Instigator / Pro
0
1443
rating
11
debates
22.73%
won
Topic

Jesus did in fact rise from the dead

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
0
1544
rating
23
debates
56.52%
won
Description
~ 72 / 5,000

Jesus completely fully died and rose (gaining life) again from the dead.

Round 1
Pro
1. Jesus did in fact die. 
     We know this how? Because of the events, Jesus went through. Let us go through the process as it is described in the Bible. First, Jesus is savagely scourged and flogged. I will repeat, Jesus wasn't lashed like slaves, he was SCOURGED and FLOGGED 39 TIMES!!! This process using a different much more painful whip as compared to a whip used for lashings. This process alone would probably make most modern people unable to move and some may be left unconscious. After this Jesus is forced to carry a cross 2.5 miles, presumably being very heavy, while being whipped and beaten, hence him also falling down three times. He was then NAILED to a cross causing more pain. Now the real "fun" begins. Jesus now hung on a cross, has to now sustain himself up there by himself. In order to breathe, Jesus must chafe his body up and down the wooden cross to be able to expand and contract his lungs. This chafing not only greatly aggravates the nails piercing into his hands and feet, but also probably sent many splinters into his skin-naked flogged back. Now the Bible says after a while Jesus finally dies hanging down his head. The fact that his body stopped moving up and down is enough evidence alone to suggest that he'd stopped breathing because it wouldn't be possible. Now on top of this, he is pierced in the side WITH A SPEAR!!! Even more evidence is what comes out. The Bible in detail describes that when speared, blood and WATER come out. Why is this important well... When Jesus let his head fall, he presumptively became unconscious due to breathing issues and died a few minutes later of suffocation. Why is water important? In suffocating in the manner Jesus was, the decreased oxygen (due to the difficulty in exhaling) causes damage to the tissues and the capillaries which begin leaking watery fluid from the blood into the tissues. Had Jesus been alive, he would have released blood and blood alone when speared. Even after this, Jesus is taken down and his body is cleaned, wrapped in a shroud, and put into a tomb. If Jesus dies at 3 PM and Joseph must put his body in the tomb by sunset (~7 PM) because of the Sabbath, this left Joseph with about 3.5 hours to do his business. After 3.5 hours of cleaning him, with water to remove the blood I might add, Jesus responded in no fashion because... he was clearly dead... 

2. Jesus was seen after he medically and factually died. 
     I'm positive that it is here where the main debate will be as no sensible person could argue that Jesus didn't die. Jesus as has been documented in what is considered historically accurate documents by historians was seen by about 500 people before he ascended. Including his apostles. My main argument is the argument of why they would lie. Many of those 500 people including 11 apostles were persecuted and DIED for the belief that they saw Jesus after he died. For what reason would so many people give away their life to the fact that they saw and testified to the fact that Jesus rose from the dead? What possible motive could they have to lie? 

Heres to a good debate! :) 
Con
I will begin by stating it is not my wishes to debunk Jesus. Jesus is a matter of faith, and belief in Jesus can continue regardless of the outcome of this debate. "Jesus is a matter of faith".
I personally, may, or, may not, believe in Jesus. What does it matter? the fact is, the belief is "not" fact based. It is "belief" based. It is "faith" based.
I may also have certain contentions regards to how certain religious organisations have went about practising their "faith". I will make no mention of any particular organisation, but what i will say, is that religious practises have involved all types of horrific crimes, such as burning Pagans at the stake. It was even once considered the death penalty to practise free-masonry.
But this is not the point of the debate, is it? so no more waffle.
Let the debate commence.


AKmach wrote....
2. Jesus was seen after he medically and factually died. 
     I'm positive that it is here where the main debate will be as no sensible person could argue that Jesus didn't die.
I shall not be arguing that Jesus did not die.
I shall be arguing that there is no contemporary proof that Jesus rose from the dead.

