Instigator / Pro
0
1525
rating
23
debates
58.7%
won
Topic
#5056
Did the resurrection happen?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1492
rating
15
debates
50.0%
won
Description
Pro: the resurrection happened
Con: the resurrection didn’t happen
I’m referring to the supposed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, yet I will not assume biblical truth unless I have reason to.
Round 1
Due to the nature of this debate, the burden of proof is on me to prove the resurrection happened, but 1st id like to thank Atoktheadvocate for this debate.
The method
So to describe the method we will be using to prove the resurrection or not we will be looking at several different theories, and see how well they explain what happened following the alleged resurrection. For example lets say we established an empty tomb is historical, we could then discredit hallucination theory (a theory that said people hallucinated the resurrection) because it cant account for that. Now of course I wont be assuming the bible is true unless I have reason to, so now lets look at the theories we will be looking at.
The theories
We'll look at the 3 most popular theories, although my opponent (if he wishes) may add a theory he thinks can explain what happened.
Mythic theory - All the events and miracle claims of Jesus were made up at a later time and were not made up by early eyewitnesses
Conspiracy theory - The disciples made up the story of jesus rising from the dead
Hallucination Theory - The disciples had hallucinations that Jesus had risen and that propelled them to think he was alive again
And lastly we'll compare it to the theory I think best explains the evidence:
Resurrection theory - Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his followers
The claims that were made
So the 1st factor we'll look at which is almost unanimous in agreement among scholars is that after Jesus's death his disciples said he appeared to them alive.
Bart Ehrman said:
"I don't doubt at all that some disciples claimed this... Paul, writing about twenty-five years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I dont think he is making it up." [1]
E.P Sanders said:
"It is an 'equally secure fact' that Jesus' disciples 'saw him' (in what sense is not certain) after his death....Thereafter his followers saw him." [2]
The reason for this is because it has multiple attestation: (do note im not assuming the bible is true since this is just showing they claimed it
Paul's Epistles
Mark
John
Matthew
Luke and Acts
And most notably Josephus (a Jewish priest, so not biased) wrote about his followers claiming this in Antiquities 18:3:3 [3]
"There was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" [3]
Another reason this is commonly believed is because there is no way to explain the rise of Christianity if they didn't claim Jesus was resurrected, so this is a widely affirmed fact & is evident
Lets see how the theories fare with this factor
Mythic theory - This would most certainly disprove the mythic theory given that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 appears to be an early creed, and most scholars agree it goes back to within 3 years of Pentecost, the reasons for this are overwhelming.
-Mnemonic structure with parallelism
-Less than 50 words
These 2 reasons point towards it being an early creed for catechizing new Christians (easy to learn and memorize)
-Paul also says at the start that he delivered to you (the Corinthians) what he received, meaning it likely came from the disciples themselves.
-The creed also uses the name Cephas, for peter which was an early name for peter, only later on was he called peter
-It also has an independent tradition that is not from the gospels, which is appearing to peter & James (peter likely added his name after learning it)
There is not a single scholar to my knowledge that dates this after the mid 40's, so we can reasonably rule out the mythic theory
-Paul also says at the start that he delivered to you (the Corinthians) what he received, meaning it likely came from the disciples themselves.
-The creed also uses the name Cephas, for peter which was an early name for peter, only later on was he called peter
-It also has an independent tradition that is not from the gospels, which is appearing to peter & James (peter likely added his name after learning it)
Hallucinations theory - the main issue is that many people claimed it happened, and group hallucinations are extremely rate, so rare in fact that there is very little scientific literature on them,
Dr. Gary Sibcy said:
I have surveyed the professional literature (peer reviewed journal articles and books) written by psychologists, psychiatrists and other relevant healthcare professionals during the past two decades and have yet to find a single documented case of a group hallucination, an event for which more than one person purportedly shared in a visual or other sensory perception where there was clearly no referent." [4]
There is no scientific evidence that group hallucinations can even happen
Its also important to note that hallucinations most often manifest in one sensory mode, and multimode hallucinations are exceptionally rare. [5] yet most claims of the resurrection claim multiple senses were used, making the hallucination theory highly, highly improbable, so we can cross of hallucination theory
Conspiracy theory - Ignoring how unlikely it would be to hold together a conspiracy this large, the conspiracy theory can explain why people claimed to see the resurrection, so we'll say this can check this box, despite it being a stretch.
