Peanut Gallery for Formal Debate: Did God Raise Jesus

[George Hathaway]

Start Date: 22 Jun 2009

Affirmative:Jerry McDonald
Negative: radical_logic

This thread has been set up for a formal debate on following resolution:

Resolved: It is a historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The debate will have 5+ rounds. Jerry McDonald will go first and have a concluding brief statement. These are the parameters of the debate.

This Peanut Gallery has been set up for the rest of us to comment on the debate. (Participants are asked to refrain from posting here until the debate is concluded.)

[Anaximanchild]

Originally Posted by Jerry McDonald

First I want to look at the World Book Encyclopedia online to show that it includes information about the resurrection of Christ:

“The Resurrection. Christians believe Jesus returned to life, which they call his Resurrection, and celebrate it on Easter Sunday. ...

Originally Posted by Jerry McDonald

Then the Encyclopedia Britannica also gives us information concerning the resurrection:

The Resurrection of Christ, a central doctrine of Christianity, is based on the belief that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead on the third day after his Crucifixion and that through his conquering of death all believers will subsequently share in his victory over “sin, death, and the devil.”

...

Now this is handled in these encyclopedias as though it was a real historic event.

(emphasis added)

I think Jerry McDonald needs to reread his sources. His rock-solid encyclopedias both treat as historical fact that christians believe in the resurrection, not that it actually occurred.

Of course, if, as Jerry supposes (and most of radical_logic's recently started threads suggest), radical_logic plans on arguing "yes Jesus resurrected, but it was not because of god, it was because he is superhuman", then I don't think he's going to see a lot of competition.

Double-fail on this one.

[Doug Shaver]

Originally Posted by Jerry McDonald

Anyone who stands against the resurrection of Christ stands against the army of Christ for Jesus said "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (Mat 12:30). So as we stand before you at this time I stand as a soldier for Jesus Christ, and my opponent stands as a soldier against Jesus Christ.

Anyone who starts an argument for the resurrection that way has nothing useful to say to me.

[George Hathaway]

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Anyone who starts an argument for the resurrection that way has nothing useful to say to me.

It is the typical Theist position. I have this Book that has the Truth. See? Here: it says it is the Truth! Case closed!

The presuppositions inherent in this statement are many. The first among them is the truth of the Bible. The whole debate is to verify certain facts claimed by the Bible. We ignore many and concentrate on one. The claimed fact that there was not only a historical man named Jeshua of Nazareth (or Yeshua the Nazarene) but also that that same Yeshua was magically/miraculously raised from the dead!

If McDonald were to win the debate, Christianity is proven to be correct.

Somehow, given the number of brilliant Christians over history, I doubt that if such a proof existed it wouldn't have been discovered earlier.

This quotation justifies religious war, like the Crusades.

It is easy to dismiss the entire affirmative out of hand for lack of proven foundation. Bible quotes only indicate what the Bible says, not what is true. (Talking snakes and asses, living inside a fish/whale for days (when even hours is impossible), zombies walking Jerusalem.)

[Free Indeed]

Big introduction on the first affirmative which must be why he wanted five exchanges. I agree with everything Jerry said so far but I wasn't expecting that direction of argument, concerning the recent secular documentation. I was expecting the traditional "the toom was empty" style arguments, but maybe he will get to that.

[Anaximanchild]

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

Big introduction on the first affirmative which must be why he wanted five exchanges. I agree with everything Jerry said so far but I wasn't expecting that direction of argument, concerning the recent secular documentation. I was expecting the traditional "the toom was empty" style arguments, but maybe he will get to that.

Since Jerry's "opponent" will most likely NOT argue that the resurrection never happened, but rather that it did happen but was not divine in nature, it's a rather moot argument.

[Free Indeed]

Radical says that Jesus had supernatural powers that the rest of humanity did not have. However he is mistaken on that, the Bible reports that Moses also showed supernatural powers by parting the red sea, his staff turning into a snake etc… Pharaoh’s wise men performed the same magic as Moses. Jesus disciples also raised people form the dead and healed diseases.

I believe the burden of proof is on him that a man can naturally rise from the dead. He compares goats to dogs as having differences but we are comparing humans to humans. No one has risen from the dead before Jesus or since. Jesus was beating unmercilessly and a spear was poked into his heart, and then wrapped up and a big stone was rolled over the tomb, one that took multiple men to move.

[arnoldo]

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

Radical says that Jesus had supernatural powers that the rest of humanity did not have. . .

