and the other who hated Christianity, came to be the greatest believers. That is some change! Yet you fail to give a good explanation.

Next, I knew you were going to go with the suicide bombers. You see, Muslims who do this sort of thing are sincere in what they believe,but they don't know if it is true. The disciples were in a position to know whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead. It simply is not plausible to suggest that each of these men would face continual persecution and horrifying deaths for something they knew to be a lie. After all, liars don’t make good martyrs. And in contrast to suicide bombers, the disciples didn’t kill others in their respective martyrdoms. And they didn’t use violence to force people to convert to Christianity. In fact, they did no harm to anyone, but loved their enemies and willingly accepted persecution from them for the sake of the gospel.

More Proof

A change happened in the disciples
When Jesus was arrested all the disciples fled in fear. Only John was brave enough to follow Jesus to His last moments. Even Peter after he denied Jesus left Him.

Less than two months later, Peter stand in Jerusalem before a large crowed and with courage says, that they had “taken by lawless hands, [had] crucified, and put to death” their Messiah, but “God raised [Him] up”. After that Peter, in the Temple says, “But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses”. The disciples are then arrested and taken before the scribes, rulers Caiaphas and Annas, the same ones who had crucified Jesus, and declare to them, “Let it be known to you all, and to the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole… Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”. The disciples are then told not to preach in the name of Jesus, but the respond by saying, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard”. When they leave they resume preaching the gospel.
Right after that they are arrested again and placed in prison. That night an angel opens the door and lets them out. They go to the Temple and preach again. The authorities rearrest them and place them in prison again where they tell the council, "“We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree”.
The men who had fled in fear at Jesus' arrest no were preaching, being arrested and on being threatened and released preaching again. No amount of threats, beatings or persecution was going to silence them because they knew that even though Jesus had died, He was alive and well. They had seen Him with their own eyes and touched Him with their own hands, and only death could silence them.

The Tomb is Empty
If Jesus' body, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, could not be found in the tomb, the Jesus had to have risen. 
If Jesus' body was still in the tomb, then on the day that Peter preached to thousands on the day of Pentecost the Jewish leaders could have taken Peter to the tomb and shown him that he was lying. But, there isn't a single record of this. Instead these leaders had to invent an impossible story that the disciples stole the body from Roman soldiers to explain an empty tomb.
The fact that the opponents of Christianity, in these early times, knowledge the empty tomb gives authenticity to the accounts, since enemies will not want to help make the case for resurrection.This is known as the principle of enemy attestation or the testimony of a hostile witness. “If opponents of the eyewitnesses admit certain facts the eyewitnesses say are true, then those facts probably are true (for example, if your mother says you are brave, that might be true; but it’s probably more credible if your archenemy says the same thing).” (Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004),231.

I also see that you are trying to make this about the Bible being true. I must say that we are not debating the truthfulness of the Bible, but the truthfulness of the resurrection.

I have other evidence, but not enough space to write it.

I would also like Con to explain why two men, one who was an unbeliever and brother to Jesus could change his mind, and the other how a fierce oponent of Christianity and great persecutor of The Way, could change.

Round 3
Published:
Thank you Ramshutu.


I will still carry on the debate point out things that GG said that I found worth arguing against.

