Bible Defeder vs. Ahmed Deedat82 - historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

[themuzicman]

Gym Debate Notice:

This debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:

There is historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.

Bible Defender will be defending the affirmative and Ahmed Deedat82 will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as Bible Defender makes his first post.

10 rounds. (though it could end sooner)
Every other week deadline unless otherwise notified.

From this point on, the only posts allowed in this thread are to be made by the participants and Moderators. All others will be deleted.

Spectator commentary is welcomed here

If you are up and unable to meet your deadline please contact a moderator ASAP.
Please do not edit your post after this notice is posted.
If you are not a participant please feel free to participate in the commentary thread noted in the first post of this debate.

[Bible Defender]

I wish to say thank you to Mr. Ahmed for taking the time to debate and the moderators for keeping us on track and you ladies and gentlemen for taking the time to read it.

Why is this important? Well, to me it reminds me of the Jews in Egypt. There they were, slaves, under the mighty hand of the Egyptians and their “gods”. Until one day Moses comes with a message of deliverance. God had told him that he was going to free the His people, and judge the gods of Egypt. You see, to me, the Exodus isn’t just about the Jews leaving the land of Egypt. It was more. It was to show the world, “who is God?” Indeed, God Himself even said in Exodus, “that the world will know that I am the Lord.”

That the world may know….

So, who is God? Is Jesus? Buddha? Allah? How is one to tell the difference? Miracles? Every religion has miracle claims. But ladies and gentlemen there is something different.

You see, Jesus alone claimed deity. Moreover, he claimed that the resurrection is evidence and vindicates that claim.

SO the question is, did it happen? You see, we have here two documents that state contradictory things. So what is one to do when that happens? When you have two witnesses in court giving completely contradictory testimony, how is a juror to do? Well, what does the evidence say? You have to look at which way the evidence points.

I believe the evidence points to the fact that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. I say that because if you use the principles that historians use, it pretty much points directly in that direction.

What of the Bible? I believe that it is the inspired word of God. But, I do not need it to be in order to prove my case. I can treat the Bible as just an ancient book of literature. My case is not dependent upon Scriptures inspiration or even general trustworthiness. My case entirely bypasses that.

My case is entirely based upon historical facts.

So what is my case?

Simply put, there are 12 facts that are conceded by most, if not, virtually all critical scholars that have studied the subject. No matter what their theological bent is, from atheistic to conservative Christian. I only need the following five to make my case.

Here is my case.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion and was buried
2. The disciples claimed to have experiences what they believed was the risen Jesus
3. James, who was a skeptic of Jesus, suddenly became a believer.
4. Paul, an enemy of the Church, suddenly became a believer.
5. The empty tomb

Each of these is independently evidenced. Now I will not bother to unpack each one because I do not yet know what my opponent is going to do, and I don’t want to waste time, if my opponent concedes these facts.

So, how does this point to the resurrection?

Like I said, I use the principle used by historians. One is called “the argument to the best explanation.” Here is how it works. Here we have a set of facts. Question is, what could have happened that accounts for these facts? It is at this point that historians posit theories in order to try to explain the facts. The theory that a) holds up under its own weight and b) explains all the facts is the one that probably happened.

Well, there are a number of naturalistic theories that try to explain the facts. However, it is my contention, indeed even as admitted by critics, no naturalistic theory explains those facts nor do they stand up under scrutiny. Therefore, there is only one explanation left. Therefore, these facts point only in one direction.

However, I will defer for the moment and see what my opponent has to say.

If true, this has far reaching consequences. For example. Every major Christian doctrine is tied to the resurrection. If Jesus did rise from the dead, basically, then Christianity is true. For example. Who is God? If Jesus, who claimed deity, who said that the proof would be His resurrection, did rise from the dead, then He IS God. If that is true, then all other truth claims of other religions are false. Yes even Islam.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then you had better do something else on Sunday. There is no reason why one should follow Him. If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, you are still unforgiven and dead in sins. Not only that but there is no hope. Oh, and those loved ones who have died who believed in Jesus, well they are just six feet under. You’ll never see them again.

However, If the resurrection IS true, then you’d better follow Him for He is God. If true, then you are forgiven. You are no longer dead in your sins. There is a future hope. Oh, and those loved ones who believed in Jesus that died? Yeah you’ll see them again soon. They are waiting for ya.

So, you can see why this is so important.

My question to my opponent is then what do you think happened on that day on fateful day? I know that Islam doesn’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus. So I would like to see how my opponent handles this.

The way I see it, is either my opponent can challenge me on each point or concede those and get right to what “really” happened.

Now remember, each side has to provide historical evidence for their claims.

Well, Ahmed the ball is in your court.

God bless you all.

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

Dear respected Bible Defender,

I respect your polite way of debating with others.

I would like to start my debate with refuting your four evidences of Jesus resurrection.


1) Your saying "Jesus died by crucified" is wrong because after Jesus was crucified according to Luke 23:33 "They crucified him", Jesus was speaking according to Luke 23:43 where Jesus said to the criminal "Today you will be with me to paradise."

2) Jesus death could have happened if Jesus wanted to die because Jesus said in John 10:18 "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." However, Jesus did not want to die according to Matthew 27:46 where Jesus was resisting death as Jesus said "My My why have you forsaken me?"

3) Jesus death was concluded by eye-observation according to John 19:32, which is not enough to produce Jesus death certificate no matter how experts were the doctors of the time or the Roman Soldiers.

4) Therefore, your saying "Jesus died by crucifixion and was buried" remains a claim unless it is proved from the actions of Jesus after he rose JESUS WAS IMMORTAL because Jesus said in Luke 20:36 "Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels" as well as Paul who said "the deal will be raised imperishable" in 1 Corinthians 15:52.

5) The disciples preaching the resurrection does not prove Jesus was resurrected unless it is proved by the actions of Jesus after he rose because many doctrines are preached, which are false.

6) The rising of Jesus changed the lives of the disciples and Paul does not prove Jesus was resurrected unless it is proved by the actions of Jesus after he rose because many false doctrines in the world changed the lives of millions of people though they are wrong.

7) The empty tomb proves Jesus was not resurrected for three reasons;

A) The angel moving the stone according to Matthew 28:2 not Jesus proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to 1 Corinthians 15:43 "It is raised in power."

B) The stone removal happened FIRST on Sunday when it was still dark according to John 20:1 THEN Jesus came out of the tomb on Sunday morning according to Mark 16:9 proving Jesus needed the stone to be removed first to come out ; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43 "it is raised in power."

C) The women , who were really eye-witnesses of Jesus on the cross and when was buried, went and told the disciples "they have taken the Lord" in John 20:2 after the women had been told "he is risen" according to Matthew 28:7 and after Jesus had appeared to them in Matthew 28:9. Jesus-was-taken according to John 20:2 proves Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken is not a sign of the resurrection body.

7) However, hereunder are some of my arguments that Jesus was not resurrected from the Bible;

Jesus said "Just as Jonah became a miraculous sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be a miraculous sign to the people living today." Luke 11:30

A) Jesus promised his killers of the Jews in Luke 11:30 the miracle of Jonah which is Jonah surviving death according to the Book of Jonah where Jonah remained alive when thrown into the sea, inside the whale, and when thrown out the whale. Therefore, Jesus must have survived the death.

B) Jesus not appearing to his killers of the Jews according to Acts 10:41 proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be immortal according to 1 Corinthians 15:52 "the dead will be raised imperishable."

C) If the disciples, who were the closest to Jesus, did not believe Jesus rose (Mark 16:11, John 20:25-27) till Jesus appeared to them face-to-face, then Jesus would have made sure to appear to the Jews to prove to them he rose immortally as said to them "after three days I will rise" in Matthew 27:63.

D) Jesus body was not washed before it was wrapped with spices inside proving Jesus did not die because according to the Jewish Burial Customs, the dead body has to be first washed then wrapped even if the Sabbath was close or the body belonged to an evil person. Had the body of Jesus been washed, such an important piece of information would have been stated clearly as the quantity of the spices was mentioned in John 19:39.

E) As I mentioned above, the angel moving the stone according to Matthew 28:2 not Jesus proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to 1 Corinthians 15:43 "It is raised in power."

F) As I mentioned above, the stone removal happened FIRST on Sunday when it was still dark according to John 20:1 THEN Jesus came out of the tomb on Sunday morning according to Mark 16:9 proving Jesus needed the stone to be removed first to come out ; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43 "it is raised in power."

G) Jesus using the phrase "flesh and bone" in Luke 24:39 after he rose proves Jesus was still mortal because the phrase "flesh and bone" in the Bible is used for mortal beings. For instance, When God used the phrase "strike his flesh and bones" of Job, Job was mortal; therefore, Jesus was mortal when Jesus used the phrase "flesh and bones" in Luke 24:39 after he rose.

H) Jesus saying to his disciples in Luke 24:39 "It is I myself" proves Jesus was still the same Jesus; therefore, Jesus was not transformed.

I) Jesus eating after he rose in Luke 24:43 proves Jesus body was still natural; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because 1 Corinthians 15:43 says "it is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body."

J) Jesus not moving the stone according to Matthew 28:2 proves Jesus was not equal unto angels; therefore, Jesus was neither resurrected nor immortal because Jesus in Luke 20:36 "Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels" which are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14.

K) Jesus saying after he rose "For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:39 proves Jesus was not equal unto angels, which are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14. Therefore, Jesus ,who was not equal unto angels, was not resurrected because Jesus in Luke 20:36 "Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels"

L) Jesus body did not decay in the grave according to Acts 2:31 which read "his body would not rot in the grave." It is only the living body that does not decay in the grave for three days period because buried because ' Rigor mortis (the stiffening of muscles) and livor mortis (pooling of blood) take place within 12 hours of death' According to Jamie Downs, Chief Medical Examiner of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences.

M) Jesus saying after he rose "It was necessary for the Messiah to suffer" proves Jesus only suffered; therefore, Jesus did not die because the Greek word of "suffering" is " Pascho" which is used by Jesus in Luke 24:46 which means " to be affected or have been affected" according to the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Therefore, "suffering" or "Pascho" means only undergoing pain not death the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon.

[Bible Defender]

Thank you for your response Ahmed.
Wow, where do I begin.
Well first of all, Ahmed, your entire argument completely misses the point.
This debate is about the historical evidence for and against the Resurrection of Jesus. As such, I have only taken those points (listed in my opening statement) because they are well evidenced historically, and accepted by most if not virtually all critical scholars who have studied the subject. Your argument so far as I can see, is entirely based upon the bible and YOUR interpretation of biblical passages. Do you consider the Bible accurate (contrary to what Islam teaches)? But that is not what this debate is about Ahmed. So, hate to tell ya, but my argument doesn’t suppose that the bible is inspired or even generally trustworthy. Therefore it completely bypasses your argument. So, practically 90 – 95% of what you posted is nothing more than a giant straw man. Not only that, but your argument assumes that, contrary to Islamic teachings that the Bible is trustworthy. Otherwise, you would not be using it. Why not deal with my facts on the historical level? After all, YOU AGREED to debate using principles and evidence that historians use. This you agreed to in private message. I can reproduce them if you’d like.

If you want to go with the biblical evidence, then I got something for ya.
The Koran considers Jesus to be a prophet. In the Bible, (ie. Mark 10:33-34) Jesus predicted his own death.
The way I see it is, a) Jesus did die, therefore his prophesy came true and the Koran is false; or b) Jesus didn’t die, if not then he is a false prophet, and the Koran is false since the Koran states that Jesus was a prophet when in fact he was a false one.

Still want to go with your biblical argument?

So, either play by the rules that YOU AGREED UPON, or post a new challenge on whether or not the Bible states that Jesus died and rose.

Now I will reply to those areas that actually touch upon my argument.

3) Jesus death was concluded by eye-observation according to John 19:32,which is not enough to produce Jesus death certificate no matter how experts were the doctors of the time or the Roman Soldiers.

This is nonsensical. I am in the military, a member of the military police. There ARE ways to tell if someone is dead without a medical doctor present. Roman soldiers were experts at this. They had to be because on the battlefield, you couldn’t wait until a coroner arrived and pronounced one dead. Not only that but the Romans were experts in crucifixion. They had been doing it for hundreds of years and knew how to tell if someone was dead or not. Historically speaking, there is only one person who survived crucifixion according to Josephus, and it wasn’t Jesus.