AKmath wrote....
documented in what is considered historically accurate documents by historians was seen by about 500 people before he ascended. Including his apostles. 
My opponent begins by claiming that the reserrection is considered historically accurate, by historians.
Whilst it is true, most historians do believe there is enough evidence to prove jesus did in fact exist, that is a long way off historians say that there is historic evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

Virtually all reputable scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.
However, most modern day historians would be very skeptical of historical accounts, which include, "miracles".

Post-Enlightenment historians work with methodological naturalism, and therefore reject miracles as objective historical facts
Now, i would like to visit for a moment, "Jewish conspiracy theories/anti semitism".

Now, conspiracy theories regarding the Jews, date back to this specific period, we are discussing right now.

Some antisemitic canards date back to the birth of Christianity, in particular an alleged Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus.

Now, is there any evidence of an actual "real" Jewish conspiracy? Well, yes. For over 2000 years some people have been accusing the Jews of double crossing Jesus. 
Others, have been accusing the Jews of simply making the whole story up.

AKmath wrote.....
My main argument is the argument of why they would lie.
We need to understand the goings on of the time.

The semites claim they are the true descendants of "the holy land". And for this reason, they believe it is "their" land. It belongs, "to them". Now, whether you agree or not, that being the true descendants of the land, entitles you to claim 2000 years later that you have the right to rule that land, is a matter of debate, but is their proof that they truly are the true descendants? Well, the original inhabitants and first known civilisation on those lands date back to approximately 13,000bc. The culture was known as "the Natufian culture".

is a Late Epipaleolithic archaeological culture that existed from around 12,000 to 9,500 BC or 13,050 to 7,550 BC in the Levant

So the question is, are Semites related to "Natufians"? The answer would appear to be, "yes".
Not only did the Natufians first populate what is today regarded as "Jericho". Jericho has been continuously populated since 13,000bc

Natufians founded a settlement where Jericho is today, which may therefore be the longest continuously inhabited urban area on Earth.
Now a subject for a different debate. I do believe "the ahrensburg culture" of Hamburg, could give Jericho a run for it's money. Jericho v Hamburg.
But that is not the subject. 

Now, not only do we have the fact that Jericho has been continuously populated ever since. We also have modern day Scientific evidence.

 According to Christy G. Turner II, there is archaeological and physical anthropological evidence for a relationship between the modern Semitic-speaking populations of the Levant and the Natufians.

However, we know that at somepoint Egypt captured the Holy-land, and partitioned the Holy land in to two egyptian vassal states, Israel and Judah.
We know that around  722 BC the lands fell to the Neo Assyrian Empire.

 before falling to the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 722 BCE. 
Then the Babylonian empire captured it

and then the Neo-Babylonian Empire 
Then 


Then along come the Hellenstic Greeks, with Alexander the Great

During the Hellenistic classic period, Yehud was absorbed into the subsequent Hellenistic kingdoms that followed the conquests of Alexander the Great,
Now rightfully, or wrongfully, the Hebrew scholars, through all this, kept scriptures that claimed those lands were rightfully "theirs".

Now, i ask you. Does it make sense to you that "the Greeks" who had just invaded and conquered Israel, wrote in to their holy bible, that the Jews, according to God, are the rightful rulers of the Holy land? I think, not. Do you know why? Because, it was not even the Greeks that wrote the Septuagint. The Greeks did not have the sophistication nor multi-linguistics to do such a thing. They were a relatively new kingdom, compaired to the Natufians, that have had many millennia to hone their arts of sophistication.

So, the Geeks entrusted the Jewish scholars with accurately translating their scriptures in to Greek.

The septuagint is the earliest extant Koine Greek translation of books from the Hebrew Bible,

It was written by Jewish scholars. And the Jewish scholars wrote in to Greek history that the land the Greeks had just conquered, belongs to the Jews.

The Translation of the Seventy') derives from the story recorded in the Letter of Aristeas that the Hebrew Torah was translated into Greek at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE) by 70 Jewish scholars or, according to later tradition, 72: six scholars from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, who independently produced identical translations. 