Resurrection theory - The resurrection theory of course can explain why people claimed to see Jesus alive.
onto our next factor:
Enemies of Christ being converted
Next we'll look at 2 people specifically Paul & James.
James was not a follower of Christ before his crucifixion, some examples of scholars who accept this: [6] Betz, Conzelmann, Craig, Derret, Ehrman, Funk, Hoover, Kee, Koester, Ladd, Lorenzen, Ludemann, Meier, Oden, Osborne, Pannenberg, Sanders, Spong, Struhlmacher, Wedderburn
Its also accepted by all [7] scholars that Paul was an enemy of the church originally and later converted, the reason for this is Paul admits it himself, and meets the criteria of embarrassment which is why we should believe it.
Lets see how the theories compare to this
The mythic theory - The mythic theory would have a hard time explaining this, since early Christians wouldn't disrespect early church leaders like paul & james by making this up, and plus its paul himself that admits he was an enemy
Conspiracy theory - The conspiracy theory couldnt account for this either, the only way it could attempt to justify it is to say paul & james lied, but the issue with this is that neither of them (especially Paul since he saw Christians prosecuted) had no reason to lie, infact they had reasons to not lie, Tacitus wrote regarding the prosecution of Christians: [8]
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Why would you lie if you got prosecuted like that for it? Its safe to conclude the conspiracy theory cant answer this.
Hallucination Theory - This would be adding more hallucinations you'd have to explain, so we can deny it for the same reason we did in the previous factor.
Resurrection Theory - The resurrection theory can once again account for this.
Conclusion
I merely pointed out 2 factors to discredit the 3 major theories, out of the 4 we looked at the resurrection is the most reasonable, my opponent must give a theory that would hear to these 2 factors (and possibly more if I add another to discredit his theory), at the moment the resurrection is most reasonable.
Sources:
[1] - The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the early Christian Writings page 301
[2] - The Historical Figure Of Jesus page 13
[3] - The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus. (n.d.). https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link182HCH0003
[4] - The Resurrection of Jesus page 484
[5] - Hallucinations The Science of Idiosyncratic Perception by Andre Aleman & Frank Laroi page 25-46
[6] - The Risen Jesus and the Future Hope, Page 22, 44
[7] - The Case for the Resurrection Of Jesus, page 75
[8] - Wikipedia contributors. (2023, October 4). Tacitus on Jesus. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
Occam's Razor.
Jesus Christ, Jesus of Galilee, Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Son of God. Whatever you call him, there's one thing he certainly was, a person that opposed the oppressive political regime of Rome. Many people have died for their political convictions. People have lied, went to war, invented false identities for their political benefit, regardless of the threat to their self.
Religious extremists of the modern day have never seen or heard any basis for their religious beliefs except for books and theists proclaiming that they are correct. Yet they sacrifice their lives for their beliefs. Now imagine you are face to face with the God of your beliefs. Regardless of if the person is simply a political figure standing for good, or God incarnate, you would do anything for that figure. People have gone to war for a paycheck, they would certainly say or do anything to uplift the view of their Idol.
I sat again, Occam's Razor.
Jesus was a very wonderful man that stood for peace, against oppression, a man of the people, a son of the Universe that loves us all, and gives good philosophical advice, which led to idolization and hyperbolic storytelling? Much alike the childhood game of telephone, the word from one rarely reaches the one on the other end of the line when it passes through people repeatedly, and that is only exaggerated when the people retelling the story had love, respect, and idolization of the subject matter.
So you tell me? Is it more likely someone exaggerated when they told a story, or that someone literally came back to life?
Being told to believe something does not often foster belief by those that think critically.