It's the argument some of Marcion's followers allegedly made that Jesus raised himself from the dead.

According to HARNACK, 68*, Marcion is responsible for the modification, and his version is »typical for Marcion’s doctrines about God and Christ «; i.o.w.,according to HARNACK, Marcion’s modalism caused the modification.Marcion wanted to say explicitly, that Christ had not been raised by God, but had raised himself (corresponding to Joh 2,19; 10,18). BLACKMAN, too, sees »a significant Marcionite omission«, 81, as in his opinion the verse in this form is»indicative of Marcion’s modalistic christology« 44. The erasure »gives expression to his theory that Christ raised himself from dead, and did by no means for anything depend on the Creator«, 44.Nevertheless the Marcionite version seems to be the original one, for the following reasons. . .Moreover, with kai. qeou/ patro.j Marcion would not inevitably have thought of the Creator-God, as BLACKMAN has it, he easily could have interpreted the passage – if then it had been there – as a reference to the Father of Jesus Christ, meaning the Marcionite Good God.

http://www.hermann-detering.de/DetGalExpl.pdf

[jonJ]

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

... No one has risen from the dead before Jesus or since.

Only

Julunggul
Wawalag
Tammuz
Ishtar
Phoenix
Quetzalcoatl
Xipe Totec
Baal
Cernunnos
Zalmoxis
Osiris
Amun
Atunis
Adonis
Cronus
Cybele
Dionysus
Orpheus
Persephone
Trimurti
Izanagi
Heitsi
Kaknu
Baldr
Gullveig
Attis
Mithras
Aeneas
Bacchus
Proserpina
Veles
Jarilo
Dumuzi

and

Inanna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

[arnoldo]

Originally Posted by jonJ

Only . . .Quetzalcoatl. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

You can scratch Quetzalcoatl off that list

It has been widely believed that the Aztec Emperor Moctezuma II initially believed the landing of Hernán Cortés in 1519 to be Quetzalcoatl's return. This has been questioned by some ethnohistorians, like Matthew Restall, who argues that the Quetzalcoatl-Cortés connection is not found in any document that was created independently of post-Conquest Spanish influence, and that there is little proof of a pre-Hispanic belief in Quetzalcoatl's return. Most documents expounding this theory are of entirely Spanish origin, such as Cortés's letters to Charles V of Spain, in which Cortés goes to great pains to present the naïve gullibility of the Aztecs in general as a great aid in his conquest of Mexico.

Much of the idea of Cortés being seen as a deity can be traced back to the Florentine Codex written down some 50 years after the conquest. In the codex's description of the first meeting between Moctezuma and Cortés, the Aztec ruler is described as giving a prepared speech in classical oratorial Nahuatl, a speech which, as described verbatim in the codex (written by Sahagún's, Tlatelolcan informants), included such prostrate declarations of divine or near-divine admiration as,

"You have graciously come on earth, you have graciously approached your water, your high place of Mexico, you have come down to your mat, your throne, which I have briefly kept for you, I who used to keep it for you,"

and,

"You have graciously arrived, you have known pain, you have known weariness, now come on earth, take your rest, enter into your palace, rest your limbs; may our lords come on earth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl

[Deus Ex]

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

... No one has risen from the dead before Jesus or since.

Does not the bible list several people resurrected before Jesus? Lazarus for one. Did not Paul resurrect a boy who fell asleep and out of a window during one of Paul's sermons?

That is two examples from before and after Jesus.

[arnoldo]

For those interested, radical_logic attempts to establish that the resurrection cannot be established in the following location;

Can the Resurrection be established?

[Anaximanchild]

Originally Posted by arnoldo

For those interested, radical_logic attempts to establish that the resurrection cannot be established in the following location;

Can the Resurrection be established?

I got as far as "radical_logic ... banned", and then lost interest.

[arnoldo]

Originally Posted by Anaximanchild

I got as far as "radical_logic ... banned", and then lost interest.

Maybe this will interest you. . .

Spencer Lo is looking to get some feedback on the following two arguments, and was wondering if I would post them so people can comment.

[Civil1z@tion]

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

No one has risen from the dead before Jesus or since.

Forgetting Lazarus? But of course his resurrection is on just as shaky ground as Jesus'.

However, its worth noting that many people have come back from being "clincally dead" (my grandmother was one such person) due to modern technology. Coming back from being "brain dead" is a bit more difficult.

[premjan]

Didn't Egyptians believe all the dead would rise?

[Free Indeed]

Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion

Forgetting Lazarus? But of course his resurrection is on just as shaky ground as Jesus'.