4) Therefore, your saying "Jesus died by crucifixion and was buried" remains a claim unless it is proved from the actions of Jesus after he rose JESUS WAS IMMORTAL because Jesus said in Luke 20:36"Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels" as well as Paul who said "the deal will be raised imperishable" in 1 Corinthians 15:52.

This is ridiculous. Here is why. The death of Jesus is attested to by 11 independent historical sources both Christian and non-Christian. We have 11 independent sources. (4 Gospels, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Seripon, Thallus and the Talmud)

• Josephus (First Century)
“When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified…

• Tacitus (Second Century)
“Nero fastened the guilt [of the burning of Rome] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the Populous. 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.”

• Lucian of Samosata, Greek satirist/historian (Second Century)
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day-the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, was crucified on that account.”

• The Talmud
“on the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged.”

• Thallus (Mid-First Century) Quoting from Julius Africanus
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center 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.

• Mara Bar-Seripon (Late First/ Early Second Century)

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.


• Outside of the Gospels, not one of these was Christian. They were all skeptical or disdainful of Christianity hence, we have the principle of enemy attestation.

• Gospels, Acts, and Paul are multiple witnesses; therefore you have multiple attestation as well as enemy attestation in the case of Paul.
• No evidence of anything other that what is recorded in the Gospels has been found.
• The enemies of Jesus never refuted the claim that Jesus was crucified and died.

• The secular reports never questioned the historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion and death.

• Now in historical research, the main thing when considering a source, is right place, right time. These reports are from those who were either eyewitnesses, or had their source in eyewitnesses. They are in the right place, and they are early. It is for these reasons, Ahmed that the death of Jesus is considered as historical fact by virtually all critical scholars. So, in order for you to refute my first point, please provide historical E V I D E N C E that he didn’t. This is what you agreed to do. If you can’t then just say you can’t and we can move on.

5) The disciples preaching the resurrection does not prove Jesus was resurrected unless it is proved by the actions of Jesus after he rose because many doctrines are preached, which are false.

So you admit that they preached that Jesus was resurrected, rose from the dead.

But there is something wrong with your argument. First, this debate is not upon YOUR test of a resurrection. (Honestly, I think you should look up the word resurrection) Second, you are implying that the disciples were lying(?). That is easily disproved.
They were willing to suffer humiliation and even martyrdom for their preaching. This is attested to both in the biblical text as well as extra-biblical texts. However, that proves that they were being sincere. If they were sincere, then they were not deliberately lying.

6) The rising of Jesus changed the lives of the disciples and Paul does not prove Jesus was resurrected unless it is proved by the actions of Jesus after he rose because many false doctrines in the world changed the lives of millions of people though they are wrong.

So you concede that Paul changed from being a hater of Christians to an apostle.
But the question remains, what changed Paul hmmm? WHY did he go from being a persecutor of the Church to being one, if not Christianities greatest apostle?

[QUOTE=Ahmed_Deedat82;2080374]7) The empty tomb proves Jesus was not resurrected for three reasons;

A) The angel moving the stone according to Matthew 28:2not Jesus proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to 1 Corinthians 15:43"It is raised in power."

B) The stone removal happened FIRST on Sunday when it was still dark according to John 20:1THEN Jesus came out of the tomb on Sunday morning according to Mark 16:9proving Jesus needed the stone to be removed first to come out ; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43"it is raised in power."

C) The women , who were really eye-witnesses of Jesus on the cross and when was buried, went and told the disciples "they have taken the Lord" in John 20:2after the women had been told "he is risen" according to Matthew 28:7and after Jesus had appeared to them in Matthew 28:9. Jesus-was-taken according to John 20:2proves Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken is not a sign of the resurrection body.

Again you admit the tomb was indeed found empty. The question remains Ahmed, is how did it get empty? Your argument misses the point completely. My argument isn’t based upon even the general trustworthiness of the Bible. SO, pointing out apparent discrepancies doesn’t even begin to touch my argument. Here is an example: Suppose there was a car accident at an intersection. You get to the scene, interview witnesses. One said there was a blue car with a woman driving, and it was her fault. Other witnesses say there was a red car and a blue car in the accident and the driver of the red car was a fault. Other witnesses say there was a green car involved. Quite a lot of discrepancies! Question, was there an accident? Yup, you bet ya.
Same here, all you have is a few apparent discrepancies (which are answerable by the way), but you never deny the tomb was indeed empty.

Question remains, HOW did it get empty?

7) However, hereunder are some of my arguments that Jesus was not resurrected from the Bible;

Jesus said "Just as Jonah became a miraculous sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be a miraculous sign to the people living today." Luke 11:30

Straw man. See above. My argument indeed the whole debate is NOT about what the bible says if Jesus rose or not, but the historical E V I D E N C E. You agreed to provide some. So far, all you have done is give Scriptural reasons with twisted interpretations.

A) Jesus promised his killers of the Jews in Luke 11:30the miracle of Jonah which is Jonah surviving death according to the Book of Jonah where Jonah remained alive when thrown into the sea, inside the whale, and when thrown out the whale. Therefore, Jesus must have survived the death.

Same as above.

B) Jesus not appearing to his killers of the Jews according to Acts 10:41proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be immortal according to 1 Corinthians 15:52"the dead will be raised imperishable."

Look up the word for resurrection. It has nothing to do with being imperishable. Other than that another straw man.

C) If the disciples, who were the closest to Jesus, did not believe Jesus rose (Mark 16:11,John 20:25-27) till Jesus appeared to them face-to-face, then Jesus would have made sure to appear to the Jews to prove to them he rose immortally as said to them "after three days I will rise" in Matthew 27:63.

Says who? Not only that but shot yourself in the foot. But I will reserve that for later. Again who are YOU to dictate what the prophet would do or not do? Hmmmm? Yet another straw man.

D) Jesus body was not washed before it was wrapped with spices inside proving Jesus did not die because according to the Jewish Burial Customs, the dead body has to be first washed then wrapped even if the Sabbath was close or the body belonged to an evil person. Had the body of Jesus been washed, such an important piece of information would have been stated clearly as the quantity of the spices was mentioned in John 19:39.

Has nothing to do with my argument.

E) As I mentioned above, the angel moving the stone according to Matthew 28:2not Jesus proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to 1 Corinthians 15:43"It is raised in power."

Same as above.

F) As I mentioned above, the stone removal happened FIRST on Sunday when it was still dark according to John 20:1THEN Jesus came out of the tomb on Sunday morning according to Mark 16:9proving Jesus needed the stone to be removed first to come out ; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43"it is raised in power."

Same as above.

G) Jesus using the phrase "flesh and bone" in Luke 24:39after he rose proves Jesus was still mortal because the phrase "flesh and bone" in the Bible is used for mortal beings. For instance, When God used the phrase "strike his flesh and bones" of Job, Job was mortal; therefore, Jesus was mortal when Jesus used the phrase "flesh and bones" in Luke 24:39after he rose.

YOU just admitted that he rose. Lets take a refresher course on some Greek. The Greek word for Resurrection is anastasis. N.T. Wright in his landmark study on the meaning of the word, (and the word raised egiero) ALWAYS meant, not just in Scripture, but in all ancient Greek literature is coming to life after one dies – physically.

I) Jesus eating after he rose in Luke 24:43proves Jesus body was still natural; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because 1 Corinthians 15:43says "it is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body."

Again is seems that you agree that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead.

L) Jesus body did not decay in the grave according to Acts 2:31which read "his body would not rot in the grave." It is only the living body that does not decay in the grave for three days period because buried because ' Rigor mortis (the stiffening of muscles) and livor mortis (pooling of blood) take place within 12 hours of death' According to Jamie Downs, Chief Medical Examiner of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences.

1. Go look up the word for decay in Acts 2:31. The word means corruption, destruction
2. in the NT that destruction which is effected by the decay of the body after death. Has nothing to do with Rigor mortis. And hey, maybe he DID have rigormortis…..

M) Jesus saying after he rose "It was necessary for the Messiah to suffer" proves Jesus only suffered; therefore, Jesus did not die because the Greek word of "suffering" is " Pascho" which is used by Jesus in Luke 24:46which means " to be affected or have been affected" according to the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Therefore, "suffering" or "Pascho" means only undergoing pain not death the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon.

Again go look up the word for died.

So lets see what we have so far.
It was agreed that we would be using historical evidence using historical methodology that even secular historians use.
1. Ahmed has attacked the first position that Jesus didn’t die. I provided independent historical evidence that Jesus did die. Ahmed so far has only to produce straw men. Not one piece of historical evidence was provided to refute my position.
2 Ahmed admits that the disciples preached that Jesus rose from the dead. He implied that they were lying. But their willingness to die for their preaching only demonstrates their sincerity. Therefore they couldn’t have been deliberately telling falsehoods.
3. Ahmed admits that Paul suddenly changed.
4. Ahmed admits the empty tomb.
5. Lastly, Ahmed actually admits that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead.

Question remains Ahmed. What happened? You stated that Jesus didn’t die. Am I correct? If so the please provide historical evidence that he didn’t die. What I mean is, if he didn’t die, then what really happened?
So, what happened to make the disciples preach a risen Jesus?
What happened that would make Paul, a persecutor of the Church, to suddenly believe in the resurrection?
And what of James?
And, what happened to cause the empty tomb, Ahmed?
Appealing to Scripture, which Islam claims has been corrupted by Jews and Christians, doesn’t suffice, especially when all you are doing is putting YOUR spin on it. I could do the same. But this debate is about the historical E V I D E N C E.
Historically speaking Ahmed, it isn’t enough just to attack one position, you also have to come up with your own theory and put it to the test. So far, you haven’t.

I provided. I have five facts that are well attested to and is admitted by virtually all critical scholars that have studied the subject. My theory? That Jesus was resurrected. How does it hold up? Does it explain those facts I listed better than any opposing theory? Yes it does. So according to the principles of historiography, the resurrection is indeed the best explanation, therefore probably did indeed happen.

In Christ…

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

Dear brother,
I was hoping you have replied with better answers than stating "same as above."
Hereunder are refutations to your claim as well some arguments proving Jesus was risen but was not resurrected.
1) The topic of the debate, which you emailed me on September 1st 2007, suggesting "The topic: Did Jesus really rise from the dead?" does not restrict the debate to the historical side only.
2) Your so-called arguments for the resurrection of Jesus are not historical. They are, in fact, biblical. Therefore, I found it necessary to reply to your arguments from the Bible.
3) The crucifixion prophecies are found out to be insertions that did not belong to the original text of the Gospels. For example; Mark 15:28 "and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones" and Matthew 27:35 "the word spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled:” They divided my garments among themselves and cast lots for my clothing" in the King James Version are s deleted from the Revised Standard Version plus modern translations because it is an interpolation.
4) Bible mentioning or prophesizing the death of Jesus are true if proved from the actions of Jesus that Jesus was IMMORTAL because Jesus said "Neither they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels" in Luke 20:36 because many times the Bible says one thing, but the outcome is the opposite. For example, the Bible said that Jesus said to the criminal in Luke 23:43 "Today you will be with me in paradise"; however, the outcome was the opposite because Jesus was not in paradise that very day. Rather Jesus was in a tomb with his body and soul that very day according to Acts 2:31.
5) Knowing Jesus was declared dead before Jesus was taken down from the cross proves that Jesus death was made based on the assumption even if by expert soldiers none is certified dead by eye-observation without checking his heart pulse.
6) The soldiers opinions of whether Jesus died or not was not given in the Gospels; therefore, saying Jesus died was based on the assumption that because Jesus bowed his head (John 19:30), Jesus was dead is an assumption.

7) If modern doctors with the most developed medical machines still certify living people dead, it is convincing that the soldiers, who declared death by eye-observation before Jesus was taken down from the cross and without checking the pulses of the heart, certified the living Jesus dead. Therefore, "his body did not decay in the grave" (Acts 2:31) because it is only the living body that does not decay in the grave for three days period because buried because ' Rigor mortis (the stiffening of muscles) and livor mortis (pooling of blood) take place within 12 hours of death' According to Jamie Downs, Chief Medical Examiner of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences. As a result, Luke, who was a physician and also Greek, specifically used the word "SOMA" a Greek word means "living body" according to Luke to describe the body of Jesus when laid in the tomb in Luke 23:55 "his body (SOMA) was laid in the tomb." Also, after he rose Jesus said "It was necessary for the Messiah to SUFFER" (not die) in Luke 24:46.
8) Dying to preach a doctrine does not mean the preached doctrine is true because they are many doctrines, whose people died for, which are false.

