Instigator / Con
Points: 11

Jesus's Resurrection

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
TheRealNihilist
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 10
Description
I am going to waive the first round and Speedrace 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 Speedrace. 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:
Wwwwaive.

Good luck Speedrace
Published:
Jesus, as we know, was an essential figure in history and was very influential; not only did he start the most famous religion in history, with over 2 billion followers, but our very dates revolve around him.
 
The Bible claims that Jesus rose from the dead. First, allow me to establish the reliability of the New Testament, where this claim is made.
To do this, scholars put together the interpretations we have now to establish what the originals were like. The more copies there are, the easier it is to reconstruct the originals. Another factor is how much time exists between the writing of the originals and the copies. Many documents that we’ve reconstructed with high certainty that they are accurate only have a few copies and can span over thousands of years. An example would be The Jewish War, which only has nine surviving manuscripts dating about four centuries after the originals. As you can see, historians are able to do a good job with this.
 
In comparison, the New Testament FAR outweighs any secular document. The one with the most is Homer’s Iliad with 647 copies. The New Testament has 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts. These were all written within a few hundred years of the originals. As you can see, we can have very high confidence that the New Testament is reliable. [1]
 
Now, having established the reliability of the New Testament, I will look at the various theories used to try to falsify the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I would like to say that the existence of Jesus as well as his crucifixion are facts and are not arguable. Unless my opponent asks me to, it is a waste of time to discuss that. I am focusing on what is debated over, which is the resurrection.
 
1.    The Swoon Theory
2.    The Hallucination Theory
3.    The Conspiracy Theory
 
The Swoon Theory
 
The swoon theory states that Jesus never died on the cross, but simply passed out. Let’s first examine the facts of the situation. We know that Jesus was severely beaten, stabbed, pierced with spikes and nails, was bleeding, and he even had a spear thrust into his side. The possibility that he could have survived this is ludicrous. However, besides that, he would’ve had to wake up, roll the GIANT STONE DOOR over the tomb, not a little bit, but all the way out, and he would have had to do all of that without alerting the guards who were posted outside.
Some people say that the guards fell asleep and that the disciples came and stole the body. However, in those times, a guard could lose their life if they did that, so that is simply not true. And even if they did, they would’ve been awoken by all of the noise.
 
The Hallucination Theory
 
This theory states that the people only hallucinated Jesus appearing to them after he had died. Hallucinations are individual events and cannot spread beyond just one person. Here is a list of all of Jesus’ appearances:
 
Luke 24:39 Jesus’ Own Testimony
Revelation 1:18 Jesus’ Own Testimony
John 20:14-16 Mary Magdalene
Matthew 28:9 The Virgin Mary
Luke 24:34 Peter
Luke 24:13-16 Two Disciples On a Road
John 20:19,20,24 The Disciples (except Thomas)
John 26-28 All of the Disciples
John 21:1,2 Seven Disciples
Matthew 28:16,17 Eleven Disciples
1 Corinthians 15:6 Over 500 people
1 Corinthians 15:7 James
Acts 9:3-5 Saul
Acts 1:3 Saul
 
That is over 10 appearances to over 500 people. Quite obviously, it is impossible for 500 people to hallucinate the same thing. The hallucination theory is false.
 
The Conspiracy Theory
 
This one states that the disciples stole the body themselves and fabricated the entire story. First of all, there are absolutely no records of this ever happening. Second, the accounts of Jesus appearing to over 500 people disprove this. Third, they had Jesus appear to women. Women were not considered reliable in Jewish culture, so if they were to fabricate it, they wouldn’t have included women. Fourth, a lot of the Bible is made up of personal letters that are clearly not meant for the public eye. If this theory were true, the personal letters would indicate the exchange between the people trying to determine the logistics of the whole ordeal, but this is not the case.
 
And, what is perhaps the biggest part of this, is that 10 out of 11 of the Apostles were martyred for their beliefs. Why do that unless they were telling the truth?
 
Finally, no written record has ever been shown to have found the body of Jesus Christ. Keep in mind, it was in the Romans interest to find the body and put down the Christian uprising instantly. However, that never happened.
 