Christians wrongfuolly attribute this to being proof of the validity of miracles.
But it was not. It was simply proof for Ptolemy that those Hebrew scholars must be telling the truth about what the Hebrew bible says.
Ptolemy had probably not even read the book, to see, the bit which says "holy land belongs to the Jews".

Now, after the Hellenstics, next to come along and occupy the lands, around 61BC, was the Romans

the last nominally independent kingdom of Israel, gradually lost its independence from 63 BCE with its conquest by Pompey of Rome, 
Now, come the "new testament".

The Jews need to make Roman citizens aware that according to God, the land they have just conquered belongs to the Jews.
So, how can they achieve this?
They achieve it by making them believe in the Jewish God.
Once they believe in the Jewish god, they must also believe that God decrees this land belongs to the Jews.
So, now time to present them with a God.

Resurrection was available to the righteous alone, and would make them equal to God and the angels, as the Gospels have Jesus tell:
But right after the Jews have taught you this, what do they do? Well, they want to make out this is actually something "they do not believe". They do not want you thinking they are teaching you this simply so you will give them their land back.
The belief that the Holy land belongs to the Jews, is "your" belief. "Not theirs".


Right after writing the Septuagint. And the New-testament. The Jews have the citizens of the countries that conquered them, believe in their God, their rights to rule Israel, then, they go and announce they do not believe in what they have written.

In JudaismJesus is viewed as having been the most influential and, consequently, the most damaging of all false prophets. However, since the traditional Jewish belief is that the messiah has not yet come and the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity has never been a central issue for Judaism.

And that, is why they would lie.
Pen is mightier than the sword.
Military tactic.
Round 2
Pro
Your entire argument is faulty as you have failed to realize that we have MANY original copies of the HEBREW Bible. So it turns out, those Jewish translators were actually right. They didn't purposely incorrectly translate it to make it seem as if Israel belonged to them. So I don't really know where we go from here... 
I will point out that you never even mentioned a big point in my argument. Why would 11 disciples and many of the 500 people who testified to his resurrection, be in many cases, be willing to die on a cross (often in unusual positions), for something they didn't see? Unfortunately, you didn't even touch on this in the last round. I hate to be so blunt, but your main argument is a complete sham. Your entire argument is based on a CONSPIRACY THEORY that the Jewish translators incorrectly translated it. As I pointed out, this is obviously incomprehensible as we have many original copied Bibles in Hebrew. I will emphasize that these Bibles have been translated as well, and it matches (within reason, I mean these languages have changed since then and we have better more accurate translations now) with the old translation. So In short, your argument is based on a conspiracy theory, and you even said it yourself. 
Con
AKmath.....
Your entire argument is faulty as you have failed to realize that we have MANY original copies of the HEBREW Bible. So it turns out, those Jewish translators were actually right. They didn't purposely incorrectly translate it to make it seem as if Israel belonged to them. So I don't really know where we go from here... 

Absolutely. However we run the danger here of me "agreeing" with you that the Jews might have actually been telling the truth about "the holy land" belonging to them, being misconstrued as me somehow being proven wrong about something, or validating the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.
However, neither is true. I have not been proven wrong about anything, and this in no way whatsoever proves Jesus rose from the dead. And to say the Jews were telling the truth, is also inaccurate, and only true in a certain sense. I will explain below.

It is true that the Natufians were the original inhabitants of that land, and even people that wish to point to the earlier hunter-gatherer tool making Kebaran culture of 18,000bc are knocked back by the fact that the Natufians are thought to be direct ancestors of the Kabaran.