9) None of the 11 independent sources you mentioned were real eye-witnesses. Even the disciples were not eye-witnesses because not a single name of the disciples including Peter who followed Jesus after the flee were not present when Jesus was on the cross. Had they been present, the names of the disciples would have been mentioned as the names of the women were mentioned in names since they were present when Jesus was on the cross. Therefore, the disciples preaching Jesus was resurrected was based on hearsay. And any case based on a hearsay presented in any civilized court will be thrown into the face of the affirmative.

10) None saw Jesus rising from the tomb. Therefore, there were no real eye-witnesses.

11) The disciples preaching the resurrection does not mean they were liars but they misunderstood the words of Jesus because they were not real eye-witnesses when Jesus was on the cross and when Jesus rose since none saw Jesus rising. Therefore, After Jesus appeared to them and "their eyes were opened" in Luke 24:45 then "they bowed to him" in Luke 24:52 and Matthew 28:17, "but some doubted" Matthew 28:17.

12) Knowing the Gospel of John was the last written book in the New Testament in 90 AD while the resurrection was preached before 90AD, it remains a fact that the author of the Gospel of John WROTE, AFTER the disciples preached the resurrection, “They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead" according to John 20:9. And what is more important that if you read John 20:9 and on, you will not find a verse which says that the disciples understood what it means “Jesus will rise from the dead" because "when they saw him, they bowed down to him, BUT SOME DOUBTED" according to Matthew 28:17.

13) Had Jesus been resurrected, Jesus would have asked the disciples to preach the resurrection but Jesus asked them to preach the commandments according to Matthew 28:20.

14) The rising of Jesus changed the lives of the disciples and Paul does not prove Jesus was resurrected unless it is proved by the actions of Jesus after he rose because many false doctrines in the world changed the lives of millions of people though they are wrong.

15) The Greek word for "resurrection" is anastasis according to Jesus in John 11:25 "I am the resurrection (anastasis)" and the Greek verb is anastemi according to Jesus in Mark 12:25 "When the dead rise (anastemi)." However, in reality Jesus rose (egerio) as Lazarus when he rose (egerio) according to John 12:1. Therefore, Jesus was not resurrected.

16) Jesus rose (egeiro) according to Luke 24:6 as same as Lazarus, who rose (egeiro).

17) The word 'decay' and the phrase 'see corruption' in Acts 2:31 are the same because the phrase 'see corruption' in the King James Version is replaced with the word 'decay' in the New Living Translation.

18) Jesus saying after he rose "It was necessary for the Messiah to suffer" proves Jesus only suffered; therefore, Jesus did not die because the Greek word of "suffering" is " Pascho" which is used by Jesus in Luke 24:46which means " to be affected or have been affected" according to the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Therefore, "suffering" or "Pascho" means only undergoing pain not death the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon.

19) You saying "maybe he DID have rigormortis" is wrong because Acts 2:31 says "his body did not decay in the grave." New Living Translation.

20) Jesus rising does not mean Jesus was resurrected because though the daughter of Jairus rose according to Luke 8:55, but did not experience death even before rising according to Luke 8:52.

21) Jesus said in John 18:10 "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" meaning Jesus could have died if Jesus had been willing to die. However, Jesus did not want to die according to Matthew 27:46 where Jesus was resisting death as Jesus said "My My why have you forsaken me?"

22) The women came to the tomb of Jesus to ANOINT JESUS AFTER HE WAS LAID according to Mark 16:1 proves the women knew Jesus did not die because the women were real eye-witnesses when Jesus was laid in the tomb and anointing a dead body after laid is not allowed in the Jewish burial customs.

23) The removal of the stone by the ANGEL NOT JESUS. Therefore, the angel moving the stone according to Matthew 28:2not Jesus proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to 1 Corinthians 15:43"It is raised in power."

24) Jesus not moving the stone according to Matthew 28:2proves Jesus was not equal unto angels; therefore, Jesus was neither resurrected nor immortal because Jesus in Luke 20:36"Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels" which are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14.

25) The stone removal happened FIRST on Sunday when it was still dark according to John 20:1 THEN Jesus came out of the tomb on Sunday morning according to Mark 16:9proving Jesus needed the stone to be removed first to come out ; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43"it is raised in power."

26) The women , who were really eye-witnesses of Jesus on the cross and when was buried, went and told the disciples "they have taken the Lord" in John 20:2after the women had been told "he is risen" according to Matthew 28:7and after Jesus had appeared to them in Matthew 28:9. Jesus-was-taken according to John 20:2proves Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken is not a sign of the resurrection body.

27) Jesus saying after he rose "For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:39proves Jesus was not equal unto angels, which are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14. Therefore, Jesus ,who was not equal unto angels, was not resurrected because Jesus in Luke 20:36"Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels"

28) Jesus using the phrase "flesh and bone" in Luke 24:39after he rose proves Jesus was still mortal because the phrase "flesh and bone" in the Bible is used for mortal beings. For instance, When God used the phrase "strike his flesh and bones" of Job, Job was mortal; therefore, Jesus was mortal when Jesus used the phrase "flesh and bones" in Luke 24:39after he rose.

29) Jesus using the phrase "it is I myself" in Luke 24:39 after he rose proves Jesus body did not change ; therefore, Jesus was neither transformed nor resurrected as Jesus said to the disciples when they thought he was a spirit , so Jesus said to them "It is I" in Matthew 14:26 proving his body did not change.

30) Jesus said "Just as Jonah became a miraculous sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be a miraculous sign to the people living today." Luke 11:30. Jesus promised his killers of the Jews in Luke 11:30 the miracle of Jonah which is Jonah surviving death according to the Book of Jonah where Jonah remained alive when thrown into the sea, inside the whale, and when thrown out the whale. Therefore, Jesus must have survived the death.

31) Please tell us the miracle of Jonah according to the Book of Jonah?

32) Jesus not appearing to his killers of the Jews according to Acts 10:41proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be immortal according to 1 Corinthians 15:52"the dead will be raised imperishable."

33) If the disciples, who were the closest to Jesus, did not believe Jesus rose (Mark 16:11,John 20:25-27) till Jesus appeared to them face-to-face, then Jesus would have made sure to appear to the Jews to prove to them he rose immortally as said to them "after three days I will rise" in Matthew 27:63.

34) Jesus saying to Mary "do not touch me" in John 20:17 proves Jesus did not die because Mary went told the disciples Jesus was alive according to Mark 16:11 which says "when they heard that he was alive and that he was seen by her, they did not believe."

35) Jesus saying to Mary "I did not go yet to my Father" in John 20:17 proves Jesus did not die because it is a Jewish idiom that means still alive according to Genesis 15:15 which says "But thou shall go to you fathers in peace; thou shall be buried in a good old age."

36) Jesus reaching the upper room according to Luke 24:35 after the disciples though Jesus went first before them according to Luke 24:31 proves Jesus was still mortal. Therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be immortal according to 1 Corinthians 15:52.

37) "One of the soldiers came and pierced Jesus side with spear bringing a sudden flow of blood and water" in John 19:34 proves Jesus was still alive because "for the life of all flesh is in the blood" Leviticus 17:14 and medically in order for blood to flow, the heart must be pumping. Therefore, ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA UNDER ARTICLE "CROSS" -- COLUMN 960: Says that when the spear was thrust - Jesus was ALIVE! "Blood and water" flowing out of Jesus body proves Jesus was not death confirmed by Dr. W.B. Primrose, a Senior Anaesthetist of the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, said that "the water was a result of the nervous upset of the blood vessels locally due to the over-stimulating effect of the scourging by staves".

[Bible Defender]

Hey there,

I must say for you to say that you are disappointed is quite humorous. This debate, as agreed, is about the historical evidence of the resurrection. You agreed to this. That is why it is the official topic of this debate. Not what we think the Bible says about the resurrection, not an arbitrary test of the resurrection etc. But the historical evidence. You really didn’t tackle anything that I have said on a historical basis using historical methodology. Suffice it to say, therefore, I will not answer things that are off topic since they are nothing more than straw men, which is a logical fallacy on your part. Therefore I see no reason why I should.

Dear brother,
I was hoping you have replied with better answers than stating "same as above."
Hereunder are refutations to your claim as well some arguments proving Jesus was risen but was not resurrected.

UM, according to pagan, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim a resurrection is a raising from the dead. So for you to say that someone rising from the dead is not the same as resurrection, well, again studies have been done which proves that resurrection is indeed exactly that a physical rising from the dead.

1) The topic of the debate, which you emailed me on September 1st 2007, suggesting "The topic: Did Jesus really rise from the dead?" does not restrict the debate to the historical side only.

As for the Sept 1 email all you agreed to is to debate the issue. We had not agreed to any particulars at that point since you were already in a debate. However upon Sept 7 me email it states:

Basically, the debate topic is the historical evidence for the resurrection.


Each side will give positive evidence using methodology used by all historians so as to be fair to both sides.

Now I know that muslims do not believe in the resurrection. So you will have to provide historical evidence for your stance, whatever that may be.

It was at this time you stated that you were fine with the rules. (Reply Sept. 7)

That is why the topic of this debate is “There is historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.”

2) Your so-called arguments for the resurrection of Jesus are not historical. They are, in fact, biblical. Therefore, I found it necessary to reply to your arguments from the Bible.

Not at all. The only time I use the Bible (as an ancient book of literature, not taking it as the Word of God) are only those points that are well evidenced historically. I do not use the Bible to say that Jesus was raised. So, it is not using the Biblical argument.

3) The crucifixion prophecies are found out to be insertions that did not belong to the original text of the Gospels. For example; Mark 15:28"and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones" and Matthew 27:35"the word spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled:” They divided my garments among themselves and cast lots for my clothing" in the King James Version are s deleted from the Revised Standard Version plus modern translations because it is an interpolation.

Straw man. My stance is not dependent upon the textual accuracy of the Bible.

4) Bible mentioning or prophesizing the death of Jesus are true if proved from the actions of Jesus that Jesus was IMMORTAL because Jesus said "Neither they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels" in Luke 20:36because many times the Bible says one thing, but the outcome is the opposite. For example, the Bible said that Jesus said to the criminal in Luke 23:43"Today you will be with me in paradise"; however, the outcome was the opposite because Jesus was not in paradise that very day. Rather Jesus was in a tomb with his body and soul that very day according to Acts 2:31.

How many straw men are you going to throw?

[QUOTE=Ahmed_Deedat82;2093861]5) Knowing Jesus was declared dead before Jesus was taken down from the cross proves that Jesus death was made based on the assumption even if by expert soldiers none is certified dead by eye-observation without checking his heart pulse.

6) The soldiers opinions of whether Jesus died or not was not given in the Gospels; therefore, saying Jesus died was based on the assumption that because Jesus bowed his head (John 19:30), Jesus was dead is an assumption.

Yes it is. They reported back to Pilot that he was dead.

7) If modern doctors with the most developed medical machines still certify living people dead, it is convincing that the soldiers, who declared death by eye-observation before Jesus was taken down from the cross and without checking the pulses of the heart, certified the living Jesus dead. Therefore, "his body did not decay in the grave" (Acts 2:31) because it is only the living body that does not decay in the grave for three days period because buried because ' Rigor mortis (the stiffening of muscles) and livor mortis (pooling of blood) take place within 12 hours of death' According to Jamie Downs, Chief Medical Examiner of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences. As a result, Luke, who was a physician and also Greek, specifically used the word "SOMA" a Greek word means "living body" according to Luke to describe the body of Jesus when laid in the tomb in Luke 23:55"his body (SOMA) was laid in the tomb." Also, after he rose Jesus said "It was necessary for the Messiah to SUFFER" (not die) in Luke 24:46.

I can answer this because I do believe that it does bear a little on what I am talking about. According to Thayer’s Greek lexicon, the word SOMA means “the body both of men or animals a dead body or corpse the living body. It can mean either a living or dead body.

But there is something else. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus took the body down and wrapped it. If Jesus were still alive, they would have known it, if they still wrapped him up, then they committed murder. Either way Jesus would have been dead.

Not only that but the enemies of Jesus were there! It seems reasonable that they would have made sure that He was dead. That was the whole point, to get rid of Him – permamently.
As for rigormortis, that is fine with me, maybe he did have rigor! I also think you miss the point on corruption/decay. As Peter said in Acts, David died, was buried, and decayed (because he stayed in his tomb) Jesus didn’t decay, why? As Peter said, he rose from the dead.