So, as shown, none of the theories about the resurrection of Jesus holds up; except, of course, the fact that he did rise from the dead and appeared to people afterward. [2]
 
Sources
 



Round 2
Published:
I thank Speedrace for accepting and publishing an argument.


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 Speedrace can use is:
 
For the purpose of simplicity, I will narrow it down to the few Sr 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 Sr did. I’ll make it clear. Neither of them meets the scrutiny.
 
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.

Now on to Sr's arguments:

In comparison, the New Testament FAR outweighs any secular document. The one with the most is Homer’s Iliad with 647 copies. The New Testament has 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts. These were all written within a few hundred years of the originals. As you can see, we can have very high confidence that the New Testament is reliable.
So an amount of something non-sequitur to the reliability conversation is somehow enough to state the Bible is reliable?
It is a non-sequitur because amount of copies does not equal reliability. If that is the case then Mein Kampf selling 5.2 millions makes it reliable in stating some white superiority excluding the Jews. If Sr decides to post ad hoc rationalize a new condition then his argument becomes weaker because when he first wrote this Sr thought the amount of documents equals reliability bearing in mind no-one who is credible at pretty much anything does this.

I would like to say that the existence of Jesus as well as his crucifixion are facts and are not arguable.
Even if I grant you this you still have a heavy burden which is not fulfilled given you would either have to consider Mein Kampf to be a reliable book or you simply add something then like I said earlier this would mean I have rebutted the claim forward and you had to resort to a weaker argument. I don't know a weaker argument than the argument you just made but I can wait to find out.

The Swoon Theory
 
The swoon theory states that Jesus never died on the cross, but simply passed out.
Complete non-sequitur to the point of this debate. It is about Jesus' resurrection not if he did die on the cross or not.
The Hallucination Theory
 
This theory states that the people only hallucinated Jesus appearing to them after he had died. Hallucinations are individual events and cannot spread beyond just one person. Here is a list of all of Jesus’ appearances:
Hallucinations are individual events yes but more than one individual at a time can be hallucinating. If this is your argument you are pretty much saying AIDS can't happen because they are individual events which the stats show otherwise.
That is over 10 appearances to over 500 people. Quite obviously, it is impossible for 500 people to hallucinate the same thing. The hallucination theory is false.
How is this impossible? You have yet to demonstrate it unless of course the hallucination statement you made before where only person can hallucinate. Think about if every single one of the followers smoked weed. Would they all be hallucinating how about all of them being near a plant that can cause hallucinations? All these explanations are more plausible then it being impossible.  
The Conspiracy Theory 
Just to make clear Sr is proving the negative can't be true so the positive must be true. There is a problem because you don't have the character space to do so and it would be much easier to demonstrate the positive if what you accepted was true. That Jesus did resurrect instead you are making it your mission to prove my side therefore my side must be wrong? That can't be the case because I didn't give an argument nor do I need to since it is as simple Jesus did or didn't resurrect. 

Just to make clear since Sr can't admit the resurrection to be repeatable he only has testimony to be anything where this can be proven. Given this link testimony must be reliable but the Bible is not a reliable source of information unless Sr would like to admit Mein Kampf is reliable as well. 

In order for Sr to show Jesus resurrected he must demonstrate the Bible is reliable but he hasn't.

So, as shown.... appeared to people afterward.
Clear admittance that he was stating the other side to be wrong instead of stating how his side is correct. 
Published:
Reliability

So an amount of something non-sequitur to the reliability conversation is somehow enough to state the Bible is reliable?
Yes, this is how actual historians determine the validity of historical documents. Didn't you read my source? I can provide more if you would like. [1]

If that is the case then Mein Kampf selling 5.2 millions makes it reliable in stating some white superiority excluding the Jews
That's incorrect. White superiority being true or not is an OPINION. When we're talking about reliability, we're talking about whether the events described happened or not. Opinions aren't events. Besides this, the copies of Mein Kampf and the copies of the New Testament are two completely different things. With the latter, it was multiple people in multiple places recounting events they saw, so we can put all of these accounts together and see that they all confirm one another. With Mein Kampf, it was a factory where a book was being mass-printed. The two are not the same at all.

