Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jo · 02-01-2008, 04:40 AM

Debate set to start: 4 February 2008

This thread has been set up to provide a Peanut Gallery for a FORMAL DEBATE between punkforchrist and Sean McHugh who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: The Historicity of the Resurrection is Sufficiently Evidenced."

punkforchrist will affirm and Sean McHugh will oppose. The debate will proceed with special conditions (see the OP of the debate thread for details).

We ask that the formal debate participants refrain from posting in the Peanut Gallery until after the debate is over.

Enjoy the debate!

Alcyonian (FDD Moderator)

Jo · 02-04-2008, 09:58 AM

Thanks for everyone's patience. This thread is now open.

Alcyonian (FDD Moderator)

Agenda07 · 02-08-2008, 10:02 AM

This should be an interesting debate, best of luck to PfC and Sean.

Solitary Man · 02-08-2008, 12:42 PM

I'd be interested in seeing how bad Sean will mess up a slam dunk case. If he clobbers punkforchrist, then really it'd be too gruesome and thus boring to watch. :devil1:

A Stable Flux · 02-09-2008, 12:11 AM

This should be good. What arguments could there be for "The Historicity of the Resurrection is Sufficiently Evidenced"? All i can think of is taking the word of the gospels literally. Which in my mind doesn't pass for sufficient evidence.

~M~ · 02-10-2008, 09:13 PM

I'd like to see some arguments for God as a background for assessing the historical evidence.

A Stable Flux · 02-11-2008, 07:41 AM

Punkforchrist's introduction is rather slender. Out of the 4000 word allowance using less than half makes his argument pretty difficult. Also his few points categorised in three aren't convincing.
First mistake, albeit trivial, is that only a man in a white robe appears in Mark 16:6-7, the angels are in John.
Second, one of genuine importance is his rendering of Pauline epistles having historical relevance and intention. The alleged confirmation of the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15:4 only states that "that he was buried, that he was raised". No mention of an empty tomb. Only allegory that he was once dead and is now alive again. Because Paul isn't concerned of history but only of spreading the faith that Jesus, "the lord", was dead and is now alive.
Third, further misreading Corinthians he believes that Jesus made a bodily appearance to those quoted.

Quote:

To begin, Paul’s list of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15 practically guarantees that such appearances actually took place. For one, the creed Paul cites in this passage dates to within five years of Jesus’ death by crucifixion. This is a fact that is almost universally accepted by New Testament scholars.

Paul certainly wouldn't be thinking of a physical appearance as he states himself in the list Corinthians 15:8. Although Jesus only appeared to Paul spiritually Acts 21:6-9.
Fourth, The numerous arguments from authority

Quote:

Hence, William Wand, a former Church historian at Oxford University writes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”[3]

Quote:

This is a fact that is almost universally accepted by New Testament scholars.[4]

And the most blameworthy fallacy

Quote:

As such, they have been almost universally rejected by contemporary New Testament historians. C.F.D. Moule of Cambridge University sums it up nicely,

The citation which proves the supposed universality of this consensus, a forty year old text.

Quote:

[7] Moule, C.F.D., The Phenomenon of the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology 2/1 (London: SCM, 1967), pp. 3 and 13.

My introductory analysis of the first introduction

Punkforchrist's introduction leaves one wanting substance. He should of used more than half of his word limit.

stuart shepherd · 02-11-2008, 11:52 AM

As a Freethinker, I want to comment on PunkForChrist's opening statement.

PFC wrote........

Quote:

My contention is that Jesus was in fact resurrected from the dead and that God is the best explanation for this historical event.

Dear PFC,
Are you going to prove to us that God exists, or do you expect us to stipulate that God even exists?

PFC wrote...........

Quote:

First of all, we are not concerned with issues related to Biblical Inerrancy. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Gospels contain some contradictions does not in any way undermine the historical core of evidence in favor of Jesus’ bodily resurrection. After all, no one believes that John Alden’s biography of George Washington must be infallible in every detail in order to accept the basic tenets of Alden’s testimony. Likewise, what the New Testament teaches about the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus do not have to be infallible in order for us to salvage a number of important facts.