The Kebaran or Kebarian culture, also known as the Early Near East Epipalaeolithic, was an archaeological culture in the eastern Mediterranean area (c. 18,000 to 12,500 BP), named after its type site, Kebara Cave south of Haifa. The Kebaran were a highly mobile nomadic population, composed of hunters and gatherers in the Levant and Sinai areas who used microlithic tools.
They are generally thought to have been ancestral to the later Natufian culture that occupied much of the same range,

So this would suggest that the Jews were indeed telling the truth about the land belonging to them.

However they were not telling the whole truth.
Quite simply, being original inhabitants of a land means nothing to "Kings" of other countries.
And hardly anyone is going to believe the "Jewish true history".
The only way the Jews can convince citizens of the world, that "the holy land" belongs to the Jews, is if it is written in their "own" history books.
Such as Greek citizens are now more likely to believe that Israel belongs to the Jews, because it is written in a best selling Greek history book.
The Greek citizens automatically assume that this must be the belief of their philosophical contemporaries.
Their philosophical contemporaries must now genuinely believe Hermes is no longer the true god, and that the Greeks are not the lawful owners of Israel.
They do not take in to account that the Greek masters were actually unaware until later, that this was written in to their history book, because it was not them that wrote it.

But the Jews did not tell the truth.
The Jews did not write, we are descendants of the Natufians which are farther descended from the Kebaran.

Instead they wrote "According to God, Israel belongs to the Jews".
Which, is not quite the truth.
It is "bending the truth" a little.

But yes, i will agree, they were telling the truth in a sense. They were genuinely the original inhabitants of "the holy land" before Egyptians came along hundreds of years ago and turned them in to a vassal state.

They were also actually telling the truth when they became Judaists and announced that everything they had written for the Roman public to believe, is false.

In JudaismJesus is viewed as having been the most influential and, consequently, the most damaging of all false prophets. However, since the traditional Jewish belief is that the messiah has not yet come and the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity has never been a central issue for Judaism.
And i do believe, this would include, Jesus rising from the dead. False!

AKmath wrote.....
I will point out that you never even mentioned a big point in my argument. Why would 11 disciples and many of the 500 people who testified to his resurrection, be in many cases, be willing to die on a cross (often in unusual positions), for something they didn't see? Unfortunately, you didn't even touch on this in the last round. 

The first thing we need to understand, is that the Jews have just, yet again, had their lands taken off them, this time by the Romans.
And the earliest Christ followers,, were Jewish.

 Paul and the earliest Christ-followers were Jewish

And the idea of resurrection in Jewsih literature, goes back to at least 200bc

The idea of any resurrection at all first emerges clearly in the 2nd-century-BC Book of Daniel

You would also be very naive to believe that "Cabals" do not exist. Considering the Jews at the time themselves were huge believers in the existence of "Cabals".

The term cabal derives from Kabbalah (a word that has numerous spelling variations), the Jewish mystical interpretation of the Hebrew scripture. In Hebrew it means "reception" or "tradition", denoting the sod (secret) level of Jewish exegesis.

And a tiny little number such as 500, sounds more Kabbalistic and cliquish in nature than open and honest.
Quite simply, Jesus did not show himself to anyone that did not already believe in the Book of Daniel already.
Did not show himself to anyone non Jewish. In fact, did not show himself to anyone, that was not already one of his "apostles" already.
He only showed himself to members of his sect.

This lists, apparently in chronological order, a first appearance to Peter, then to "the Twelve," then to five hundred at one time, then to James (presumably James the brother of Jesus), then to "all the Apostles," and last to Paul himself.
Now, you tell me? Why would a "small sect" lie? Perhaps to farther the goal of the sects agenda maybe? Which would be to make people believe that Israel belongs to the Jews, according to the word of God.

But as i have already revealed to you "twice" already.
You have the word of "Judaists", that what was written by the apostles, was "not true".
Jesus according to them, was a "false messiah".
What more do you require?

In JudaismJesus is viewed as having been the most influential and, consequently, the most damaging of all false prophets. However, since the traditional Jewish belief is that the messiah has not yet come and the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity has never been a central issue for Judaism.