Even if I grant you this you still have a heavy burden which is not fulfilled given you would either have to consider Mein Kampf to be a reliable book or you simply add something then like I said earlier this would mean I have rebutted the claim forward and you had to resort to a weaker argument.
I don't have to do either of those things.

The Swoon Theory

Complete non-sequitur to the point of this debate. It is about Jesus' resurrection not if he did die on the cross or not.
How? I was saying that he did die on the cross. If he never died in the first place, he obviously can't be resurrected.

The Hallucination Theory

Hallucinations are individual events yes but more than one individual at a time can be hallucinating. If this is your argument you are pretty much saying AIDS can't happen because they are individual events which the stats show otherwise.
People can hallucinate at the same time, yes, but they can't hallucinate the exact same thing.

How is this impossible? You have yet to demonstrate it unless of course the hallucination statement you made before where only person can hallucinate. Think about if every single one of the followers smoked weed. Would they all be hallucinating how about all of them being near a plant that can cause hallucinations? All these explanations are more plausible then it being impossible.  
Of course multiple people can hallucinate at the same time, but not the exact same thing. That's just common sense.

Just to make clear Sr is proving the negative can't be true so the positive must be true.
That's incorrect. I'm disproving supposed holes in the resurrection theory. The accounts of people who saw Jesus after he died is my proof of him rising from the dead.

In order for Sr to show Jesus resurrected he must demonstrate the Bible is reliable but he hasn't.
Yes, I have.

Conclusion

My opponent has done nothing to disprove my side, so until he does, all voters should vote Pro.

Sources:

Round 3
Published:
Thank you Speedrace for replying.

Reliability

Yes, this is how actual historians determine the validity of historical documents. Didn't you read my source? I can provide more if you would like. [1]
addressing this:
So an amount of something non-sequitur to the reliability conversation is somehow enough to state the Bible is reliable?
Reading the source, not a single one talks about the amount of something making it more reliable. I'll go through it one by one:

1. Was the source created at the time of the event? So no.
2. Who checked if it was valid? Not about the amount equaling it being correct.
3. Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time? No again.
4. Is it just repeating a more reliable source? No again.
5. What evidence are supporting their claims? No again.
6. Are there errors and who is at fault? No again.
7. Almost identical to number 3 so no. 
8. Almost identical to number 4 so no.
9. Can it be read using current norms in language. No again.

So as we can nothing even comes close to speaking about an amount of something making it more reliable. That is if I accept this is a reliable piece of information because it does not even cites its own sources like who wrote this.

From this I gather my opponent doesn't understand my problem or doesn't understand the link doesn't address my problem.

If that is the case then Mein Kampf selling 5.2 millions makes it reliable in stating some white superiority excluding the Jews
That's incorrect. White superiority being true or not is an OPINION. When we're talking about reliability, we're talking about whether the events described happened or not. Opinions aren't events. Besides this, the copies of Mein Kampf and the copies of the New Testament are two completely different things. With the latter, it was multiple people in multiple places recounting events they saw, so we can put all of these accounts together and see that they all confirm one another. With Mein Kampf, it was a factory where a book was being mass-printed. The two are not the same at all. 
If this was obvious already this hinges on the my point made before. Even so there are still problems with what is said here outside vital points that need to be addressed.

"White superiority being true or not is an OPINION"

If white superiority being true is also an opinion then the Bible being a reliable source of information is also an opinion. Something being reliable means there are telling the truth about a certain event. This would be the Bible is true about what happen with and without Jesus. So if my opponent states white superiority to be an opinion he must also have the Bible being reliable source of information to also be an opinion. 

"When we're talking about reliability, we're talking about whether the events described happened or not."

A distinction without a difference. Another way of saying this is reliability determines whether or not it is true that Jesus resurrected. This would make your problem with what I said not a problem because what the Bible and Jesus' resurrection can be also given the same criticism. If you don't see it that way then you have a double standard. You haven't demonstrated how they are different without sufficient rebuttals so it is an unjustified double standard.

"With the latter, it was multiple people in multiple places recounting events they saw, so we can put all of these accounts together and see that they all confirm one another. With Mein Kampf, it was a factory where a book was being mass-printed."