Also if you like to quote medical experts, in 1986 the Journal of the American Medical Association did a study on the crucifixion, they concluded that the victims died by asphyxiation. They write, “Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge”

8) Dying to preach a doctrine does not mean the preached doctrine is true because they are many doctrines, whose people died for, which are false.

Here I agree. But what this DOES do is show that they were sincere in their beliefs. Not only that but in distinction to later martyrs, who die for that the BELIEVE is true, these died for what they KNEW to be true.

9) None of the 11 independent sources you mentioned were real eye-witnesses. Even the disciples were not eye-witnesses because not a single name of the disciples including Peter who followed Jesus after the flee were not present when Jesus was on the cross. Had they been present, the names of the disciples would have been mentioned as the names of the women were mentioned in names since they were present when Jesus was on the cross. Therefore, the disciples preaching Jesus was resurrected was based on hearsay. And any case based on a hearsay presented in any civilized court will be thrown into the face of the affirmative.

Sorry, but we agreed to argue this from a historical stand point. These are the exact reasons why the death of Jesus is taken by virtually every critical scholar who has studied the subject. These are 11 independent sources who were at the right place at the right time who were either eyewitnesses or had their sources eyewitnesses. So, if you want to counter my argument on this particular fact, you have to come up with historical E V I D E N C E to the contrary. You have to come up with historical evidence that states what really happened, because until you do, the death of Jesus is well founded historically. Not only that but, there were eyewitnesses at the crucifixion. So it is not hearsay.

10) None saw Jesus rising from the tomb. Therefore, there were no real eye-witnesses.

Well here again, using the methodology that historians use here is some reasons why most critical scholars accept the empty tomb.

The Jeruslaem factor:

Christianity started off in Jerusalem, the very place where Jesus was crucified. If the tomb had not been empty as asserted, all one would have to do is visit the tomb and see. If it were not empty, Christianity would be dead in the womb.

Enemy attestation:

Not only did Christians attest to the empty tomb but also its enemies, although indirectly. Early critics accuse Jesus’ disciples of stealing the body:
o Matt 28:12-13
o Justin Martyr, Trypho 108
o Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30

There would be no need for an account of a missing body if the tomb weren’t empty.

Principle of embarrassment:

• In first century Israel as well as Roman cultures, women’s testimony was considered untrustworthy.

• The disciples didn’t believe when Mary told them Jesus had risen (Luke 24:11).

• Considering the low view that these cultures had of women’s testimony, it seems unlikely that the writers, if they were making it up, would have made the women to be the heroic believers instead of the men.

So you admit that the tomb was empty?! Then, Ahmed, what cause the tomb to be empty? That is the question I am asking.

11) The disciples preaching the resurrection does not mean they were liars but they misunderstood the words of Jesus because they were not real eye-witnesses when Jesus was on the cross and when Jesus rose since none saw Jesus rising. Therefore, After Jesus appeared to them and "their eyes were opened" in Luke 24:45then "they bowed to him" in Luke 24:52and Matthew 28:17,"but some doubted" Matthew 28:17.

The disciples were preaching that they had experiences of the risen Christ. That Jesus actually appeared to them. Question is what made them do so even to the point of torture and death?

12) Knowing the Gospel of John was the last written book in the New Testament in 90 AD while the resurrection was preached before 90AD, it remains a fact that the author of the Gospel of John WROTE, AFTER the disciples preached the resurrection, “They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead" according to John 20:9. And what is more important that if you read John 20:9and on, you will not find a verse which says that the disciples understood what it means “Jesus will rise from the dead" because "when they saw him, they bowed down to him, BUT SOME DOUBTED" according to Matthew 28:17.

Again a straw man. I am not arguing that. Sorry.

13) Had Jesus been resurrected, Jesus would have asked the disciples to preach the resurrection but Jesus asked them to preach the commandments according to Matthew 28:20.

That is what they were preaching.

14) The rising of Jesus changed the lives of the disciples and Paul does not prove Jesus was resurrected unless it is proved by the actions of Jesus after he rose because many false doctrines in the world changed the lives of millions of people though they are wrong.

Wrongo. The question is Ahmed, what made Paul change? What do YOU say happened?

15) The Greek word for "resurrection" is anastasis according to Jesus in John 11:25"I am the resurrection (anastasis)" and the Greek verb is anastemi according to Jesus in Mark 12:25"When the dead rise (anastemi)." However, in reality Jesus rose (egerio) as Lazarus when he rose (egerio) according to John 12:1. Therefore, Jesus was not resurrected.

To rise “egerio” means a physical rising from the dead. Jesus physically rose after he died. You are shooting yourself in the foot here. Whether it is rising out of a chair, bed whatever. Even FROM THE DEAD. That is the important qualifier. Jesus rose, physically, from the dead, meaning that he was first dead.

16) Jesus rose (egeiro) according to Luke 24:6as same as Lazarus, who rose (egeiro).

Correct. And since you are special pleading, using only those verses that seem to fit your need, notice that Lazarus was already DEAD.

17) The word 'decay' and the phrase 'see corruption' in Acts 2:31are the same because the phrase 'see corruption' in the King James Version is replaced with the word 'decay' in the New Living Translation.

And?

18) Jesus saying after he rose "It was necessary for the Messiah to suffer" proves Jesus only suffered; therefore, Jesus did not die because the Greek word of "suffering" is " Pascho" which is used by Jesus in Luke 24:46which means " to be affected or have been affected" according to the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Therefore, "suffering" or "Pascho" means only undergoing pain not death the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon.

Again, my argument is NOT the biblical argument, but the historical one. But Pascho also means to undergo. Duh. So this argument falls flat.

19) You saying "maybe he DID have rigormortis" is wrong because Acts 2:31 says "his body did not decay in the grave." New Living Translation.

If he did or didn’t doesn’t really hurt my case at all. This is another straw man.

20) Jesus rising does not mean Jesus was resurrected because though the daughter of Jairus rose according to Luke 8:55,but did not experience death even before rising according to Luke 8:52.

This is a stupid argument. I will answer it to show just how much Ahmed picks and chooses only those verses that suits his needs and needs to twist things out of context.

Even the word for sleep, is also used euphemistically for dead.
8:49-50 While he yet spake, there cometh one from the ruler of the synagogue's house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master.
But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole.
8:52 And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.
8:53And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.
After Jesus said to her arise….
8:55And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.

21) Jesus said in John 18:10"No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" meaning Jesus could have died if Jesus had been willing to die. However, Jesus did not want to die according to Matthew 27:46where Jesus was resisting death as Jesus said "My My why have you forsaken me?"

Why not stick to the topic at hand Ahmed? This is not a debate about if the Bible says Jesus rose, but the historical evidence that he did. Please stay on topic.

22) The women came to the tomb of Jesus to ANOINT JESUS AFTER HE WAS LAID according to Mark 16:1proves the women knew Jesus did not die because the women were real eye-witnesses when Jesus was laid in the tomb and anointing a dead body after laid is not allowed in the Jewish burial customs.

Ah so NOW you say that they were eyewitnesses to where they laid him. So, the question remains Ahmed, what happened to make the tomb empty?

23) The removal of the stone by the ANGEL NOT JESUS. Therefore, the angel moving the stone according to Matthew 28:2not Jesus proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to 1 Corinthians 15:43"It is raised in power."

Again, you seem to imply that Jesus did rise from the dead. Are you?

24) Jesus not moving the stone according to Matthew 28:2proves Jesus was not equal unto angels; therefore, Jesus was neither resurrected nor immortal because Jesus in Luke 20:36"Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels" which are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14.

Another straw man. You are shooting at the wrong target.

25) The stone removal happened FIRST on Sunday when it was still dark according to John 20:1THEN Jesus came out of the tomb on Sunday morning according to Mark 16:9proving Jesus needed the stone to be removed first to come out ; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43"it is raised in power."

26) The women , who were really eye-witnesses of Jesus on the cross and when was buried, went and told the disciples "they have taken the Lord" in John 20:2after the women had been told "he is risen" according to Matthew 28:7and after Jesus had appeared to them in Matthew 28:9. Jesus-was-taken according to John 20:2proves Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken is not a sign of the resurrection body.

27) Jesus saying after he rose "For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:39proves Jesus was not equal unto angels, which are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14. Therefore, Jesus ,who was not equal unto angels, was not resurrected because Jesus in Luke 20:36"Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels"

More Scripture twisting. Jesus was talking about the resurrection of the dead, which is to happen at the day of the Lord.

28) Jesus using the phrase "flesh and bone" in Luke 24:39after he rose proves Jesus was still mortal because the phrase "flesh and bone" in the Bible is used for mortal beings. For instance, When God used the phrase "strike his flesh and bones" of Job, Job was mortal; the+refore, Jesus was mortal when Jesus used the phrase "flesh and bones" in Luke 24:39after he rose.

It shows that Jesus’ resurrection was a physical one. Again just special pleading on your part. Try quoting in context.

What follows is more of the same. However, since this topic is about the historical evidence, and not one’s interpretation of passages taken out of context, this whole argument is again one big straw man. Sorry Ahmed, but please stick to the topic that you agreed upon.

33) If the disciples, who were the closest to Jesus, did not believe Jesus rose (Mark 16:11,John 20:25-27) till Jesus appeared to them face-to-face, then Jesus would have made sure to appear to the Jews to prove to them he rose immortally as said to them "after three days I will rise" in Matthew 27:63.

What you have set up is an arbitrary test for the resurrection Ahmed. But the test of a resurrection, in Jewish, Christian, pagan and yes even Muslim is a physical rising from the dead. But this debate is not about that is it? And you know it. Please stick to the topic – the historical evidence for the resurrection which you AGREED upon.

37) "One of the soldiers came and pierced Jesus side with spear bringing a sudden flow of blood and water" in John 19:34proves Jesus was still alive because "for the life of all flesh is in the blood" Leviticus 17:14and medically in order for blood to flow, the heart must be pumping. Therefore, ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA UNDER ARTICLE "CROSS" -- COLUMN 960: Says that when the spear was thrust - Jesus was ALIVE! "Blood and water" flowing out of Jesus body proves Jesus was not death confirmed by Dr. W.B. Primrose, a Senior Anaesthetist of the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, said that "the water was a result of the nervous upset of the blood vessels locally due to the over-stimulating effect of the scourging by staves".

Again off track. The article states that one may suppose that at that time He was alive, but not after. Which only serves my point. He didn’t come down from the cross alive. So either way you want it is fine with me.

Not only that but the issuing of blood and water is damaging to your theory. The word for “come forth” only means that, not that it was being pumped out. The blood and water refer to the pericardium which is the watery sack that surrounds the heart. Meaning, that his heart was pierced.

I noticed that you quoted an anesthetist. Well here is a quote from the Journal of the American Medical Association states (which reprinted the Department of Pathology, Mayo Clinic):

Jesus of Nazareth underwent Jewish and Roman trials, was flogged, and was sentenced to death by crucifixion. The scourging produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably set the stage for hypovolemic shock, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha. At the site of crucifixion, his wrists were nailed to the patibulum and, after the patibulum was lifted onto the upright post (stipes), his feet were nailed to the stipes. The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations. Accordingly death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Jesus' death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier's spear into his side. Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicate that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross.

So, lets see what we have so far.
1. Ahmed not one time refuted any of my five facts. Nowhere did he produce any kind of historical evidence concerning what I have produced.
2. Ahmed repeatedly went off topic. And even admitted to doing so. Saying that this is not only a topic on the historical evidence but also biblical. However, as shown above, he agreed to a debate about the historical evidence. Each side was to provide evidence, historical evidence. To me, Ahmed’s unwillingness to do so is quite telling.
3. Ahmed admits the points that the disciples were converted.
4. Ahmed admits the point that Paul was suddenly converted, as well as James.
5. Ahmed admits that the tomb was found empty.

So again I have to ask Ahmed. What caused these things to occur?
So, Ahmed what do you think happened, hmmm? So far, the resurrection takes into account all of the accepted facts. It takes into account the fact that Jesus died by crucifixion, why the disciples were radically transformed and preached and sincerely believed that they had experiences of the risen Jesus, it takes into account Paul’s sudden conversion, as well as the skeptical half brother James, and it explains the empty tomb.
So, until you do, I think, based upon historical principles, that since the facts remain well established (since you refuse to refute them historically), and since there is no forthcoming theory as to what can explain those facts better than the resurrection, it stands that the resurrection best explains those facts, and therefore most probably happened.