AKmath wrote.... I hate to be so blunt, but your main argument is a complete sham. Your entire argument is based on a CONSPIRACY THEORY that the Jewish translators incorrectly translated it. 

I very much object that an argument against "rising from the dead" could ever be defined as a conspiracy theory.
I would say there is more to suggest, that the story of Jesus rising from the dead, was put together by a "small sect conspiring".

AKmath wrote....
As I pointed out, this is obviously incomprehensible as we have many original copied Bibles in Hebrew.
Show me one source, from the Tanakh that was able to provide "proof" to back up their statement, that "God said Israel belongs to the Jews".

You see, "God saying", is the lie.

You now have to redefine God.

However. 
"Jews being" the original inhabitants is "not a lie". And is contemporary understanding.
But that is not quite what the Hebrew scholars wrote in to their enemies history book.
Round 3
Pro
Dear Nevets, 
Your argument still, unfortunately, fails to make much sense and is filled with quite a few flaws. 

1. Many of the Jews in the area were descended from Natufians, but then again so were a lot of other people, non-Jewish people. It is reasonable to believe that the Jews came from the Natufians because they inhabited the region of Israel. The Jews have made the argument they have because since CIVILIZATION has inhabited Israel, it's been a Jewish state. Your major flaw with this is that the Netufian's had a "culture", not a civilization. All the three CIVILIZATIONS that have been in that land area have been Jewish ones. The first Jewish civilization existed and was destroyed in 597-587 BC, the second civilization existed and was again put under siege in 70 AD, and the third civilization is modern-day Israel. At ALL TIMES in recorded history, the inhabitants of Israel or the land that constitutes Israel have been overwhelmingly inhabited by Jews, and this continues to this day. When countries say we come from certain people, they tend to usually include only include civilizations. For instance, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single Egyptian (particularly those living in the Sinai Peninsula) who says he is descended from the Harifian Culture. So your wrong, or at least now completely right. There's no evidence to suggest Jews didn't descend from the Natufians, logic says they as a matter of fact probably did. 

2. You still insist upon the fact that the Greek translators mistranslated the Bible from Hebrew to Greek. I don't know how many times I have to point this out, we have ORIGINAL COPIES OF THE HEBREW BIBLE AND TORAH, that have been translated again today. As I mentioned in my previous round, the Jewish translators didn't purposely mess up because our modern-day translations match there's. I don't know what I have to say to make you understand, but the translators didn't make a mistake (or at least not on purpose).

3. The Bible nor any other texts specify who those 500 people were beside the 11 Apostles. The Bible does mention some of them were asleep, how much is some? Who knows. WORST case scenario lets say they understated some and let us say 249 (probably a lot more than "some" as it's a little less than half but...) of the people were sleeping. That still leaves 251 people who hypothetically according to this scenario saw him. We cannot assume anything about these 251 people because the Bible says nothing of them after that tidbit. However, logically we can deduce that there were probably many of those 251 who'd known Jesus before and a great number who hadn't. Let's say that half the group didn't know about him. So that's 126 people. Now Nevets, you must explain to me why a portion of those 126 people was willing to die for someone who they'd never seen before but believed so strongly that he'd risen. I'm sure there was a "Cabal" among the Apostles and some of those 500, but it couldn't have been all the 500, because we simply can't assume it was all 500 based on the limited knowledge we have. 

4. You claim that this small sect/cabal would lie to further there "agenda". But what agenda? At this moment in time, nobody knew it was Jesus' intention to create a new religion (Christianity). Not even the 11 Apostles knew then. AS for them lying to try to get Israel back, I've shown you before that it's probable that the Jews could come to form the Natufians, and that the Jewish translators didn't incorrectly translate. 

5. Well, at least there is evidence, to suggest that Jesus did rise from the dead. There is, however, ZERO evidence that your Jewish translators translated the Bible incorrectly to allow them to regain control of Israel. In fact, there is evidence that easily shuts down this point, which is what I've shown. So, therefore, it's a conspiracy theory, as there is NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. 