I do believe Jesus is the child of God, the Universe, as are we all. He did good works, and deserves to be upheld as a symbol of peace and the paradoxical nature of a world that punishes those who do what's best for others, and a way to learn that this world needs change to a more peaceful place. But on the subject of resurrection, it is not probable. If the Universe did raise Jesus from the grave, that's magical, and then I would challenge that the Church has burned witches and practitioners of "magic" for centuries. So why praise the Ultra Lord Wizard when he performed necromancy but drown and burn people for their much less effective "magic" such as praying to the Universe without specifically praying to Yahweh, or making herbal remedies. Why praise a necromancy and punish medicinal tinctures?
There's much more to be said on the nature of the Abrahamic religions and the inconsistencies between the text, the verbal teachings, and the actions of their followers.
Round 2
Jesus Christ, Jesus of Galilee, Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Son of God. Whatever you call him, there's one thing he certainly was, a person that opposed the oppressive political regime of Rome.
Im curious, where did you get this from? Ive read through all the mentions of Jesus (at least the one's within 100 years of Jesus) and none of them really seem to mention this, the closest they get to it is mentions of his crucifixion in Josephus's work, but that doesn't point to him being opposed to Rome.
Many people have died for their political convictions. People have lied, went to war, invented false identities for their political benefit, regardless of the threat to their self.
well yes, I've addressed the conspiracy theory, ignoring how absurd it'd be to die for something you knew wasn't true, enemies of Christ who have converted cast major doubt on the conspiracy theory explanation.
Religious extremists of the modern day have never seen or heard any basis for their religious beliefs except for books and theists proclaiming that they are correct. Yet they sacrifice their lives for their beliefs.
Beautiful response, but it has one major crux, when an suicide bomber claims he's bombing something for Allah he seems to be dying for something that I oppose. But was the suicide bomber really dying for something he knew wasn't true? I mean I think he genuinely believed it was true, therefore would be different from dying for lying about the resurrection, since you know for an fact that's an lie.
Now imagine you are face to face with the God of your beliefs. Regardless of if the person is simply a political figure standing for good, or God incarnate, you would do anything for that figure. People have gone to war for a paycheck, they would certainly say or do anything to uplift the view of their Idol.
I think there's also an big issue here, all of the new testament writers (except for Luke, and im unsure about Jude or James) held an majorly different belief about the messiah, opposed to what Jesus actually was, they were Jews after all and Jesus didn't meet their expectations, I think that's one of the things that helped to get him crucified (keep in mind claiming to be the messiah isn't criminal in itself, but I believe there was an sorta bias since he didn't meet that expectation) this was going against their belief, why would these people in specifically die for that? And why would Paul (someone who prosecuted Christians) become an Christian? Did he too lie even tho he had nothing to gain from it? Only things to lose.
I also want you to keep in mind, my argument doesn't depend on the 12 apostles not lying, I don't just assume they weren't lying at any point, instead I see no reason to believe Paul was lying, only reasons to believe he wasn't.
I sat again, Occam's Razor.
Well Occam's razor practically says use the least amount of non-evidence assumptions, and I've used 0 in my resurrection theory, infact I didn't even seek evidence for the resurrection theory, just examined how it best explains the 2 simple facts that
1: The apostles made claims the resurrection happened
2: Enemies of Christ converted, and claimed the resurrection happened (specifically Paul since we have the most amount of information on him)
Jesus was a very wonderful man that stood for peace, against oppression, a man of the people, a son of the Universe that loves us all, and gives good philosophical advice.
Well I dont think you can say he's a wonderful man then say he wasn't god. I know of 3 possibilities here
1) He was an liar, he knew he wasn't god & yet claimed he was god
2) He was an mad man, he didn't know he wasn't god & claimed he was
3) He truly was what the bible says he was, the word made flesh
1 & 2 would not be an "Wonderful man"
which led to idolization and hyperbolic storytelling? Much alike the childhood game of telephone, the word from one rarely reaches the one on the other end of the line when it passes through people repeatedly, and that is only exaggerated when the people retelling the story had love, respect, and idolization of the subject matter.