This is completely absurd. Semantical without it being helpful. Hitler wrote the book. It was then given to Emil then was later edited by his deputy Rudolf. Here is the link. The Bible supposedly was written by multiple people. This essentially is the same thing. An edit can be an addition. A wrote the first half of the book. B wrote the second half the book. A was done then B edited the book by adding in what they wanted. Not to mention how you are talking about two different things. You are talking about the manufacturing stage for Mein Kampf and the written stage of the Bible. This is unfair because you didn't address the problem I had nor did you even compare them correctly. 

I don't have to do either of those things.
Yes you do if you want to fulfill your burden of proof.

The Swoon Theory

How? I was saying that he did die on the cross. If he never died in the first place, he obviously can't be resurrected.
Him dying on the cross has nothing to do with a resurrection.

The Hallucination Theory

People can hallucinate at the same time, yes, but they can't hallucinate the exact same thing.
You have no proof that the Bible is reliable so speaking about a strawman about a position I don't have is useless. Almost every argument was like that.

That's incorrect. I'm disproving supposed holes in the resurrection theory. 
You were supposed to show how Jesus did resurrect not strawman me.

Conclusion

I don't know what to say.
Published:
Reliability
 
My opponent grossly misquotes the questions. I don't have enough characters, but please look at the article to see the actual questions. [1]

#4, #7, and #8 all go hand-in-hand with an abundance of sources. #4 literally says “more than one reliable source.” You obviously need multiple reports to find “contradict[tions] or conflicts” (#7). And you obviously need multiple sources to compare originals and copies (#8).
 
And note, my opponent did not object to the reliability or validity of this article.
 
If white superiority being true is also an opinion then the Bible being a reliable source of information is also an opinion.
This is not even close to being correct. We are comparing the Bible and Mein Kampf.
 
I have never said that reliability isn’t an opinion. However, it’s not an opinion that the Bible states.
 
Mein Kampf: “White superiority blah blah blah”
Bible: “Jesus was resurrected.”
Scholars: “The Bible is reliable.
 
The reliability of the Bible is something that is said by ME and other scholars, not the Bible.
 
Something being reliable means there are telling the truth about a certain event. This would be the Bible is true about what happen with and without Jesus.
So, if I am saying white superiority in Mein Kampf IS an opinion, that is COMPLETELY independent of stating reliability is an opinion because Mein Kampf is not being compared to scholars, it is being compared to the Bible. And, what the Bible says: “Jesus was resurrected” is objectively a fact that is either true or false.
 
"When we're talking about reliability, we're talking about whether the events described happened or not."
 
A distinction without a difference. Another way of saying this is reliability determines whether or not it is true that Jesus resurrected.
How? Reliability has no bearing on opinions. If a teacher tells you an article is reliable, then you say “Oh ok, I can use the facts in here because they are likely true.” However, that doesn’t give you free reign to say the opinions used are true because they’re OPINIONS and no amount of reliability will make them true.
 
You haven't demonstrated how they are different without sufficient rebuttals so it is an unjustified double standard.
No, I don’t. Events/facts and opinions are objectively different, and therefore relate to reliability differently. There is no double standard.

Hitler wrote the book. It was then given to Emil then was later edited by his deputy Rudolf. Here is the link. The Bible supposedly was written by multiple people. This essentially is the same thing.
No, it’s not. And even if this objection IS true, it doesn’t matter because your objections about white superiority are still OPINIONS.
 
But what you’re saying is this: “Oh, Hitler wrote this, and it was edited by Rudolf. Therefore, white superiority must be true!” But that’s incorrect because, once again, it’s an OPINION.
 
What I am saying is this: “Multiple accounts of the same event all correspond to one another, so therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Jesus was resurrected!” Not an opinion, but an evaluation of facts to find the truth.
 
I don't have to do either of those things.
Yes you do if you want to fulfill your burden of proof.
Those “things” I must do are the following (as outlined by my opponent):
 
1.    Consider Mein Kampf to be reliable
2.    OR add something to your argument
 
I never said that Mein Kampf isn’t reliable. And frankly, I don’t care. Even if it IS reliable, that doesn’t make white superiority true. If that was the case, all I would have to do was write a book, make sure it was reliable, and then simply say “the author of this book deserves $5 billion dollars.” Does the reliability of the book suddenly make that opinion true? Of course not! That would be absurd.
 