First, I think TRN should take digital evidence off the table or else he could not believe in anything from the 1830s to the beginning of the universe.
Is this supposed to be a jab? I listed out all the types of evidence. I already excluded all of them apart from 2 and only 1 was relevant so this doesn't make sense given I was righting off digital evidence and everything else apart from 1.
one who was skeptical and did not believe and the other who hated Christianity, came to be the greatest believers. That is some change! Yet you fail to give a good explanation.
The exact same argument can be used that I made before only in a different context. Instead of X context I will choose Y. It is of the bad I used earlier I will use another one. If this is an argument for Jesus' resurrection then you must also accept this is also an argument for pretty much any atheist who turned away from Religion and became upstanding non-believers. Given Christianity is abrahamic and doesn't allow for other Religions you can't agree unless of course you want to disobey your God. 
Next, I knew you were going to go with the suicide bombers.
Are you a mind reader? I would like to know.
You see, Muslims who do this sort of thing are sincere in what they believe,but they don't know if it is true.
Another argument was added after I successfully debunked his claim. In order for GG to have this argument to be sufficient he must present how Christian know Christianity is true and Muslims don't know Islam is true.
The disciples were in a position to know whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead.
People who were in the present of Islam's prophet saw him do these feats. If you agree that X people saw something therefore it must be true you must also agree with it in a context you don't actually agree. If your argument was good I wouldn't be able to find this hole like I did for the other arguments.
It simply is not plausible to suggest that each of these men would face continual persecution and horrifying deaths for something they knew to be a lie. 
The Iranian people are facing persecution from the US and they are not denouncing their belief. Is Islam true? I would think you say no so this isn't an argument for Jesus' resurrection either. 
After all, liars don’t make good martyrs.
I said before and I will say it again. A lie can still be the stepping stones to a movement like the US' Middle Eastern hate boner. 
And in contrast to suicide bombers, the disciples didn’t kill others in their respective martyrdoms. And they didn’t use violence to force people to convert to Christianity. In fact, they did no harm to anyone, but loved their enemies and willingly accepted persecution from them for the sake of the gospel.
No violence doesn't make something true. Buddhism would also be true given their abstinence to the outside world which is not being able to beat people up.

A change happened in the disciples

You have yet to give how the Bible is reliable. I await for you to do so.

The Tomb is Empty

An empty tomb is proof of an empty tomb. It isn't a proof of a resurrection. If that is the case I can ask someone to check if the body is in a tomb. Tell them to come back tomorrow. In that time remove the body. Then tell them to check it out and say there is no body. Your conclusion is that the body resurrected. If I was person seeing an empty tomb I would say the tomb is empty. I wouldn't jump the gun without evidence and since you haven't actually provided evidence of this resurrection being repeatable it isn't evidence. Even the Big Bang can be repeatable. A one time event but Jesus's resurrection isn't which doesn't make it testable so void of being able to scientifically verify the claim.  
Published:
I waive the last round because that was the agreement. 
About plagiarizing. This time I made sure I did not copy and paste, but used my own words to explain the points which can even be done in research papers.
Added:
:1
Instigator
#15
Added:
:1
Instigator
#14
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
.
General Grant,
YOUR QUOTE: "If he hadn't raised from the dead, then death could not be conquered."
The problem is NOT Jesus raising from the dead, it is the biblical axiom that He really didn't DIE because He arose from the tomb to life in 3 days! Therefore how can the TRUE Christian like myself say that He died for our sins when He remains alive?!!! Dying for only 3 days and coming back to life is an embarrassment if one wants to use the notion of "Jesus died for our sins." Get it? 2+2=4.
.
#13
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
>>If he hadn't raised from the dead, then death could not be conquered.
Death can't be conquered because there is no evidence of it. Some people are hopeless. I only wish you are given the tools to realize that and change your view on things. Oh well.
Instigator
#12
Added:
--> @BrotherDThomas
If he hadn't raised from the dead, then death could not be conquered.
Contender
#11
Added:
I hate it when Jesus' Resurrection is brought forth, this is because it shows that Jesus really didn't die as a true sacrifice! Whereas, a true sacrifice, as in World War II, is that you remained dead! The soldiers in all wars did NOT have the option of returning to life after 3 days as Jesus did, so where is the TRUE sacrifice for the sins of the world? My faith is tested at all times, where this proposition is one of the worst in this vein.
#10
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
That is all right.
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
I am such a procrastinator.
Sorry about that.
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Well, not this opponent. Hahahahaha
Contender
#7
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
I thought my opponent wouldn't need more than 5k characters.
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Thanks. I got it. I wish you would have allowed more words.
Contender
#5
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
>>You can never be absolutely certain that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
That is not good enough stance to win in my opinion.
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
Look above.
Green square is Pro.

Red square is Con.
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Are you pro or con?
Contender
#2
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I think it would be better to say "we don't have enough evidence to conclude that he did" instead of "no he didn't". You can never be absolutely certain that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
#1
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments:
Due to plagiarism: I cannot accept pros R1 and R2; thus pro effectively makes no positive argument for his case. As a result, as BoP is on pro - this is an automatic loss on arguments; even before considering cons arguments relating to the reliability of the Bible. Arguments to con.
Conduct;
Pro plagiarized the entire R1 and R2 - this is clearly unacceptable, unfair and a substantial infraction that warrants award of conduct.