Well as I pointed out, in 1(maybe 2, check my original argument) Corinthians the creed of people claiming the resurrection dates back to 45 ad at the most, the idea that in 10 years mythic story telling developed is quite odd considering the fact the apostles would still be alive & would probably speak out against it. (unless you want to say they were martyred, if so what for since they supposedly didnt claim the resurrection happened) if you want to see an example of mythical development read the gospel of Thomas, and you'll understand why it isnt in the bible.
Im going to add an 3rd factor to this, just to cast further doubt on this theory and its the historicity of the empty tomb. Lets look at Matthew 28:12-13
"12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’"
We will not assume this explanation is true, instead we will look at what it is, it is trying to explain the priest's explanation for the empty tomb (since they supposedly paid the soldiers to say someone stole the body, that suggests its empty) given this, it appears as if people back in the day, made the claim the tomb was empty and the disciples stole the body, therefore an empty tomb is historical
We will say the mythic theory could explain this, although not very well
The conspiracy theory can explain it as well
The hallucination theory couldnt
Your theory cant as well
The resurrection theory of course can.
So you tell me? Is it more likely someone exaggerated when they told a story, or that someone literally came back to life?
Following Occam's Razor, your argument goes against the historical facts, which show that the resurrection claims appeared around 10 years after Jesus's supposed resurrection, which wouldnt nearly grant anyone enough time to develop mythical developments like that. And it doesnt explain why the enemies of christ converted, I dont think this theory explains the resurrection, it cant account for the apostles claims, noir enemies of Christ converting.
Being told to believe something does not often foster belief by those that think critically.
What makes you think I based my belief off of things I was told, I find it somewhat disrespectful you think I based my argument based off of what I was told when I based it off of the bare basic historical facts around the resurrection
I do believe Jesus is the child of God, the Universe, as are we all. He did good works, and deserves to be upheld as a symbol of peace and the paradoxical nature of a world that punishes those who do what's best for others, and a way to learn that this world needs change to a more peaceful place. But on the subject of resurrection, it is not probable. If the Universe did raise Jesus from the grave, that's magical, and then I would challenge that the Church has burned witches and practitioners of "magic" for centuries. So why praise the Ultra Lord Wizard when he performed necromancy but drown and burn people for their much less effective "magic" such as praying to the Universe without specifically praying to Yahweh, or making herbal remedies. Why praise a necromancy and punish medicinal tinctures?
I dont think the bible calls to burn witches at the stake.
There's much more to be said on the nature of the Abrahamic religions and the inconsistencies between the text, the verbal teachings, and the actions of their followers.
Okay, you agree the actions dont follow the teachings, dont judge the religion based off of the actions of its followers, look at the text itself.
Forfeited
Round 3
extend
Forfeited
Round 4
extend
Your logic seems unsound and lacks in consistency.
You can BELIEVE a man was resurrected 2000 years ago if you want to.
This debate feels like a recap of every other debate that I've witnessed of the topic.
Every point you make has a symmetrical opposition, and thus, no proof I provide to you will make any difference in your belief.
You've seen all the prior arguments and counterarguments on the topic. And it seems you're simply rehashing arguments of others, that have already been addressed immensely.
I was born into a Christian family. My father was a pastor. I never could buy into fear based belief. I may have went along with it at a young age, but no longer do I play that facade.
You can say I'm derailing, but the fact of the matter is the entire text reflects the legitimacy of any claim made within.
The people practicing the religion reflect upon the context within.
The massive amount of cognitive dissonance within the Christian community is detrimental to society as a whole, even if a minority of the principles are applicable to living a good life.
The Torah, the Old Testament, is the only text recognized as true and whole by Judaism.
The Quran is the only text recognized as the true and whole word of God by Islam.
The Bible as a whole is the only text recognized as true and whole by Christianity.
All worship the same God yet can not agree what is the true word of God, because there is no proof to legitimize any of the texts more than the others.
Even within just Christianity, there are so many different sects that cannot agree on an interpretation of the Bible. Some take the whole thing literally, others read the whole thing as metaphor, others draw arbitrary lines as to what is metaphor or literal.
The Bible has been edited a countless amount over the centuries. Even today, they are still revising the "word of God." Entire books have been removed, passages changed, sections omitted and added.