So, what do you say REALLY happened?

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

Dear brother,
I am hoping next time you will answer "what was the sign of Jonah?" that Jesus promised to perform to the Jews. So far you have not answered it.
Hereunder are refutations to your recent claims in red color as well as my arguments proving Jesus was risen only but was not resurrected;
REFUTATIONS:
1) Your saying "But the test of a resurrection, in Jewish, Christian, pagan and yes even Muslim is a physical rising from the dead" is not fully true because according to 1 Corinthians 15:44 "it is sown a physical body and it is raised a physical body."
2) Your saying "the only time I use the Bible (as an ancient book of literature, not taking it as the Word of God) are only those points that are well evidenced historically" is not true because all of your four evidences are biblical. None of your arguments are out of the Bible.
3) Your saying " In the Bible, (ie. Mark 10:33-34) Jesus predicted his own death" is wrong because the crucifixion prophecies are found out to be insertions that did not belong to the original text of the Gospels. For example; Mark 15:28"and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones" and Matthew 27:35"the word spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled:” They divided my garments among themselves and cast lots for my clothing" in the King James Version are s deleted from the Revised Standard Version plus modern translations because it is an interpolation.


4) Jesus body was not washed before it was wrapped with spices inside proving Jesus did not die because according to the Jewish Burial Customs, the dead body has to be first washed then wrapped even if the Sabbath was close or the body belonged to an evil person. Had the body of Jesus been washed, such an important piece of information would have been stated clearly as the quantity of the spices was mentioned in John 19:39.

5) Had the wrapping of Jesus body been killing, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus would not have done the wrapping. Since "his body did not decay in the grave" according to Acts 2:31, then the wrapping was not killing at all because Jesus was alive as his body in the tomb was "SOMA" which is according to the Gospel of Luke means living body in Luke 23:55.

6) Your saying "they reported back to Pilot that he was dead" is wrong because the Greek text of Mark 15:45 is "when he knew of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph", therefore, we do not know from Mark 15:45 whether the Jesus body was ALIVE till the doctor Luke in 2:31 says "his body did not decay in the grave" proving Jesus body was laid alive in the tomb because it is only the living body that does not decay for three days period because buried.
7) Had Jesus been dead in the grave, Jesus body would have decayed because 'Rigor mortis (the stiffening of muscles) and livor mortis (pooling of blood) take place within 12 hours of death' According to Jamie Downs, Chief Medical Examiner of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences. Therefore, Luke, who was a physician and also Greek, specifically used the word "SOMA" a Greek word means "living body" according to Luke to describe the body of Jesus when laid in the tomb in Luke 23:55 "his body (SOMA) was laid in the tomb." Also, after he rose Jesus said "It was necessary for the Messiah to SUFFER" (not die) in Luke 24:46.
15) Yes in general, "SOMA" can mean "dead or living body." However, in the Gospel of Luke the word "SOMA" is used to describe living body. Also whenever Luke used "SOMA" to describe alive body, Luke used in the Gospels whenever Luke used the word "SOMA" to describe Jesus body, "SOMA" meant "alive" according to Luke in Luke 24:23 " but didn't find his body (SOMA). They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was ALIVE" and according to Luke 24:3&5 "they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus" because "Why do you look for the living among the dead?" Had Jesus been dead, Luke would have used the Greek word "PTOMA" which always means a dead body to describe Jesus body in the tomb.
16) None of the 11 independent sources you mentioned were real eye-witnesses. Even the disciples were not eye-witnesses because not a single name of the disciples including Peter who followed Jesus after the flee were not present when Jesus was on the cross. Had they been present, the names of the disciples would have been mentioned as the names of the women were mentioned in names since they were present when Jesus was on the cross. Therefore, the disciples preaching Jesus was resurrected was based on hearsay. And any case based on a hearsay presented in any civilized court will be thrown into the face of the affirmative.

17) The real eye-witnesses that were mentioned in name when Jesus was on the cross and when Jesus was buried are Josephus, Nicodemus, the women, Pilate, and the Centurion. However, the testimonies of Josephus, Nicodemus, the women, Pilate, and the Centurion were not given to us. Also, none saw Jesus rising from the tomb. Therefore, there were no real eye-witnesses.

18) Your saying "Jesus were there! It seems reasonable that they would have made sure that He was dead. That was the whole point, to get rid of Him – permanently" is true when Jesus was on the cross. However, by a miracle that God made, Jesus survived. The miracle that saved Jesus is the miracle of Jonah as Jesus "For as Jonah as a miraculous sign, so also the Son of Man will be miraculous sign" Luke 11:30. Jesus promised his killers of the Jews in Luke 11:30 to perform the miracle of Jonah which is Jonah surviving death according to the Book of Jonah where Jonah remained alive when thrown into the sea, inside the whale, and when thrown out the whale. Therefore, Jesus must have survived the death.

19) None saw Jesus rising from the tomb. Therefore, there were no real eye-witnesses.

20) The disciples preaching the resurrection does not mean they were liars but they misunderstood the words of Jesus because they were not real eye-witnesses when Jesus was on the cross and when Jesus rose since none saw Jesus rising. Therefore, After Jesus appeared to them and "their eyes were opened" in Luke 24:45 then "they bowed to him" in Luke 24:52 and Matthew 28:17, "but some doubted" Matthew 28:17.

21) Dying to preach a doctrine does not mean the preached doctrine is true because they are many doctrines, whose people died for, which are false.

22) Being sincere in their beliefs dying for what they believe is true does not prove Jesus was resurrected unless it is proven from the actions of Jesus after he rose.

23) "What made them do so even to the point of torture and death?" is answered when knowing that the Gospels were written after the Letters of Paul in which he taught the death and the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, by the time the Gospels were formulated, preaching the resurrection of Jesus was accepted by the early Christians including the disciples because according to Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:14 “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”
24) Your question "What made Paul change? What do YOU say happened?" is a vision of Paul.
25) Knowing the Gospel of John was the last written book in the New Testament in 90 AD while the resurrection was preached before 90AD, it remains a fact that the author of the Gospel of John WROTE, AFTER the disciples preached the resurrection, “They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead" according to John 20:9. And what is more important that if you read John 20:9 and on, you will not find a verse which says that the disciples understood what it means “Jesus will rise from the dead" because "when they saw him, they bowed down to him, BUT SOME DOUBTED" according to Matthew 28:17.

26) I agree the tomb was empty. The empty tomb is significant evidence that Jesus was not resurrected for the following reasons;

A) The angel moving the stone according to Matthew 28:2not Jesus proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to 1 Corinthians 15:43"It is raised in power."

B) The stone removal happened FIRST on Sunday when it was still dark according to John 20:1THEN Jesus came out of the tomb on Sunday morning according to Mark 16:9proving Jesus needed the stone to be removed first to come out ; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43"it is raised in power."

C) The women , who were really eye-witnesses of Jesus on the cross and when was buried, went and told the disciples "they have taken the Lord" in John 20:2after the women had been told "he is risen" according to Matthew 28:7and after Jesus had appeared to them in Matthew 28:9. Jesus-was-taken according to John 20:2proves Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken is not a sign of the resurrection body.

27) Had Jesus been resurrected, Jesus would have asked the disciples to preach the resurrection but Jesus asked them to preach the commandments according to Matthew 28:20.

28) The rising of Jesus changed the lives of the disciples and Paul does not prove Jesus was resurrected unless it is proved by the actions of Jesus after he rose because many false doctrines in the world changed the lives of millions of people though they are wrong.

29) Jesus only rose, but was not resurrected because the Greek word for "resurrection" is anastasis according to Jesus in John 11:25 "I am the resurrection (anastasis)" and the Greek verb is anastemi according to Jesus in Mark 12:25 "When the dead rise (anastemi)." However, in reality Jesus rose (egerio) as Lazarus when he rose (egerio) according to John 12:1. Therefore, Jesus was not resurrected.

30) Jesus rose (egeiro) according to Luke 24:6 as same as Lazarus, who rose (egeiro).

31) Your saying "notice that Lazarus was already DEAD" is true, so then, according to your logic, Lazarus was also resurrected since Lazarus rose after he had died because the resurrected cannot die twice according to Hebrews 9:27 "It is ordained unto mankind it is once to die after that the judgment."
32) Jesus saying after he rose "It was necessary for the Messiah to suffer" proves Jesus only suffered; therefore, Jesus did not die because the Greek word of "suffering" is " Pascho" which is used by Jesus in Luke 24:46which means " to be affected or have been affected" according to the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Therefore, "suffering" or "Pascho" means only undergoing pain not death the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon.

33) The word 'decay' and the phrase 'see corruption' in Acts 2:31 are the same because the phrase 'see corruption' in the King James Version is replaced with the word 'decay' in the New Living Translation.

34) You saying "maybe he DID have rigormortis" is wrong because Acts 2:31 says "his body did not decay in the grave." New Living Translation.

35) Your saying "Jesus didn’t decay, why? As Peter said, he rose from the dead" is wrong because Lazarus, who rose from the dead, was stinking in the grave because Lazarus was dead according to John 11:38"by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days."

36) Jesus rising does not mean Jesus was resurrected because though the daughter of Jairus rose according to Luke 8:55, but did not experience death even before rising according to Luke 8:52.


37) When Jesus said in 8:52 "For she is not dead but sleeping" Jesus meant literally that the girl was really not dead because "they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead" in Luke 8:53.

38) Jesus said in John 18:10 "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" meaning Jesus could have died if Jesus had been willing to die. However, Jesus did not want to die according to Matthew 27:46 where Jesus was resisting death as Jesus said "My My why have you forsaken me?"

ARGUMENTS:

39) Your saying "The disciples were preaching that they had experiences of the risen Christ" is true but not of the resurrected Jesus because Jesus was proving he was not immortal ; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected as follows;

40) The women came to the tomb of Jesus to ANOINT JESUS AFTER HE WAS LAID according to Mark 16:1 proves the women knew Jesus did not die because the women were real eye-witnesses when Jesus was laid in the tomb and anointing a dead body after laid is not allowed in the Jewish burial customs.

41) The removal of the stone by the ANGEL NOT JESUS. Therefore, the angel moving the stone according to Matthew 28:2not Jesus proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to 1 Corinthians 15:43"It is raised in power."

42) Jesus not moving the stone according to Matthew 28:2proves Jesus was not equal unto angels; therefore, Jesus was neither resurrected nor immortal because Jesus in Luke 20:36"Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels" which are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14.

43) The stone removal happened FIRST on Sunday when it was still dark according to John 20:1 THEN Jesus came out of the tomb on Sunday morning according to Mark 16:9proving Jesus needed the stone to be removed first to come out ; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43"it is raised in power."

44) The women , who were really eye-witnesses of Jesus on the cross and when was buried, went and told the disciples "they have taken the Lord" in John 20:2after the women had been told "he is risen" according to Matthew 28:7and after Jesus had appeared to them in Matthew 28:9. Jesus-was-taken according to John 20:2proves Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken is not a sign of the resurrection body.

45) Jesus saying after he rose "For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:39proves Jesus was not equal unto angels, which are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14. Therefore, Jesus ,who was not equal unto angels, was not resurrected because Jesus in Luke 20:36"Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels"

46) Your saying "Jesus was talking about the resurrection of the dead, which is to happen at the day of the Lord" in Luke 20:36 is wrong because Jesus was talking in general of the resurrection as Jesus explained Luke 20:36 in in Mark 12:25 " When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."
47) Jesus using the phrase "flesh and bone" in Luke 24:39after he rose proves Jesus was still mortal because the phrase "flesh and bone" in the Bible is used for mortal beings. For instance, When God used the phrase "strike his flesh and bones" of Job, Job was mortal; therefore, Jesus was mortal when Jesus used the phrase "flesh and bones" in Luke 24:39after he rose.

48) Jesus using the phrase "it is I myself" in Luke 24:39 after he rose proves Jesus body did not change ; therefore, Jesus was neither transformed nor resurrected as Jesus said to the disciples when they thought he was a spirit , so Jesus said to them "It is I" in Matthew 14:26 proving his body did not change.

49) Your saying "It (the phrase "it is I myself") shows that Jesus’ resurrection was a physical one" is true proving that Jesus body was not transformed because the resurrected will be spiritual as 1 Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a physical, it is raised a spiritual body."

50) Jesus not appearing to his killers of the Jews according to Acts 10:41proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be immortal according to 1 Corinthians 15:52"the dead will be raised imperishable."

