Debate with a Christian

[discipulus]

How about this for a debate topic:

"Has God raised Jesus from the dead?"

Well that sure inserts some highly suspect stuff right in the question. What God? Jesus the historical person, or, Jesus of whom so many hysterical claims are made?

In my defense of the affirmation of the proposition, I expound upon all matters pertinent to the topic. That is my burden and I will joyfully bear it. I am prepared to do so. Deidre seems to have other issues with the Bible itself which simply would not be pertinent to the topic.

If I can demonstrate that the gospels are reliable and that there are four established facts regarding Jesus of Nazareth all of which are best explained by the resurrection hypothesis, then we have good evidence that Jesus in fact, was God incarnate.

---

Sorry, no. The Gospels are not biographies in any meaningful sense of the word. Since they are based on oral tradition,

This is a common misconception. They were not based on oral traditions at all.

If you would like to debate with me regarding this I would love to. As of right now you are third in line.

they are more akin to folk tales or hagiographies. They have no supportive independent sources, they aren't a terribly informative source about life in 1st century Judea, and were written long after the events they purport to depict.

Boru

They are actually what historians refer to as "ancient biographies".

Once again, all of this makes for lovely debate. Would you like to debate when I am free?

[fr0d0]

Anyone else could volunteer to take up that topic for debate. It seems a few are willing to do their toe in the water already.

[*Deidre*]

(whispers) pssst....remember that word 'credible?' lol
The Gospels are not credible, if we're talking about basically four dudes, whom no one has ever met, talking about their life with Jesus, whom no one has ever met. (and there's no evidence showing that they ever existed) Unlike say dinosaurs. Or Neanderthals. No one has met either, but...there's credible evidence to support their existence. There is none when it comes to the Bible. Which is why faith is believing in something unseen. I'm willing to listen, but only to credible accounts.

CREDIBLE.

Tell us why you believe the Gospels to be credible, might be worth debating.

The Gospels and the Islamic hadiths are identical in one major aspect. They were all written by people far removed in time from the events that their protagonists supposedly did. The Gospels were written decades later and the hadiths were written over a hundred and more years after Mohammed supposedly fluttered across the Arabian desert. Yet they both contain detailed conversations that no one would know about even if such characters had actually lived.

So, it's hearsay, then.

Hearsay is not and has never been proof of anything, not just religious convinctions.

If I say I saw your boss robbing a bank last night, but there's no evidence to prove it, I have no credible evidence to offer...would you just take my word for it?

If I pass that story to you, then you tell it to someone else, and this goes on for say...2000+ years...will longevity make the story, credible?

I understand your point, but it's nothing but hearsay.

The theory of evolution isn't believed by most, due to hearsay. While still a theory, there is substantial amounts of credible evidence to support it.

The Bible at the least, is hearsay. At the worst, lies. I believe it's a combination thereof, based on how it's been 'used' over the centuries...as a tool to justify wars, hatred, homophobia, racism and bigotry.

[discipulus]

Tell us why you believe the Gospels to be credible, might be worth debating.

"Are the four Gospels credible/reliable accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?"

I affirm they are and you deny.

Agreed?

[*Deidre*]

The Bible is one entire book.

No ma'am. It is not. It is a compilation of historical narratives, poems, didactic teachings, prose, apocalyptic literature, epistles, ancient biographies, wisdom literature, short correspondences, antiquarian history etc. etc.

There are sixty six individual "books" that comprise the collection. "Books" here is the term referred to the individual constituents irrespective of their particular genre.

Why are we 'starting' with the Gospels?

The biographies of Jesus's life are where we start to ascertain the facts about Jesus. Why would we start at Genesis or anywhere else?

The entire OT, if you believe it, is a foreshadowing of the NT.

Who told you that?

Yet, many Christians cherry pick this or that, as to what they believe out of the OT,

So what if they do? What has that got to do with me defending the assertion that God raised Jesus from the dead?

I guess because God was a bad guy in that section of the book. But, when we get to the 'Gospels,' he becomes a man, and is now a kind compassionate benefactor of mankind.

This is immaterial to the debate topic Deidre.

Is God both a sadist, and also Jesus, a kind Savior to all? If so, how do you reconcile the two sections of the Bible, OT and NT?

Do you believe the Bible in its entirety, and if so...what is your proof that the Bible is a credible source of God's existence?

It all comes back to MY topic.