However, its worth noting that many people have come back from being "clincally dead" (my grandmother was one such person) due to modern technology. Coming back from being "brain dead" is a bit more difficult.

Well, by themselves. The position is Jesus rose himself.

[jonJ]

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

Well, by themselves. The position is Jesus rose himself.

Can you assert with certainty that none of the deities in the list above was sincerely believed to have 'rose himself' - or herself (whatever that means to you)?

[PLOINY]

In crime the evidence must be beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil case - on a balance of probabilities. In both the source of the evidence must be clear and not hearsay. This debate lacks the fundamentals of evidential proof - the source is the New Testament which is proven to be a mishmash and amalgam of parts of any number of "gospels" edited and re-edited thousands of times. You are both quoting a collection of utterly disvredited fables. There is not a shred of evidence for one story in the New testament. The message may be wonderful - the historical background correct - but the actual "facts" were concocted hundreds of years later.
The only acceptable concurrent evidence comes from the Jews' Babylonian Talmud which has passages referring to several messianic figures all called "Y'sho" (an acronym meaning "may hs memory be wiped out"). The most likely candidate is the "Y'sho" born 45BCE who was a student rejected by his teacher for abandoning Judaism and learning and using Egyptian sorcery when his group of students fled to Egypt briefly. He was tried for heresy, found guilty, the case re-examined and then he was "stoned" - this invoolved being drugged, pushed from a high building and then having a huge slab dropped on the dead or unconscious body. The criminal needed to be hung before the people but also his body neeeded to be "respected" and buried that day. The solution was to execute close to twilight, hang the body for a few moments on a verticle single wooden post or one leaning against a wall and then to bury the body before full nightfall in a separate cemetary. When the remains had become only bones these were exhumed and reburied in a normal cemetary - the punishment having been completed. There is not a shred of external evidence of the entire life of Y'sho - mistranslated to Yeshu and Jesus.
<edited>

[jonJ]

<duplicate>

[jonJ]

McDonald has clearly lost the plot in the last affirmative, with a failure (or refusal) to understand Lo's very simple point: any natural explanation is always preferable to a supernatural 'explanation', because a supernatural 'explanation' is no explanation at all.

"How was it done?"
"Goddidit!"
"OK, but how was it done?"

Obviously, if it is claimed that God (or Jesus) 'did' something tangible which caused Jesus's resurrection, that tangible something could also have been done by some natural cause. Since we have reasons to believe in natural causes and no reasons to believe in supernatural causes, clearly a natural explanation is always more parsimonious.

And if there wasn't any tangible change then a) Jesus wasn't dead and b) Nobody caused his resurrection.

But I don't think he's going to get McDonald to concede it...

[Free Indeed]

Finally Jerry came out swinging, I was beginning to fall asleep during this debate.

This is a strong argument "he fanaticizes this so-called natural resurrection. There is no such thing as a natural resurrection, and there never will be. Nature says that dead is dead and there is no way to raise the dead by any natural means. The only way to do that would be to set aside the laws of nature (supercede the laws of nature) and supernaturally raise the dead"

and "What evidence do we have of extraterrestrials? We have none! What evidence do we have of God? We have plenty!"

[arnoldo]

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

Finally Jerry came out swinging, I was beginning to fall asleep during this debate.

This is a strong argument "he fanaticizes this so-called natural resurrection. There is no such thing as a natural resurrection, and there never will be. Nature says that dead is dead and there is no way to raise the dead by any natural means. The only way to do that would be to set aside the laws of nature (supercede the laws of nature) and supernaturally raise the dead" . .

Agreed, the idea that people can spontaneously arise from the dead after a few days without an external force intervening is absurd.

Consider the following;

What has always occurred regularly in the past will continue to occur regularly in the future

People who have been dead more than a few days have remained dead.

Therefore, people who are dead more than a few days will remain dead in the future.

and contrast this with Romans 8:11.

[arnoldo]

Originally Posted by jonJ

McDonald has clearly lost the plot in the last affirmative, with a failure (or refusal) to understand Lo's very simple point: any natural explanation is always preferable to a supernatural 'explanation', because a supernatural 'explanation' is no explanation at all. . .

Lo's very simple point sounds simply like circular reasoning. .

[show_no_mercy]

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The first premise is false so the whole argument fails.

2,000 years ago it was a regular occurance that people couldn't travel more than 500 miles in a day.

Therefore, people will never be able to travel more than 500 miles in a day.