51) If the disciples, who were the closest to Jesus, did not believe Jesus rose (Mark 16:11,John 20:25-27) till Jesus appeared to them face-to-face, then Jesus would have made sure to appear to the Jews to prove to them he rose immortally as said to them "after three days I will rise" in Matthew 27:63.

52) Jesus saying to Mary "do not touch me" in John 20:17 proves Jesus did not die because Mary went told the disciples Jesus was alive according to Mark 16:11 which says "when they heard that he was alive and that he was seen by her, they did not believe."

53) Jesus saying to Mary "I did not go yet to my Father" in John 20:17 proves Jesus did not die because it is a Jewish idiom that means still alive according to Genesis 15:15 which says "But thou shall go to you fathers in peace; thou shall be buried in a good old age."

54) Jesus reaching the upper room according to Luke 24:35 after the disciples though Jesus went first before them according to Luke 24:31 proves Jesus was still mortal. Therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be immortal according to 1 Corinthians 15:52.

55) Your saying "That Jesus actually appeared to them" is true, but Jesus appeared to them AFTER HE SUFFERED NOT AFTER HE WAS RESURRECTED according to Acts 1:3 " After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."
56) "One of the soldiers came and pierced Jesus side with spear bringing a sudden flow of blood and water" in John 19:34 proves Jesus was still alive because "for the life of all flesh is in the blood" Leviticus 17:14 and medically in order for blood to flow, the heart must be pumping.

57) The 1986 Mayo Clinic study of Jesus on the cross was outdated by Dr. Trevor Davies, former personal physician of the Queen of England, and his wife, Margaret, a theological scholar, co-authored an article in 1991 titled "Resurrection or resuscitation?" published in the Journal of the Royal College of Physician of London in which they proved Jesus did not die at all medically. According to Daveis, "At his crucifixion, Jesus was in shock, hypotensive, lost consciousness due to diminished supply of blood to the brain."
58) Your saying "the word for “come forth” only means that, not that it was being pumped out" is wrong because of the Biblical phrase of "blood and water immediately" proves that the heart was plumbing as a result Weymouth New Testament renders John 19:34 "One of the soldiers, however, made a thrust at His side with a lance, and immediately blood and water flowed out." Therefore, ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA UNDER ARTICLE "CROSS" -- COLUMN 960: Says that when the spear was thrust - Jesus was ALIVE! "Blood and water" flowing out of Jesus body proves Jesus was not death confirmed by Dr. W.B. Primrose, a Senior Anaesthetist of the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, said that "the water was a result of the nervous upset of the blood vessels locally due to the over-stimulating effect of the scourging by staves".

59) After Jesus was pierced and blood and water flowed out, Jesus cried with a loud voice according to Matthew 27: 50 "But another taking a spear pierced His side, when blood and water came out. Jesus, however, having again called out with a loud voice, resigned His spirit" according to Moffat Bible and Fenton Translation proving that the spear pierce was not killing but proof that Jesus was still alive. Therefore, ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA UNDER ARTICLE "CROSS" -- COLUMN 960: Says that when the spear was thrust - Jesus was ALIVE! "Blood and water" flowing out of Jesus body proves Jesus was not dead confirmed by Dr. W.B. Primrose, a Senior Anaesthetist of the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, said that "the water was a result of the nervous upset of the blood vessels locally due to the over-stimulating effect of the scourging by staves".

60) Had the word "pierce" meant penetration, the text would have used "pierced through" as Luke 2:35 uses the phrase "pierce through."

61) The Greek word used in John 19:37 ("They shall look on him whom they have pierced") is ekkenteo, which means only prick out according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Therefore, when Jesus was pierced, Jesus was pricked out.

62) The piercing of Jesus was not penetrating because Jesus was pricked according to John 19:34 "One of the soldiers pricked his side." The pierce was not killing proving that there was blood pressure in order to make the blood and the water flow.

63) Your saying "his heart was pierced" is wrong because Jesus ,who stood after he rose, showing his pricked side to the disciples proves the spear did not penetrate through Jesus side because a pierced side, which CAN BE SHOWN, was not neither penetrated nor a heart, but pricked according to John 20:20 "he showed them his side and hands."

64) Also according to anatomy the only place in the body where a noticeable amount of water or any clear liquid would ever be visible along with blood is the large intestine. Therefore, a wound is not killing in such a place of the body until many days later.

[Bible Defender]

Dear brother,
I am hoping next time you will answer "what was the sign of Jonah?" that Jesus promised to perform to the Jews. So far you have not answered it.

So far you have not even begun to abide by the agreed upon rules of the debate. So, your whole post is nothing more than a red herring/straw man tactic, so I will only reply to those areas that I feel touch upon the agreed upon topic. Sorry but I am not arguing what this or that Greek word means. Here is why. We both have our interpretations of what the Bible says, you say the Bible doesn’t say Jesus died, I say it does. Who is right? In this case it is easy, in what direction does the E V I D E N C E point to? So far I have shown, that the disciples believed him to be dead, even His enemies believed him to be dead, and have provided extrabiblical evidence of that. In fact I will regurgitate here:

The death of Jesus is attested to by 11 independent historical sources both Christian and non-Christian. We have 11 independent sources. (4 Gospels, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Seripon, Thallus and the Talmud)

• Josephus (First Century)
“When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified…

• Tacitus (Second Century)
“Nero fastened the guilt [of the burning of Rome] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the Populous. 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.”

• Lucian of Samosata, Greek satirist/historian (Second Century)
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day-the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, was crucified on that account.”

• The Talmud
“on the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged.”

• Thallus (Mid-First Century) Quoting from Julius Africanus
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center 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.

• Mara Bar-Seripon (Late First/ Early Second Century)

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.


• Outside of the Gospels, not one of these was Christian. They were all skeptical or disdainful of Christianity hence, we have the principle of enemy attestation.

• Gospels, Acts, and Paul are multiple witnesses; therefore you have multiple attestation as well as enemy attestation in the case of Paul.

• No evidence of anything other that what is recorded in the Gospels has been found.

• The enemies of Jesus never refuted the claim that Jesus was crucified and died.

• The secular reports never questioned the historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion and death.

• Now in historical research, the main thing when considering a source, is right place, right time. These reports are from those who were either eyewitnesses, or had their source in eyewitnesses. They are in the right place, and they are early. It is for these reasons, Ahmed that the death of Jesus is considered as historical fact by virtually all critical scholars. So, in order for you to refute my first point, please provide historical E V I D E N C E that he didn’t. This is what you agreed to do. If you can’t then just say you can’t and we can move on.

Hereunder are refutations to your recent claims in red color as well as my arguments proving Jesus was risen only but was not resurrected;
REFUTATIONS:
1) Your saying "But the test of a resurrection, in Jewish, Christian, pagan and yes even Muslim is a physical rising from the dead" is not fully true because according to 1 Corinthians 15:44"it is sown a physical body and it is raised a physical body."

Um, according to NT Wright, who did a landmark study on the term resurrection “anastasis” always meant a physical resurrection in pagan, Jewish and Christian cultures. Here is something that I wrote in another debate:

1. Notice that the Corinthians concern was not the denial of a physical resurrection, but exactly with what type of body with they have. Adam’s body was not perfect, our changed bodies will be. Not that we will leave this one behind, but it will be changed. Indeed Paul says explicitly that our bodies will be raise. It is sown in corruption, it (the body) is raised in incorruption, etc. Nowhere does it say we get a different body and leave this one behind. Also let us see the specific terms in question. For example Paul says the body is sown in a natural body it is sown in a spiritual body. Is what Paul talking about here different bodies? Not really. Here is why. The words that are used is for natural (psychikos) and spiritual (pneumatikos). But if you look in 1 Cor 2:14-15 “But a natural (psychikos) man does not accept the thing of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual (pneumatikos) appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. Here Paul contrasts the natural and spiritual man, ie one who is led by his soulish, or fleshly desires to a Christian who is led by the Holy Spirit. These same words are used in the dying seed analogy as well. So Paul’s point is that concerning our future bodies, it will not have a sinful nature/appetites but raised with holy spiritual ones.

2. In Philipians 3:20-21 “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.” Notice that in the resurrection, our bodies are not left behind but transformed. And notice also, our transformed body will be like His glorious body.

3. In Romans 8:11 “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.”

4. Colossians 2:9 “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” Notice the present tense. Paul is saying that the Godhead presently dwells in Jesus’ body.

5. In 1 Cor 15:3-5, after mentioning the death of Jesus, Paul using a creed says “and that he was buried and that he was raised.” This implies that what was buried is what was raised. The same thing occurs in v 42-44 “it is sown…it is raised…It is sown…It is raised…. Again what goes down in burial is raised in resurrection. All the time talking about the same body.

Also

The first word in that passage (1 Cor15:45) is “psychikon” and the second translated as spirit is “pneumatikon”. In 1 Cor 2:14-15 it says that the “psychikos” person does not receive the things of the spirit, because they are spiritually discerned, while the “pneumatikos” person discerns everything. In 3:1 Paul states that he could not consider the Corinthians as “pneumatikoi”, but merely as “sarkinoi” or maybe “sarkikoi”.
He is there talking about the Corinthians that are still alive bodily. If Also, usually in Greek, adjectives formed with the ending ikos have ethical or functional meanings. If on the other hand you wanted to stress the composition, the Greek words would have ended in inos. But they don’t.

2) Your saying "the only time I use the Bible (as an ancient book of literature, not taking it as the Word of God) are only those points that are well evidenced historically" is not true because all of your four evidences are biblical. None of your arguments are out of the Bible.

That is stupid. Just read the above NON-Christian quotations.

7) Had Jesus been dead in the grave, Jesus body would have decayed because 'Rigor mortis (the stiffening of muscles) and livor mortis (pooling of blood) take place within 12 hours of death' According to Jamie Downs, Chief Medical Examiner of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences. Therefore, Luke, who was a physician and also Greek, specifically used the word "SOMA" a Greek word means "living body" according to Luke to describe the body of Jesus when laid in the tomb in Luke 23:55"his body (SOMA) was laid in the tomb." Also, after he rose Jesus said "It was necessary for the Messiah to SUFFER" (not die) in Luke 24:46.

As for rigor mortis, it ends 72 hours after death and the body goes limp again. Also, who says He didn’t have rigor? Hmmm? This is nothing more than an argument from silence. Please look up logical fallacies.

15) Yes in general, "SOMA" …

Again as for soma and ptoma etc, and for Scripture twisting, suffice it to say that I do not have to say “dead body” every time. For example. If someone was found dead, and I transport the body to the coroner’s office, I don’t need to say that I handed over the dead body, all I need to say is that I handed the body over to the coroner. Also, Luke never defines Jesus being alive after crucifixion. But again what does the E V I D E N C E say?

16) None of the 11 independent sources you mentioned were real eye-witnesses. Even the disciples were not eye-witnesses because not a single name of the disciples including Peter who followed Jesus after the flee were not present when Jesus was on the cross. Had they been present, the names of the disciples would have been mentioned as the names of the women were mentioned in names since they were present when Jesus was on the cross. Therefore, the disciples preaching Jesus was resurrected was based on hearsay. And any case based on a hearsay presented in any civilized court will be thrown into the face of the affirmative.

This is yet another attempt to take on the evidence. You forget John who also was at the crucifixion. The women were there and so was His mother. So, even if true, they would have gotten their story from eyewitnesses, that qualifies as historical evidence.

17) The real eye-witnesses that were mentioned in name when Jesus was on the cross and when Jesus was buried are Josephus, Nicodemus, the women, Pilate, and the Centurion. However, the testimonies of Josephus, Nicodemus, the women, Pilate, and the Centurion were not given to us. Also, none saw Jesus rising from the tomb. Therefore, there were no real eye-witnesses.

You miss the point. It is unanimously stated that He died, and after that He was seen alive. The term that is used for that phenomenon is resurrection.

However, by a miracle that God made, Jesus survived. The miracle that saved Jesus is the miracle of Jonah as Jesus "For as Jonah as a miraculous sign, so also the Son of Man will be miraculous sign" Luke 11:30. Jesus promised his killers of the Jews in Luke 11:30to perform the miracle of Jonah which is Jonah surviving death according to the Book of Jonah where Jonah remained alive when thrown into the sea, inside the whale, and when thrown out the whale. Therefore, Jesus must have survived the death.

Ah, finally something of a theory. E V I D E N C E please.