There are many other ancient texts that have been revised and edited, but they don't claim to hold the keys to escaping eternal hellfire.
Your arguments are not compelling, and give no credence to believing a man on a cross has risen from the dead. You can assert that it is the most likely option, and I can assert it is much more likely that people lie, quite frequently.
If you trust the Bible, then you should trust the Quran, considering the prophet Muhammed was in Holy Communion with the Abrahamic God.
What makes your religion right? And you'll likely say this is derailment of the topic, and I'll argue that the religion as a whole and it's context within society is largely a factor in the validity of the claims made by its holy text.
The God I believe in doesn't have a holy book. The God I believe in is visible to all to see, and welcomes all, regardless of their race, background, or if they go to church.
And if you trust the validity of the Bible, then there are many scriptures that are actively ignored and not followed by the majority of Christianity. What makes one scripture worthy of listening to, and another unworthy, if it's all the word of God?
And the Abrahamic God is an amalgamation of various Israeli tribal Gods.
The entire religion is under criticism, because it makes falsifiable claims. There are direct contradictions within the Bible, through either errors in copying, or through different stories from different writers. Even if someone told a truth in the Bible, there's no way to prove which parts are true, and which parts are false. It claims to purport a one true God, while it's origins are polytheistic in Nature.
God is everything, everywhere, all at once, and simultaneously nothing, nowhere, never at all. God is the substance and the inhabitants. God is impossible to miss, because God is all that is. I see the current religions of the world as twisted, skewed, versions of God, molded by humans to serve their purposes. If you'd like to discuss the topic of God in more depth, that's better suited for another time.
To summarize; your arguments are unsound and do not track logically. The source text is flawed and inconsistent. Those who read the text can not agree on the meaning of the text as a whole. And people who worship the same God do not even prescribe to the opinion that Jesus was resurrected, nor that he was God incarnate.
My personal opinion: organized religion is flawed. Worship of God does not necessitate a specific book or prayer. There is no infallible proof that Jesus was resurrected, and literally any other explanation is higher in likelihood. And IF somehow, Jesus WAS resurrected, that's cool, but Christianity is still flawed as a religion. I'm a follower of Christ, of Buddha, of Ghandi, of Kongzi, of Lao Tsu, of MLK. I can agree with people without idolizing them. I can respect them and their tenets. I can apply the lessons of the past for a better future, without placing one above all, without claiming they were right about everything.
Round 5
You can BELIEVE a man was resurrected 2000 years ago if you want to.
Well, the method I used allows 2 possibilities for you, you can either take the burden of proof & provide a theory that can explain it, and make a probabilistic argument. Or you can maintain agnosticism, but that agnosticism doesn't disprove my perfectly valid claim.
Every point you make has a symmetrical opposition, and thus, no proof I provide to you will make any difference in your belief.
What point's?
You've seen all the prior arguments and counterarguments on the topic. And it seems you're simply rehashing arguments of others, that have already been addressed immensely.
Oddly enough alot of people I present this argument to dont try to provide a valid theory, so no I haven't seen a counterargument, feel free to provide one.
I was born into a Christian family. My father was a pastor. I never could buy into fear based belief. I may have went along with it at a young age, but no longer do I play that facade.
Why's this relevant?
All worship the same God yet can not agree what is the true word of God, because there is no proof to legitimize any of the texts more than the others.
Jesus resurrecting would disprove the quran & jewish belief since it contradicts.
Your arguments are not compelling, and give no credence to believing a man on a cross has risen from the dead. You can assert that it is the most likely option, and I can assert it is much more likely that people lie, quite frequently.
Let's explain why people lying doesnt answer it, it cant account for why skeptics converted, such as paul. It cant explain why they picked women to be the 1st witnesses. It cant explain why they fabricated a text that would be viewed soo negatively in their culture. It cant explain why they were willing to suffer for their beliefs (Ancient letters from pliny the younger dictate that christians wouldnt be punished if they recanted & proved their innocence by worshiping the (roman) gods. Just soo many issues with it.