6. To answer your question Genesis Chapter 17 in the Tanakh specifies God is making his covenant (Israel) with Isaac. Isaac then becomes the father of the Jewish people, and therefore Israel is that of the Jews.  

I will advise you to quit this conspiracy theory with the Natufians and wrong translations and such because you are getting nowhere. You even admit that there is no evidence from HISTORIANS to back up your claims. You said "I would say there is more to suggest, that the story of Jesus rising from the dead, was put together by a "small sect conspiring". Note the use of "I" here and not "Historians" or "Religious scholars". 
Con
1. I am actually did not say the Jews were, or were not the only people to be descended from the Natufians. 
And i note you end by saying

AKmath wrote...
So your wrong, or at least now completely right. There's no evidence to suggest Jews didn't descend from the Natufians, logic says they as a matter of fact probably did. 
So, i am wrong, but, at least, completely right.

AKmach wrote.....
2. You still insist upon the fact that the Greek translators mistranslated the Bible from Hebrew to Greek. I don't know how many times I have to point this out, we have ORIGINAL COPIES OF THE HEBREW BIBLE AND TORAH, that have been translated again today. As I mentioned in my previous round, the Jewish translators didn't purposely mess up because our modern-day translations match there's. I don't know what I have to say to make you understand, but the translators didn't make a mistake (or at least not on purpose).
So, this means that everyone should believe that Israel belongs to the Jews because "God said it does".
Does the fact that the Hebrew scholars are probably telling the truth about the Tanakh saying this, mean that "it is true" that God said this?
No, it merely means that it is true, that the Tanakh does use those words.

3. Now, could you imagine going up to court, and telling a judge, i do not know who the witnesses are? They were probably asleep, so they likely dreamt it.
Then you reduce the amount of reliable witnesses you have, down from 500, to 251, and then you say we cannot assume anything more from those people because we know nothing else about them.
So, then, why are you assuming they are telling the truth, and not simply a cult?
But you then go on to drop your figures farther. We are now down to 126 unreliable witnesses.
Then you reduce the figure farther, to a "portion" of those 126 witnesses, and you want me to explain to you why they would die for someone they have never met before.


AKmath wrote...you must explain to me why a portion of those 126 people was willing to die for someone who they'd never seen before but believed so strongly that he'd risen. 
I actually do not require to explain anything. As you said yourself. We know nothing about them. We cannot assume anything. All we have is tidbits.
You are also failing to understand the nature of reality.
In reality, there is such a thing as martyrdom.
Martyrdom is very common, especially within religious sects.
And i can assure you, Martyrdom was practised by Christians, long before it became synonymous with Islamists.
So there is proof right there, people will commit martyrdom for many reasons. 

In Christianity, a martyr, in accordance with the meaning of the original Greek martys in the New Testament, is one who brings a testimony, usually written or verbal. In particular, the testimony is that of the Christian Gospel, or more generally, the Word of God. A Christian witness is a biblical witness whether or not death follows

AKmath wrote....
4. You claim that this small sect/cabal would lie to further there "agenda". But what agenda? At this moment in time, nobody knew it was Jesus' intention to create a new religion (Christianity). Not even the 11 Apostles knew then. AS for them lying to try to get Israel back, I've shown you before that it's probable that the Jews could come to form the Natufians, and that the Jewish translators didn't incorrectly translate. 


Well, have i not explained it already. The agenda to educate people that the "holy land" belongs to the Jews, in the only way they will understand. That being, to make them believe in a God, that demands the "holy land" belongs to the Jews.
Is it a hard concept to grasp?

And you say "at this moment in time, nobody knew it was Jesus intention to create a new religion (christianity).

Then why is Jesus apostle, St Peter the founder of the Church, and why is he regarded as the first ever pope?