Dear PFC,
I think that this argument that you made in the paragraph above is a false argument.
Christianity portrays the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Especially the gospels. Hence the expression "The Gospel Truth".
Human writers make mistakes. But Human writers writing under the inspiration of God should not make mistakes. The Christian God is supposed to be perfect. Shouldn't we expect that a perfect God would have produced a perfect Bible and insured that it remained perfect?
Any contradictions or mistakes just demonstrate that the Bible is the work of fallible men who make mistakes and tell tall tales.

PFC wrote...........

Quote:

Secondly, while the debate may delve into question of the possibility of miracles, other philosophical speculations are moot.

Dear PFC,
Are you now asking us to stipulate that supernatural events really occur in our world and that miracles, the suspension of the laws of science, really happen? In my 66 years of experience, I have never known of any miracles except in fairy tales, fables, scary movies, and Bible stories. I know of no documented legitimate miracles.

Stuart Shepherd

~M~ · 02-11-2008, 12:36 PM

All in all, I am sympathetic to the resurrection belief, but I cannot say that PfC has made his case. I would have liked to seen him argue for the existence of God, against Humean reasoning and so forth. Had he done this, then it would give him some good wiggle room for his case.

themadhair · 02-11-2008, 01:20 PM

Very reminiscent of this video from YT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP7DZWwoH9M

I liked this response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF3G4kuD4dY

At this point I think it is advantage Sean before Sean has even come to the debate table.

02-01-2008, 04:40 AM	#1
Jo System Overlord Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: New Zealand twitter.com/Alcyonian Posts: 23,659	PEANUT GALLERY: Resurrection is Sufficiently Evidenced: punkforchrist vs. Sean McHugh Debate set to start: 4 February 2008 This thread has been set up to provide a Peanut Gallery for a FORMAL DEBATE between punkforchrist and Sean McHugh who will debate the following resolution: *"Resolved: The Historicity of the Resurrection is Sufficiently Evidenced."* punkforchrist will affirm and Sean McHugh will oppose. The debate will proceed with special conditions (see the OP of the debate thread for details). We ask that the formal debate participants refrain from posting in the Peanut Gallery until after the debate is over. Enjoy the debate! Alcyonian (FDD Moderator)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2008, 09:58 AM	#2
Jo System Overlord Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: New Zealand twitter.com/Alcyonian Posts: 23,659	Thanks for everyone's patience. This thread is now open. Alcyonian (FDD Moderator)

02-08-2008, 10:02 AM	#3
Agenda07 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: England Posts: 135	This should be an interesting debate, best of luck to PfC and Sean.

02-08-2008, 12:42 PM	#4
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	I'd be interested in seeing how bad Sean will mess up a slam dunk case. If he clobbers punkforchrist, then really it'd be too gruesome and thus boring to watch. :devil1:

02-09-2008, 12:11 AM	#5
A Stable Flux Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 158	This should be good. What arguments could there be for "The Historicity of the Resurrection is Sufficiently Evidenced"? All i can think of is taking the word of the gospels literally. Which in my mind doesn't pass for sufficient evidence.

02-10-2008, 09:13 PM	#6
~M~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Toronto. Posts: 2,796	I'd like to see some arguments for God as a background for assessing the historical evidence.

02-11-2008, 12:36 PM	#9
~M~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Toronto. Posts: 2,796	All in all, I am sympathetic to the resurrection belief, but I cannot say that PfC has made his case. I would have liked to seen him argue for the existence of God, against Humean reasoning and so forth. Had he done this, then it would give him some good wiggle room for his case.

02-11-2008, 01:20 PM	#10
themadhair Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Monaghan Ireland Posts: 8	Very reminiscent of this video from YT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP7DZWwoH9M I liked this response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF3G4kuD4dY At this point I think it is advantage Sean before Sean has even come to the debate table.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.