If you trust the Bible, then you should trust the Quran, considering the prophet Muhammed was in Holy Communion with the Abrahamic God.
Im unconvinced muhammad was in communion with allah.
What makes your religion right? And you'll likely say this is derailment of the topic, and I'll argue that the religion as a whole and it's context within society is largely a factor in the validity of the claims made by its holy text.
It is slightly a derailment, and I think the case im making for the resurrection could prove the validity of my religion.
The God I believe in doesn't have a holy book. The God I believe in is visible to all to see, and welcomes all, regardless of their race, background, or if they go to church.
What/who is your god & why should I believe his existence? Also how about we have another debate over your god, you have... interesting views.
And if you trust the validity of the Bible, then there are many scriptures that are actively ignored and not followed by the majority of Christianity. What makes one scripture worthy of listening to, and another unworthy, if it's all the word of God?
What scriptures? There are some gospels that arent in the bible (for example the gospels of thomas) this is because they have mythic developments & we dont even know who wrote it.
And the Abrahamic God is an amalgamation of various Israeli tribal Gods.
Im unconvinced this is true either.
The entire religion is under criticism, because it makes falsifiable claims. There are direct contradictions within the Bible, through either errors in copying, or through different stories from different writers. Even if someone told a truth in the Bible, there's no way to prove which parts are true, and which parts are false. It claims to purport a one true God, while it's origins are polytheistic in Nature.
Sure, let's say the book is false, this doesnt disprove the resurrection.
God is everything, everywhere, all at once, and simultaneously nothing, nowhere, never at all. God is the substance and the inhabitants. God is impossible to miss, because God is all that is. I see the current religions of the world as twisted, skewed, versions of God, molded by humans to serve their purposes. If you'd like to discuss the topic of God in more depth, that's better suited for another time.
agreed, im open to a debate over your god.
To summarize; your arguments are unsound and do not track logically. The source text is flawed and inconsistent. Those who read the text can not agree on the meaning of the text as a whole. And people who worship the same God do not even prescribe to the opinion that Jesus was resurrected, nor that he was God incarnate.
I dont think my arguments dont track logically, and I dont draw on the bible as my pure source text, I dont even assume it's right in any regards.
My personal opinion: organized religion is flawed. Worship of God does not necessitate a specific book or prayer. There is no infallible proof that Jesus was resurrected, and literally any other explanation is higher in likelihood. And IF somehow, Jesus WAS resurrected, that's cool, but Christianity is still flawed as a religion. I'm a follower of Christ, of Buddha, of Ghandi, of Kongzi, of Lao Tsu, of MLK. I can agree with people without idolizing them. I can respect them and their tenets. I can apply the lessons of the past for a better future, without placing one above all, without claiming they were right about everything.
Sure, alot of other explanations are more likely on the surface, untill you look at how they cant explain the criteria.
Honestly mate, in good nature, do some more research.
Preferably from sources that aren't biased.
A challenge for you. Find a non-biblical historically accurate source that claims and provides evidence for the resurrection of Christ, from the time that he actually died, not 50-200 years after, when the mythos had evolved in the region.
There is no logical reason to believe it is anything other than myth. If it happened, that's cool, but there is no logical reasoning to believe it did. People have lied for less, and when people tell you the choice is to believe in them or die and suffer eternity in hellfire, some may be inclined to believe. This conversation would be well had live instead of through text over days.
Good luck to you.
I would like to discuss religion and God with you further.
25 years is not unreliable, especially not in the 1st century. As I said he was an senator so he would have access to documents from Jesus’s time. Tacitus was not one to report gossip, and was no friend to Christian’s, he called them a disease later in the passage I believe. Even if that’s the issue I provided another document the abgars-Tiberius correspondence which mentions the crucifixion, and is dated to the mid 30’s in the 1st century. Although it should be noted Suetonius also wrote about the prosecution (same as Tacitus) which provides multiple attestation to Atticus and the claim about Jesus being executed
Yes I am pro, I wasn’t trying to prove the resurrection with Tacitus, I meant crucifixion in the original post, my apologies
I pointed out 2 sources saying he was executed, that is paydirt for 1st century history, why are you holding the crucifixion to an higher level of proof than anything in history?.