Peter the Apostle, was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ, and the first leader of the early Church.
According to Christian tradition, Peter was crucified in Rome under Emperor Nero. He is traditionally counted as the first bishop of Rome‍—‌or pope‍—‌
From Clovis I

Clovis is also significant due to his conversion to Catholicism in 496, largely at the behest of his wife, Clotilde, who would later be venerated as a saint for this act, 
To Charlemagne

Charlemagne (English: /ˈʃɑːrləmeɪn, ˌʃɑːrləˈmeɪn/; French: [ʃaʁləmaɲ])[3] or Charles the Great[a] (2 April 748[4][b] – 28 January 814), numbered Charles I, was King of the Franks from 768, King of the Lombards from 774, and Emperor of the Romans from 800. 
To William the conqueror

While at Winchester in 1070, William met with three papal legates – John Minutus, Peter, and Ermenfrid of Sion – who had been sent by the pope. The legates ceremonially crowned William during the Easter court
To Robert bruce

 In 1324, the Pope recognised Robert I as king of an independent Scotland,
Kings, that are not even from Israel, aligned themselves with overseas influences, and St Peters Church.

Yet, you say, they did not know they were creating a religion?

Then are you saying that the prophecies in the bible are lies?
You do realise that Jewish Messianism dates back to around 200bc, and it's literature speaks of a future Messiah to come along to resurrect the Israelite "Kingdom of God" in place of the foreign rulers of the time.
Therefore the concept of giving birth to a Messiah, in order to win back the holy land from the invaders, was a longtime planned.

Jewish messianism, and the Jewish messiah concept, has its roots in the apocalyptic literature of the 2nd century BC to 1st century BC, promising a future "anointed" leader (messiah or king) from the Davidic line to resurrect the Israelite Kingdom of God, in place of the foreign rulers of the time.
There is no need for me to tackle 5, 6 or 7 of my opponents claims and questions, as i they are already covered above.

I will end this with pointing to Vissarion, Jesus of Siberia.

Vissarion, On 18 August 1990, when he was 29, Vissarion claims that he had a revelation that he was the reincarnation of Christ. He first spoke publicly in Minusinsk on 18 August 1991. He founded the "Church of the Last Testament" (Церковь Последнего Завета Tserkov Poslednego Zaveta), also known as "Community of Unified Faith", with its head church located in the Siberian Taiga in the Minusinsk Depression east of Abakan, in the small settlement of Petropavlovka. He teaches reincarnationvegetarianism, and apocalypse. He has around 4,000 followers (called Vissarionites) living in the settlement and around 10,000 followers worldwide.
Now Vissarion claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
He runs a Cult commune in Siberia.
He currently has around 5,000 citizens living at this commune

Tiberkul, the settlement in the Taiga, was established in 1994 on a territory of 2.5 square kilometres (620 acres), and today the community spans several nearby villages as well, including villages of Petropavlovka and Cheremshanka, at ca. 56°37′N 96°12′E, and counts some five thousand inhabitants, largely living autochthonous and on ecological principles
Now, this man has more witnesses than Jesus did.
All Jesus had was 500 + 11.

So my question to AKmath is, do you believe this man?
If not, will you believe him if he writes a bible saying "God said"?
And, will you believe the residents of his commune, that begin testifying to seeing him ride off on a white horse, when he dies?
Round 4
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Summary and conclusion

As my opponent forfeited the final round, i will keep it as short and brief as possible.

I feel i countered my opponents every single argument.

I feel i successfully showed what brings me to my conclusion, and my opponent did not successfully rebut it, as he forfeited his final round for whatever reason.

And also, like i said at the beginning, belief in Jesus is a matter of "faith", so the outcome of this debate does not change anything on that matter anyway.

However, i do feel that there is nothing evidence based to suggest that Jesus rose from the dead, as a matter of "fact". And i am still of the same opinion after the conclusion of this debate.

I dont know if my opponent changed your mind. But he has not changed my mind.

Thank you to AKmath