Did the resurrection happen?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Minimal rating
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.
"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." 
"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." 
"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" 
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." 
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.
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.
You can BELIEVE a man was resurrected 2000 years ago if you want to.
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.
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.
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.