In other words, why do you wish to start with the Gospels?

**I'm wondering if an actual debate will ever ensue.

I am glad I asked you what I did before agreeing to a debate. Your real issue is with what you perceive to be inconsistencies with God's character when comparing the OT to the NT.

I believe the Bible in its entirety which means that I believe all sixty six books were inspired by God and give us a progressive revelation of the will and plan of God for mankind.

I am arguing that Jesus was a man who claimed to be God in the flesh. We have four biographies which we go to for insight into this claim. We have accounts of Him being raised from the dead. This is the crucial matter upon which Christianity rests.

It does not make much since to go to Ecclesiastes or Genesis or 1 Kings if we are trying to ascertain the facts regarding Jesus of Nazareth.

Hearsay accounts, no evidence. Not even historical evidence of Jesus' existence. The only thing that might have occured is that a man named Jesus, was crucified, as that was the typical execution style back during that time period. But, we don't know WHY. That is all hearsay. Jesus' birth, life and death...all hearsay. You can CHOOSE to believe this, but, that doesn't make it credible.

You believe something...incredible. Incredible, lacking proof that it happened. That is ok, but you should admit that, because we will just go round and round, you trying to prove God's existence and Jesus' life and death, and the two being One...using the Bible. And I will insist that the Bible isn't credible proof because of ....

Surely, you have to see the problem (by now) with trying to apply logic to your faith beliefs.

[Whateverist]

Well that sure inserts some highly suspect stuff right in the question. What God? Jesus the historical person, or, Jesus of whom so many hysterical claims are made?

If I can demonstrate that the gospels are reliable and that there are four established facts regarding Jesus of Nazareth all of which are best explained by the resurrection hypothesis, ...

Reliable in what sense? As documents originating from around the correct time frame? Coming up with four alleged (and I doubt you'll ever get agreement for more than that) facts sounds like the kind of reading comprehension questions young students are asked: "find evidence in the text that the four 'facts' about the character Jesus are actually supported by the bible". First of all, how do you know this Jesus isn't simply one of many names given to a character in the story that has been told many times, many places? The particular circumstances of this cultural setting need not be relevant.

... then we have good evidence that Jesus in fact, was God incarnate.

Not in a million years. No way, no how. It is the leap to the bible which is most in question. You don't get to use it to 'prove' it.

[discipulus]

Hearsay accounts, no evidence. Not even historical evidence of Jesus' existence. The only thing that might have occured is that a man named Jesus, was crucified, as that was the typical execution style back during that time period. But, we don't know WHY. That is all hearsay. Jesus' birth, life and death...all hearsay. You can CHOOSE to believe this, but, that doesn't make it credible.

You believe something...incredible. Incredible, lacking proof that it happened. That is ok, but you should admit that, because we will just go round and round, you trying to prove God's existence and Jesus' life and death, and the two being One...using the Bible. And I will insist that the Bible isn't credible proof because of ....

Surely, you have to see the problem (by now) with trying to apply logic to your faith beliefs.

My faith is grounded in the historical Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ. I have evidence to support the truth claims I make regarding His existence, death, burial, and resurrection.

[*Deidre*]

Tell us why you believe the Gospels to be credible, might be worth debating.

"Are the four Gospels credible/reliable accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?"

I affirm they are and you deny.

Agreed?

Agree. I deny. You can choose to believe them as Gospel truths, no pun...but, those would be your beliefs. Opinion. Not based on factual evidence.

Remember your audience? They are mostly made up of atheists, here. lol You need to prove your beliefs. You seem to be witnessing for your faith, more than trying to have a debate. :p

[pocaracas]

"Has God raised Jesus from the dead?"

Please tell me you understand that, to us, this is equivalent to debating "was Darth Vader really Luke's father?"
Could it have happened? Sure, a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...
Did it really? Doubtful, since the account we have is fictional.

[discipulus]

"Are the four Gospels credible/reliable accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?"

I affirm they are and you deny.

Agreed?

Agree. I deny. You can choose to believe them as Gospel truths, no pun...but, those would be your beliefs. Opinion. Not based on factual evidence.

Remember your audience? They are mostly made up of atheists, here. lol You need to prove your beliefs. You seem to be witnessing for your faith, more than trying to have a debate. :p

You keep talking about "proving" something and I think that is where you are confused. Are you speaking of empirical proof?

Are you an empiricist?