I’ll link more sources since you dispute it
Mara bar Sarapion
Mara bar sarapion when he was a pow (atleast if I remember correctly) sent a letter to his son, the letter read
“ What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the "new law" he laid down”
The wise king is referring to Jesus because it corresponds with tiberius-abgaras on him being executed by Jews, and talks about the “new law” he laid down which would correspond with the alleged account the gospels give.
In conclusion we have 3 sources talking about the resurrection, an 1st century event, if we don’t know the crucifixion happened then we don’t know if anything in 1st century history happened
SethBrown wrote: He was born around 25 years after the crucifixion, that's why some scholars question it,
Stephen wrote: Yes I told you that. And that's called unreliable. As are you other "evidences" . Nnd not only that , you have to ask how old he was when he decided to write his commentaries. And, as already stated goes nowhere in proving that Jesus actually died on the cross. You obviously are not accepting that you don't have any proof and I have no intention of going around in circles with you.
SethBrown wrote: And he doesn't mention the resurrection,
Stephen wrote: Yes. I told you that too. which is exactly what your debate is questioning and you are pro aren't you?
So you have no evidence that Jesus actually died on the cross and no evidence that his rotten stinking three days old corpse rose from the dead ? Not a single living person witnessed Jesus' dead cold corpse rise from its cold stone slab.
He was born around 25 years after the crucifixion, that's why some scholars question it, yet most consider it genuine because we must consider he most likely had access to records & information based off of his connection to Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, 25 years for 1st century history is not a bad amount to be distanced from something.
And he doesnt mention the resurrection, but it does appear as if he alludes to at least some sort of execution by saying he suffered the extreme punishment.
Now if he says jesus was executed, wouldnt it follow he died? Are you appealing to the swooning theory?
Oh I dont consider Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum accurate, I believe its very likely it was tampered with by an Christian scribe, I was contrasting the tone of it to Tacitus's, although im unsure which of Josephus's works your referring to, perhaps I haven't read it though, id be interested if you'd link me to it.
I represented 2 documents, 1 heavily alluding to an execution, the other directly stating it. I dug through some of the documents I have, I can provide some more if you wish.
I am going to write an response, but 1st off I have an question, are you appealing to the swooning theory?
Stephen wrote: First, you need to prove that Jesus died in the first place. Can you do that? If so lets see your proof?
SethBrown wrote: Certainly, tacitus provides the most unbiased source to the resurrection.
Apart from the fact that Tacitus was born some 25 years after the crucifixion, to my knowledge doesn't even mention the resurrection. And if he did, this goes nowhere in proving Jesus had died on the cross, which was my question to you. And regardless of the authenticity of Testimonium Flavianum, this still goes nowhere in proving that Jesus actually died on the cross, either. So no points for you, I'm afraid.
However, you have mentioned Jewish Historian Josephus. In his works he relates to us that he came upon three friends that had been crucified and asked Titus if he could take them down: two died and one survived.
Certainly, tacitus provides the most unbiased source to the resurrection, he is most likely knowledgeable on the Christians for 2 reasons, 1 he was a Roman senator so most likely had access to Roman documents (keep in mind most Roman documents did not survive to now) and 2 he was apart of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis which was an group that kept a watch on religious cults (keep in mind Christianity was considered a cult) given these 2 we can consider him accurate, in his annals book 15, chapter 44 he wrote:
“… called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”
The text shows no sympathy for the Christian’s opposed to say Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum (another text referencing Jesus that imo was most likely tampered by an Christian scribe) most likely meaning this isn’t an biased text.
It’s also worth pointing out the agbar-Tiberius correspondence (the earliest mention to Jesus to my knowledge, although I’ve only looked at around 30) mentions the execution of Jesus
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/hug-2014-160112/pdf
There are probably few more references to it but I don’t have all of the documents on my phone, so I’ll check my computer when I get home.
First, you need to prove that Jesus died in the first place. Can you do that? If so lets see your proof.