And since the reliability of Mein Kampf doesn’t matter to my argument, I obviously don’t have to add anything to my argument.
 
The Swoon Theory
 
Him dying on the cross has nothing to do with a resurrection.
Yes, it literally is the entire point. This is what I’m saying:
 
Me: “Jesus was resurrected.”
Opponents: “Well what if he never actually died on the cross? Then he couldn’t be resurrected!”
Me: “Well, he had to have died on the cross because *explains reasoning*. Therefore, he must have been resurrected.”
 
The Hallucination Theory
 
You have no proof that the Bible is reliable so speaking about a strawman about a position I don't have is useless. Almost every argument was like that.
I have proved over and over that the Bible is reliable. Nothing here was a strawman.

A strawman is saying that you hold these beliefs. I never have once said that. Also, I did show how Jesus was resurrected.
 
Conclusion
 
My opponent's only real objection was to reliability, which I have already fully rebutted. In the absence of any other real argument (besides strawmen which I also rebutted), votes should therefore all go to Pro.

Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
"how can a human being resurrect itself?"
Not a clue. That they do not tend to do that, would have been a fantastic contention for you to make. Just because you're con, doesn't mean you cannot build a counter case separate from pro's contentions.
"Find me where Speedrace used [other reports during that time] as his argument."
To start, there were nine in R1...
"Luke 24:39 Jesus’ Own Testimony
"Revelation 1:18 Jesus’ Own Testimony
"John 20:14-16 Mary Magdalene
"Matthew 28:9 The Virgin Mary
"Luke 24:34 Peter
"Luke 24:13-16 Two Disciples On a Road
"John 20:19,20,24 The Disciples (except Thomas)
"John 26-28 All of the Disciples
"John 21:1,2 Seven Disciples
"Matthew 28:16,17 Eleven Disciples
"1 Corinthians 15:6 Over 500 people
"1 Corinthians 15:7 James
"Acts 9:3-5 Saul
"Acts 1:3 Saul"
"I don't remember a time if ever that a moderator removed a vote that was not deemed sufficient that you typed."
I've had a few votes deleted. I don't keep a list, but literally yesterday there was one (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1480/money-cant-buy-happiness).
#33
Added:
--> @Ragnar
#29
Instigator
#32
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Sorry.
Instigator
#31
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
@ Ragnar, not me lol
Contender
#30
Added:
--> @Speedrace
"To me this was not a terribly complex debate. I could have added lots of padded on words to the vote, IMO the debate largely boiled down to the insufficiently refuted historical accounts. The highlights of what each of you said, taken by itself implied which came out on top."
I am sorry but this was about Jesus' resurrection not if Jesus ever lived. It is one thing to claim that a lot of people saw a tree but it is another thing for a person to see that same tree moving. Sure if people don't decide to change their story it would be reliable but a tree moving is also a scientific one. Does the tree have the properties to move by itself like how can a human being resurrect itself?
"“Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?”"
Find me where Speedrace used this as his argument.
"You're imagining slights against you, when none was intended. Getting an extra set of eyes or two to review any vote in question, is to me, never a bad idea. Were the vote called borderline by the moderators, that would be a major strike against it."
I still find it very offensive given I don't remember a time if ever that a moderator removed a vote that was not deemed sufficient that you typed. Getting an extra set of eyes would be necesssary would be blatant if your vote was not sufficient but it is. My problem isn't the framing it is with what you said. You of all people know moderators don't vote on the thing I am complaining to you about.
Instigator
#29
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
>You didn't state what side made the better argument. You just said what both of us said.
To me this was not a terribly complex debate. I could have added lots of padded on words to the vote, IMO the debate largely boiled down to the insufficiently refuted historical accounts. The highlights of what each of you said, taken by itself implied which came out on top.
>>"You attempted to flip a source, but stabbed yourself in the foot with it."
>Please explain this.
...Con says none of pro’s case meets the criteria from said source, line by line listing them, to include “Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?” Which having read pro’s case was a resounding yes (the various manuscripts which were then compiled, and the number of witnesses to the single event this debate is supposed to be about).
>>"Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials"
>Your basically saying I lost this debate because I didn't define the word myself?
No, that is not what I said.
>>"You're of course welcome to report the vote."
>Under the rules of the website your vote is sufficient. You know that already and for you to even say this is condescending either you are implying I am stupid or have a short memory.