19) None saw Jesus rising from the tomb. Therefore, there were no real eye-witnesses.

20) The disciples preaching the resurrection does not mean they were liars but they misunderstood the words of Jesus because they were not real eye-witnesses when Jesus was on the cross and when Jesus rose since none saw Jesus rising. Therefore, After Jesus appeared to them and "their eyes were opened" in Luke 24:45then "they bowed to him" in Luke 24:52and Matthew 28:17,"but some doubted" Matthew 28:17.

21) Dying to preach a doctrine does not mean the preached doctrine is true because they are many doctrines, whose people died for, which are false.

Again I agree. Just because they believed it doesn’t automatically mean it is true. But what it does show is that they weren’t liars. Question I keep asking you is what brought about this change in them?

22) Being sincere in their beliefs dying for what they believe is true does not prove Jesus was resurrected unless it is proven from the actions of Jesus after he rose.

Again arbitrary and false. And another red herring/ straw man.

23) "What made them do so even to the point of torture and death?" is answered when knowing that the Gospels were written after the Letters of Paul in which he taught the death and the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, by the time the Gospels were formulated, preaching the resurrection of Jesus was accepted by the early Christians including the disciples because according to Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:14“if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”

Really is Paul the first to formulate this? Nope. Here is why:
• Early Creeds (1 Corinthians 15:3-7)
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.”

The words “I delivered…what I also received” is used in passing on a tradition.

What he was passing on is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and His appearances.

Paul received it, therefore this creed existed BEFORE Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, therefore this message predates Paul.

It is the most important doctrine.

Since the frist Christians were Jewish the spoke Aramiac. There are Aramaic words dispursed through this creed such as “hoti” for the word that as well as the name of Peter.

Date of Creed
Paul converted around 31-33 A.D.

Paul then went away for 3 years after that.

Paul then visits Peter and James (Gal 1:18-19) Here Paul uses

The term historesai to describe his meeting with Peter means to gain a historical account..

Therefore the date of the Creed is no more than 3-5 years after the crucifixion.

Then Paul writes in Galatians 2:9 that after Paul discussed the content of the Gospel message he reports that they (The original apostles) added nothing to him (ie they agreed upon the material)

Paul also reports in 1 Cor 15 after discussing the gospel (death, burial, resurrection) that he was preaching the same message as the apostles (1Cor15:11)

24) Your question "What made Paul change? What do YOU say happened?" is a vision of Paul.

So, what we got so far is swoon theory coupled with vision. Good, E V I D E N C E please. But lets see if the vision theory works.

• If it’s an objective vision, then there was still a resurrection since objective visions have reality outside the mind. All this tries to do is explain what type of resurrection there is (bodily/spiritual).
• If it is a subjective vision, it has all the same problems that hallucinations do.
• What is more, Paul’s companion also saw the light, heard the voice and even fell to the ground in fear. Subjective visions have no reality outside the mind like hallucinations.
• Paul’s account does certainly have visionary elements, but you have to be careful to say that it was only a vision.
• 1 Cor 15:42-49 the word translated as physical literally means “soul-ish” and the word translated as spiritual is spiritual in orientation not substance.
• The Gospels are unanimous in stating that the resurrection is indeed physical.
• There is the problem of the empty tomb again.
• Not only that but why even have a vision in the first place? All Jesus would have to do if he only swooned, is show himself to Paul.

Earlier in the twentieth century James Orr and Eduard Riggenbach remark that scholars no longer consider this theory viable. Liberal scholar Theodore Keim is often credited with the destruction of this position.

But according to historical methodology, if you have to posit theory (ones that don’t even stand up on their own at that) upon theory it is considered ad hoc. Multiple theories don’t strengthen a position, just weakens it. This is quite telling of your position.

Critical scholars admit that these subjective theories are refuted by the data.

26) I agree the tomb was empty.

So we agree that the tomb was empty.

Again you accounting for the empty tomb via swoon theory, is refuted by the historical evidence.

The empty tomb is significant evidence that Jesus was not resurrected for the following reasons;

28) The rising of Jesus changed the lives of the disciples and Paul does not prove Jesus was resurrected unless it is proved by the actions of Jesus after he rose because many false doctrines in the world changed the lives of millions of people though they are wrong.

Again completely arbitrary and even goes against Muslim interpretation of what a resurrection is.

29) Jesus only rose, but was not resurrected because the Greek word for "resurrection" is anastasis according to Jesus in John 11:25"I am the resurrection (anastasis)" and the Greek verb is anastemi according to Jesus in Mark 12:25"When the dead rise (anastemi)." However, in reality Jesus rose (egerio) as Lazarus when he rose (egerio) according to John 12:1. Therefore, Jesus was not resurrected.

Again, according to N. T. Wright’s study, both terms, when used concerning rising from the dead, always meant a bodily rising.

ARGUMENTS:

39) Your saying "The disciples were preaching that they had experiences of the risen Christ" is true but not of the resurrected Jesus because Jesus was proving he was not immortal ; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected as follows;

Are you now saying that they didn’t have experiences that they believed was the resurrected Jesus.?

57) The 1986 Mayo Clinic study of Jesus on the cross was outdated by Dr. Trevor Davies, former personal physician of the Queen of England, and his wife, Margaret, a theological scholar, co-authored an article in 1991 titled "Resurrection or resuscitation?" published in the Journal of the Royal College of Physician of London in which they proved Jesus did not die at all medically. According to Daveis, "At his crucifixion, Jesus was in shock, hypotensive, lost consciousness due to diminished supply of blood to the brain."

This is yet another use of special pleading. What Ahmed fails to admit, is that Mr Davies articles was refuted in that same year please see "Letters to the Editor," Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 25 (July 1991): 268-72. where the medical community to which Mr Davies belongs was widely criticized. In other words, Mr Davies’ stance is not accepted view in the medical profession.

For a further refutation see An Examination of the Medical Evidence for the Physical Death of Christ

But what about the swoon theory?

• This theory originated around 1828 and was put to rest by skeptic D.F. Strauss in 1879.
• It fails to take seriously the wounds of Jesus received during flogging and crucifixion.
• The soldiers that were there verified that He was dead.
• In 1986 the Journal of the American Medical Association did a study on the crucifixion, they concluded that the victims died by asphyxiation. They write, “Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge”
• The spear wound in the side with the resultant blood and water pouring out was most likely the pericardium surrounding the heart.
• Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who wrapped Jesus would have noticed if Jesus was still alive. It is probable that they too would have checked to see if He was dead to avoid suffocating Jesus.
• Jesus, barely alive, somehow unravels the grave clothes, move the stone, escape the guards, and proclaim to the disciples “I have risen” is entirely improbable.
• The appearance to Paul is a “glorious” appearance; a half dead Jesus is hardly “glorious”.
• A half dead Jesus wouldn’t have convinced his followers of his resurrection. Alive? Barely. Risen? Hardly. A half dead Jesus would have had the opposite effect!
• All ancient sources attest to the fact that Jesus DID die on the cross.
• There is no evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross.

So what so far?
1. This was to be a debate concerning the historical evidence for the resurrection. So far, Ahmed has as yet to abide by the rules.
2. Ahmed repeatedly tries to circumvent what I have put forth by relying on logical fallacies of straw men and red herrings. Quite telling of one’s position if that is what you have to resort to.
3. The fact of Jesus’ death so far has not even been challenged historically by Ahmed. There is not one shred of E V I D E N C E that has been put forth, just Scripture twisting.
4. Ahmed agrees that apostles had experiences that they believed were the risen Lord.
5. None of Ahmed’s theories holds up under scrutiny.
6 Ahmed agrees to the empty tomb.

So far, from what I see, Ahmed isn’t really put up a case against the resurrection historically.
To me, the resurrection of Jesus, is still the best explanation for the facts. It explains all of them without resorting to logical fallacies, and piling up refuted theory upon refuted theory.

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

Dear my brother,
1- If using non-Christian scholars, who believed Jesus died, proves Jesus died then quoting Christians, who believed Jesus did not die, proves strongly Jesus did not die because, for example, "Cerinthus, a contemporary of Peter, Paul and John, also denied the resurrection of Jesus" according to (The Nazarenes, John Toland, p 18.), There are testimonies of Christians refuting the crucifixion and the resurrection as follows;

1. If Jesus did not die upon the cross? A Study in Evidence – by Judge E.B. Docker
2. Dug Jesus pa korset? (Did Jesus Die on the Cross?) by Physician by Hugo Toll, Sweden, 1928
3. 'Letter to the Smyrneans' by Bishop Ignatius (died 110 A.D)
4. Jesus did not Perish on the Cross (Jesus Nicht am Kreuz gestorben) - Kurt Berna. Zurich, Switzerland, 1975.
5. Testimony of the Shroud - Rodney Hoare, New York, USA, 1979
6. Karl Bahrdt, ca. 1780
7. Karl Venturini, ca. 1800
8. Heinrich Paulus, 1828
9. Robert Graves & Joshua Podro, 1957
10. J.D.M. Derrett, 1982
11. B. Thiering
12. Former Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev David Jenkins, 1984
13. “Resurrection or resuscitation” by Dr. Trevor Davies, former personal physician to the Queen of England, his wife, Margaret, a theological scholar, 1991
14. Jesus Conspiracy/Turin shroud and the Truth About the Resurrection by Holger/Gruber,Elmar R Kersten (Author)
15. Andreas Faber Kaisers,1977
16. “One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection” by Telegraph, 2002.
17. Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopalian (Anglican) Bishop of the Diocese of Newark, New Jersey.

2- None of the 11 independent historical sources saw Jesus rising. So there was a lack of real witnesses of the rising of Jesus.

3- None of the 11 independent historical sources that you mentioned were eyewitnesses when Jesus was on the cross.

4- Your saying the 11 independent historical sources "had their source in eyewitnesses" is an assumption till you prove to us that these eyewitnesses were present when Jesus was on the cross and these eyewitnesses were reliable. Otherwise, it is not acceptable unattended eyewitnesses or unreliable eyewitnesses. Please remember, he who claims must prove.

5- Your saying the 11 independent historical sources "had their source in eyewitnesses" still does not prove Jesus died or was resurrected because none f these witnesses quoted by your independent historical left any firsthand testimony that they had seen Jesus giving up the spirit and alive after his crucifixion.

6- Until you produce to us the firsthand testimony of these real witnesses, your independent historical sources are based on hearsay. And any case based on hearsay in any civilized court will be rejected.

7- You quoting "the term resurrection “anastasis” always meant a physical resurrection in pagan, Jewish and Christian cultures" is true but Jesus was not risen in the sense of “anastasis”, but "egerio" like Lazarus who rose (egerio) but still was not resurrected.

8- You quoting different verses from the Bible to prove that spiritual body is not spirit is fine except that we need to understand what "spiritual body" means in the context of 1 Corinthians 15)

9- You saying " All the time talking about the same body" is wrong because had Paul been talking about the same bodies, Paul would said " It is sown a natural body and it is raised NATURAL BODY" instead of saying "It is sown a natural body and it is raised spiritual body " in 1 Corinthians 15:44. After Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a physical body and it is raised a spiritual body", Paul went on to say "the last Adam (Jesus) was a life-giving spirit" after he rose proving that the term "spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44 means spirit according to 1 Corinthians 15:45 because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" according to 15:50.

10- You saying "Luke never defines Jesus being alive after crucifixion" is wrong because Luke wrote in Acts 1:3 that "after he had SUFFERED he showed himself to these men and present many convincing proofs that he was ALIVE." Jesus suffered according to Luke not died in Act 1:3 as a result Luke wrote in 2:31 that "his body did not decay in the grave" proving he did not die because it is only the living body that does not decay for three days time.

11- Your saying "You forget John who also was at the crucifixion" is an assumption because nowhere where the name "John" was stated when Jesus was on the cross. Had been "the beloved disciple" been John, John name was mentioned repeatedly in the book of Revelation (Revelation 1:1 and 22:8). Also, all the disciples, who fled and forsook Jesus at his arrest according to Mark 14:50 cannot be beloved.

12- You saying "It is unanimously stated that He died" does not prove Jesus died because those who said Jesus died were not eyewitnesses. All their knowledge of the event was from hearsay from what their heart from people whom we do not whether these people were reliable or not because they are unknown.

13- But what it does show is that they weren’t liars? Yes because they based their sources of the event on hearsay as they were not real eyewitnesses. Also, after Jesus appeared to them and "their eyes were opened" in Luke 24:45then "they bowed to him" in Luke 24:52and Matthew 28:17,"but some doubted" Matthew 28:17.

