Jo

Debate Starts: As soon as the first posts are made

Deschain vs. Kohai

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead

The Statement: To debate that there is sufficient evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

The debate will have 4 rounds.

Round 1. Posts will be made concurrently.
Round 2 to 4. Posts will be lead by Deschain

The parameters of the debate can be found here.

The debate itself can be found here.

Jo

[STAFFWARN]The Debate has begun.[/STAFFWARN]

GakuseiDon

I'll be Sempai to Kohai's Kohai

Kohai:

One must wonder why the gospels contradict itself in the most important event in all of Christianity. We must also pause to wonder why the final 12 verses of Mark were forged. The reason: Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Since there is no logical connection provided between contradictions in the Gospels, the end of Mark being forged and Jesus rising from the dead, this is a very weak conclusion, almost to the point of irrelevance.

For example, if there were no contradictions in the Gospels, and the end of Mark wasn't forged, does this raise the possibility of Jesus' resurrection? I don't think so.

Jo

My apologies to Kohai. I approved the post before Deschain had submitted. I have shifted the post back into wait mode until Deschain has made their post to which I will approve them both together.

DoubtingDave

Ah I was wondering what happened. Thanks for the notice. *leaving peanut gallery till after debate*

Toto

So you are saying that you can disprove the proposition {A implies B} by showing that {~A does not imply ~B}?

I've forgotten most of my formal logic, but this just sounds wrong.

edit to add:

If A then B can be true even if
If ~A then ~B is false

Deschain

One more hour, and I'll have mine submitted. Just finishing up.

DoubtingDave

My logic is as followed:

1. A & B are talking about the same events.
2. A & B contradict each other.
3. Therefore A & B both cannot be true.
4. A & B both claim to be divinely inspired.
5. Therefore, they both are, more than likely, false.

It is a type of "Argument From Confusion" and "Biblical defects". It is impossible to prove that the resurrection never happened so that was my best shot.

Jo

[STAFFWARN]Just a friendly reminder to the participants to not participate in the Peanut Gallery. I do know it is very tempting to do so but please wait until the conclusion of the debate.

Thank you.[/STAFFWARN]

spin

I find Deschain's wall of text somewhat uninviting, but I'll hazard a few observations.

1. Not a bright start when he describes the text scholar Bart Ehrman as a historian. Deschain generally has theoretical problems when dealing with the notion of history, not using it consistently, referring to "historians of Rome" and "a secular historian" as though "historian" referred to the same type of thing in both instances. A similar problem can also be seen when the classical writers refer to Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon--in Deschain's words--"as a well attested historical fact." As a well attested fact maybe, but "historical" is inappropriate and reflective of modern anachronism.

2. He attempts to treat the discrepancies between gospels as only to be expected if dealing with the memories of eye witnesses. We are clearly not dealing with eye witnesses when we read the gospels: they are literary works that display redactors with literary aims, two of which are heavily based on a third text. When the notion of eye witnesses is seen to remain purely conjectural, or even diminished by the literary nature of the texts, one is forced to deal with the discrepancies on a literary level. Why are there two in the tomb in one or two tellings? Why are there two blind men in one telling? Why is Jesus put on two animals in one telling? This certainly has nothing to do with reality.

3. Once again we find the notion of "best explanation" being offered in place of evidence and argument. There is no effort behind this to tackle the real issues implied by purely literary works when trying to get historical evidence out of them. In the context of the synoptic problem, the discrepancies appear not to relate to anything outside the literary realm. Deschain needs to make substantive arguments that show how one can derive specifically historical evidence from the gospels to sustain his claims rather than to shift the burden which is what the claim of "best explanation" functionally does. It is not a matter of labeling the gospel data that way. There are too many unknowns in ancient history to rely on its silences to supply a meaningful best explanation. Substantive argument with real evidence is needed to support the proposition in this debate that there is sufficient evidence for Jesus's resurrection.