You're imagining slights against you, when none was intended. Getting an extra set of eyes or two to review any vote in question, is to me, never a bad idea. Were the vote called borderline by the moderators, that would be a major strike against it.
#28
Added:
--> @Ragnar
"You're missing the context of the total rounds (points being separated by headings"
I did and you didn't state what side made the better argument. You just said what both of us said.
"You attempted to flip a source, but stabbed yourself in the foot with it."
Please explain this.
"Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reliable)."
Your basically saying I lost this debate because I didn't define the word myself?
"Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials "
Please point to me where Speedrace made that point. Having multiple copies was Speedrace's point.
"You're of course welcome to report the vote."
Under the rules of the website your vote is sufficient. You know that already and for you to even say this is condescending either you are implying I am stupid or have a short memory.
Instigator
#27
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
You're missing the context of the total rounds (points being separated by headings, does not imply they don't support each other) and sources, to launch a strawperson claim against the competing case; worse your focus is on the introduction rather than the real contentions. You attempted to flip a source, but stabbed yourself in the foot with it.
Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reliable). This plays both into copies of a single historical document, and collaborating documents. That the patriots won the Superbowl for example, you can say it was a mass hallucination by people smoking weed, and also compare the copies of the original broadcast to Hitler; but we would still left with strong reason to believe that the account of the victory is historically reliable (just like we would be left with information to suggest Hitler existed and is not a boogeyman made up up in the 21st century). ... There are other grounds to attack the soundness of said event, but on that area its validity is hard to make inroads against.
To break it back down from content already inside the vote: Con states “basically X person saw Jesus resurrect” would be reliable evidence. Pro already provided several accounts from different historical documents which did precisely that, to a total of just over 500 people. He further showed that these documents were unlikely to have been greatly altered by later generations. This sealed the debate, but I listed other areas for feedback.
You're of course welcome to report the vote.
#26
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Please explain your vote for me. You stated this "Arguments: pro, but not by a high margin" which I don't think is enough for me to improve or understand how I lost.
The only the other thing would be did me making it clear what Speedrace needs to do really makes my argument less convincing?
Sorry if this is too much.
Instigator
#25
Added:
--> @Ragnar
TRN: "So an amount of something non-sequitur to the reliability conversation is somehow enough to state the Bible is reliable?"
Speedrace: Yes, this is how actual historians determine the validity of historical documents. Didn't you read my source? I can provide more if you would like. [1]
This is what he said. I looked through every single point and nothing came close to reliability = amount of documents. Please see my point Round 2 to find out what I was arguing against.
If you can't find it here:
Speedrace: "In comparison, the New Testament FAR outweighs any secular document. The one with the most is Homer’s Iliad with 647 copies. The New Testament has 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts. These were all written within a few hundred years of the originals. As you can see, we can have very high confidence that the New Testament is reliable."
TRN: So an amount of something non-sequitur to the reliability conversation is somehow enough to state the Bible is reliable?
Instigator
#24
Added:
"Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?"
That wasn't what he was saying he was saying reliability is met by having a lot of copies.
Instigator
#23
Added:
--> @Ragnar
"Con says none of pro’s case meets the criteria from said source, line by line listing them, to include “Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?” Which having read pro’s case was a resounding yes (the various manuscripts which were then compiled, and the number of witnesses to the single event this debate is supposed to be about)."
I don't agree with this.
Instigator
#22
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Lol
Contender
#21
Added:
--> @Speedrace
I posted my vote fifteen minutes ago, whereas your vote request was three hours ago. It's actually what pulled me to this debate to vote. So you not seeing that there, was a reliable witness testimony that it was not there.
#20
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Oops didn't see that there
Contender
#19
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
To start with, I’m not going consider to pros alternative theories as part of this debate. They appear to be mostly pre-emotive attacks, and con doesn’t appear to be advocating for them: as a result, they don’t impact 9! the resolution.
A key point for them, however, is that they presume the information depicted in the bible is accurate - but present alternative explanations.
The issue really boils down to whether the Bible is a reliable source. Here pro advocates for the historical perspective of criticism, but here imo pro doesn’t connect the dots.
For me, pro doesn’t establish the link between why many copies exist and why they can be considered reliable and why the events they depict are correct.
The source itself indicates it is addressing the question of whether the Bible was handed down correctly - not necessarily whether the core content was accurate.
I can accept that the bible hasn’t changed much from the originals - but if the originals aren’t accurate - the Bible isn’t reliable, it is that aspect that pro fails to show imo. Throughout the debate, I felt that pro kept pounding this point, without adding to it until the final round. In the subsequent round pro adds an additional source to show the aspects of criticism of reliability - which is a different argument from the opening R1. Pro needed to have shown reliability going through his own sources list and showing how they apply.
Con on the other hand, in the penultimate round does go through that list and provides a very rudimentary dissmissal of this lists applicability to the bible; I would have liked him to use examples of how the bible fails to meet these criteria, but with speed race having BoP, I think calling into question that validity is itself sufficient.
In terms of the opening, I didn’t think cons rebuttal was strong; pro correctly pointed out printing presses, make the scenario different - which I kinda agree with but would have liked more detail for pro. For con, his argument about making the opinions rather than events reliable undercut his argument. He would have been better using, fairytale events as an example.
But all told however, I am faced with two voting issues. The first is that the opening R1 didn’t appear to support the resolution for pro, it appeared unwarranted. The second is that cons rejecting the ability of pros second list threw down the gauntlet to make pro show why the Bible meets those criteria. As a result of that rebuttal - and the R1 issue, imo Pro has not met his burden of proof and arguments must go to con.
#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:
Gist:
Pretty short debate on one half of a historical event. Con stated what would be acceptable evidence, even after pro had already offered some of that, and then tried to convince us it did not happen.
0. Reliability (preamble)
The New Testament has suffered very few changes. This obviously doesn’t prove it true any more than the gods featured in the Illiad.
Con counters with a Political Kritik of Nazi certain ideology having more copies thus being reliable to the same standard.
Pro backs up his first link with another (a much better one IMO), showing that the number of copies indeed helps determine reliability of historical records. Then explains why the Nazi comparison is false.
Con says none of pro’s case meets the criteria from said source, line by line listing them, to include “Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?” Which having read pro’s case was a resounding yes (the various manuscripts which were then compiled, and the number of witnesses to the single event this debate is supposed to be about).
1. Swoon
A debunking of a what if, via people don’t get hurt that badly and sleep for three days only to develop super strength.
Con counters this doesn’t prove Jesus was first crucified...
2. Hallucination
A debunking of a what if, via 500 eyewitness accounts.
Con counters that maybe those 500 people smoked weed...
Pro explains what he already explained, that identical shared hallucinations don’t happen en mass.
Con says pro hasn’t proven the their word is reliable (which it being spread over all those manuscripts...).
3. Conspiracy
A debunking of a what if, via no record of intentionally falsifying facts.
Con hinted at /the absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence/; and complained that pro was refuting potential lines of cons case rather than outright proving his own (a decent point, even if #2 was definitely favoring the existence of both events).
---
Arguments: pro, but not by a high margin
See above review of key points. I strongly disliked con’s R2 opening trying to specify what type of evidence pro is allowed to use; given that it was copied anyway, why not put it in the description? Worse, it shot his case in the food by saying “basically X person saw Jesus resurrect” as valid evidence, given #2. In fact almost everything circled back to #2.
I hate to ever say a larger character limit would improve things, but this debate can only be judged for the level of depth it reached and had potential to reach within the space allotted. ... I will say that questioning if the Romans crucified one certain Jew would have been a more valid point had it not come from the instigator, and/or had some real work gone into it.
Conduct: con
The description defines pro having to waive the final round, which he did not do; thus, a conduct demerit. Nazi comparisons are always an ugly thing, which tempted me to move this back to a tie.