14- You saying "both terms, when used concerning rising from the dead, always meant a bodily rising" is true and you must realize that Greek word for "resurrection" is anastasis according to Jesus in John 11:25"I am the resurrection (anastasis)" and the Greek verb is anastemi according to Jesus in Mark 12:25"When the dead rise (anastemi)." However, in reality Jesus rose (egerio) as Lazarus when he rose (egerio) according to John 12:1. Therefore, Jesus was not resurrected.

15- You asking "Are you now saying that they didn’t have experiences that they believed was the resurrected Jesus?" They had experiences of the survived Jesus, but after Jesus proved he was not resurrected, some doubted. After Jesus appeared to them and "their eyes were opened" in Luke 24:45then "they bowed to him" in Luke 24:52and Matthew 28:17,"but some doubted" Matthew 28:17. 14- Your saying " What Ahmed fails to admit, is that Mr. Davies articles was refuted" is wrong because I was never asked whether the study was refuted or not.

16- The refutation was based on the false interpretations of the word "pierce" that has been refuted in points 19-23. Also the study was not refuted fully because only Davies interpretation of the word "pierce" and the hallucination theory were refuted. However, the medical conclusion that Jesus was not refuted as Davies "At his crucifixion, Jesus was in shock, hypotensive, lost consciousness due to diminished supply of blood to the brain."

17- You saying " It fails to take seriously the wounds of Jesus received during flogging and crucifixion" can be true. However, the scourging that Jesus received was not killing because after Jesus was severely flogged and scourged, Jesus was able to carry the cross according to John 19:17 "Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha)."

18- You saying " The soldiers that were there verified that He was dead" is an assumption not supported because the Greek text of Mark 15:45I is "when he knew of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph", therefore, we do not know from Mark 15:45 whether the Jesus body was ALIVE till the doctor Luke in Acts 2:31 says "his body did not decay in the grave" proving Jesus body was laid alive in the tomb because it is only the living body that does not decay for three days period because buried.

19- The 1986 Mayo Clinic study of Jesus on the cross was outdated by Dr. Trevor Davies, former personal physician of the Queen of England, and his wife, Margaret, a theological scholar, co-authored an article in 1991 titled "Resurrection or resuscitation?" published in the Journal of the Royal College of Physician of London in which they proved Jesus did not die at all medically. According to Daveis, "At his crucifixion, Jesus was in shock, hypotensive, lost consciousness due to diminished supply of blood to the brain."

20- You saying "The spear wound in the side with the resultant blood and water pouring out was most likely the pericardium surrounding the heart" is an assumption as can be seen from your usage of the word "likely."

21) Had the word "pierce" meant penetration, the text would have used "pierced through" as Luke 2:35uses the phrase "pierce through."

22) The Greek word used in John 19:37("They shall look on him whom they have pierced") is ekkenteo, which means only prick out according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Therefore, when Jesus was pierced, Jesus was pricked out.

23) The piercing of Jesus was not penetrating because Jesus was pricked according to John 19:34"One of the soldiers pricked his side." The pierce was not killing proving that there was blood pressure in order to make the blood and the water flow.

24) Your saying "his heart was pierced" is wrong because Jesus ,who stood after he rose, showing his pricked side to the disciples proves the spear did not penetrate through Jesus side because a pierced side, which CAN BE SHOWN, was not neither penetrated nor a heart, but pricked according to John 20:20"he showed them his side and hands."

25) You saying " Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who wrapped Jesus would have noticed if Jesus was still alive. It is probable that they too would have checked to see if He was dead to avoid suffocating Jesus" is wrong because had the wrapping of Jesus body been killing, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus would not have done the wrapping. Since "his body did not decay in the grave" according to Acts 2:31,then the wrapping was not killing at all because Jesus was alive as his body in the tomb was "SOMA" which is according to the Gospel of Luke means living body in Luke 23:55.

26) Jesus body was not washed before it was wrapped with spices inside proving Jesus did not die because according to the Jewish Burial Customs, the dead body has to be first washed then wrapped even if the Sabbath was close or the body belonged to an evil person. Had the body of Jesus been washed, such an important piece of information would have been stated clearly as the quantity of the spices was mentioned in John 19:39.

27) You saying "Jesus, barely alive, somehow unravels the grave clothes, move the stone, escape the guards, and proclaim to the disciples “I have risen” is entirely improbable" can be seen false once you realize that:

1) Jesus did not unfold his gravecloth as women said "they have taken the lord" in John 20:2 which proves Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken proves that he was still mortal.

2) Jesus did not move the stone, it was the angel that moved the stone according to Matthew 28:2 which proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to 1 Corinthians 15:43.

3) The guards came ONE DAY after Jesus was laid according to Matthew 27 plus the guards did not check if Jesus was in or not.

4) The Greek word for "resurrection" is anastasis according to Jesus in John 11:25"I am the resurrection (anastasis)" and the Greek verb is anastemi according to Jesus in Mark 12:25"When the dead rise (anastemi)." However, in reality Jesus rose (egerio) as Lazarus when he rose (egerio) according to John 12:1. Therefore, Jesus was not resurrected.

28) You saying "A half dead Jesus wouldn’t have convinced his followers of his resurrection. Alive? Barely. Risen? Hardly. A half dead Jesus would have had the opposite effect!" is refuted by Jesus words "For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:30 proving Jesus was not equal unto angels; therefore, Jesus was did not die nor was resurrected because the resurrected will be equal unto angels according to Jesus in Luke 20:36 "Neither they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels."

29) "All ancient sources attest to the fact that Jesus DID die on the cross" , but none of the authors of these ancient sources was an eyewitness to the event or from real eyewitnesses as these eyewitness did not leave their first hand testimonies ; therefore, their knowledge of the event was based upon a hearsay. And a case based on hearsay presented in any civil court will be thrown right away because of the lack of eyewitnesses or first hand testimonies.

30) Your saying " There is no evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross" is a claim refuted Jesus words after he rose when he said ""For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:30 proving Jesus was not equal unto angels ; therefore, Jesus was did not die nor was resurrected because the resurrected will be equal unto angels according to Jesus in Luke 20:36 "Neither they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels."

31) Your saying "This was to be a debate concerning the historical evidence for the resurrection" is refuted by you quoting the 4 gospels as evidence of the death of Jesus as you wrote in your last post October 22,2007 " We have 11 independent sources. (4 Gospels, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Seripon, Thallus and the Talmud) which proves you are using biblical evidence to prove Jesus died at the same time you want me to write only historical evidences. Still, the authors of the Gospels were not eye-witnesses.

32) You saying "The fact of Jesus’ death so far has not even been challenged historically by Ahmed" is not true that has been already refuted in previous post on as I wrote "None of the 11 independent sources you mentioned were real eye-witnesses. Even the disciples were not eye-witnesses because not a single name of the disciples including Peter who followed Jesus after the flee were not present when Jesus was on the cross. Had they been present, the names of the disciples would have been mentioned as the names of the women were mentioned in names since they were present when Jesus was on the cross. Therefore, the disciples preaching Jesus was resurrected was based on hearsay. And any case based on a hearsay presented in any civilized court will be thrown into the face of the affirmative." (October 8th,2007) You are basing your case on a hearsay what people heard from others, whom we do not know if they were present and if they were reliable.

33) You saying "Ahmed agrees that apostles had experiences that they believed were the risen Lord" is true but not of the resurrected because every action of Jesus proves Jesus was not immortal; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected. Jesus was risen like manyothers who rose like the duahgter pf Jairus.

34) If using non-Christian scholars, who believe in the empty tomb, proves the historicity of the empty tomb, then using the Christian scholars (Crossan and Fuller), who do not believe in the empty, disproves the empty tomb because many New Testament scholars such as Borg, Crossan, Fuller, Küng, Marxsen do not believe the empty tomb story historical.

35) Your saying "Ahmed agrees to the empty tomb" is true. However, the empty tomb does not prove Jesus was resurrected since none saw Jesus rising. All it proves Jesus was out.

36) You saying "I do not have to say “dead body” every time" is true ; however, Luke the physician never said even once Jesus body was dead or "PTOMA" because Luke, who was a physician and also Greek, specifically used the word "SOMA" a Greek word means "living body" according to Luke to describe the body of Jesus when laid in the tomb in Luke 23:55"his body (SOMA) was laid in the tomb." Also, after he rose Jesus said "It was necessary for the Messiah to SUFFER" (not die) in Luke 24:46.

37) You saying "it ends 72 hours after death and the body goes limp again" is not true because had rigors taken place, Jesus body would have decayed because 'Rigor mortis (the stiffening of muscles) and livor mortis (pooling of blood) take place within 12 hours of death' According to Jamie Downs, Chief Medical Examiner of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences. However, Acts 2:31 says "his body did not decay in the grave." New Living Translation.

38) You saying "If it’s an objective vision, then there was still a resurrection since objective visions have reality outside the mind" is refuted by Paul's belief that Jesus, who was resurrected, was a spirit according to 1 Corinthians 15:45 "This is what Scripture says: "The first man, Adam, became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit" because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" according to 1 Corinthians 15:50. However, Jesus was not practically spirit according to Jesus words after he rose "For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:39.

39) You saying "Again completely arbitrary and even goes against Muslim interpretation of what a resurrection is" is an assumption that I ask you to prove to us what Muslims interpretation of resurrection. You claim prove it.

Conclusion:
40) Most of your evidences are either biblical or historical. Your historical evidences are based on the writings of unreal witnesses or other people that we do not who they were, we do not have first hand testimonies of what they have seen, and we do not know how reliable they are. If they based their conclusion on people, please prove to us that they used real and reliable eyewitnesses.

41) Your saying 2007 " We have 11 independent sources. (4 Gospels, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Seripon, Thallus and the Talmud)" proves that you were using biblical evidences.

42) Your saying "There ARE ways to tell if someone is dead without a medical doctor present" can be true if he can provide us a name of any forensic pathologist that supports the belief death can be determined without examining the body. The problem is that without examining the body of Jesus, it was concluded that Jesus had to be dead.

Recommendation:

43) Please never ask me to use historical evidences while you are using biblical s you wrote in your last post October 22, 2007 "We have 11 independent sources. (4 Gospels, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Seripon, Thallus and the Talmud)"
Prove to us the independent sources you have mentioned were eyewitnesses and the people who the independent sources relied on were real and reliable eyewitnesses and left first testimonies.

THE SHROUD OF TURIN

“The imprint on the piece of cloth universally known as the Shroud of Turin is truly the face of Jesus of Nazareth! This is the conclusion of Maria Grazia Siliato, a Swiss archaeologist and expert on the Shroud, who granted us an exclusive interview.”

WAS THE MAN OF THE SHROUD DEAD OR WAS HE IN A STATE OF COMA?

This question seems at first like impertinence. However, the voices of those increase, who state that observations on the cloth speak for the assumption that the man must still have lived under the shroud.

The late Prof. Bonte, who has been at that time the head of the department for forensic science at the university of Dusseldorf and president of the world federation of forensic science (obituary), wrote in his expert opinion: " ... in my view everything speaks for the fact that the blood circulation activity had not ceased yet [the man must still have lived.]... I clearly negate the question, whether findings on the shroud indicate that rigor mortis had started. " *)

Rodney Hoare at that time president of the British shroud society visited a forensic-medical institute to find out the cause of death. He had 2 enlargements of the shroud under his arm. To his astonishment he got - after a long discussion among the experts - likewise the answer that all indications speak for the fact that the man must still have been alive under the cloth. **)

If a dead body is assumed, there is no natural explanation of the formation of the image. But there is one, if a living person with a warm body is assumed.

The shroud of Turin is for some a kind of proof for the supernatural resurrection of Jesus of Christ and for others a kind of proof that Jesus of Nazareth has survived the crucifixion naturally. This seems to be the real explosiveness of this remarkable historical object.”

[Bible Defender]

Dear Ahmed,
It seems clear that you have no idea what constitutes historical evidence and what doesn’t.
Here is what I mean.

I have named a bunch of sources that state Jesus died. It is because of these, that the death of Jesus is taken universally by scholars that it is a fact – Jesus died.

These sources are in the right place and the right time to know if what they were reporting was factual or not. Many of these sources were hostile to Christianity and therefore weren’t biased. What ancient sources did you quote to back up you twisted scripture passages and Greek understanding?

And your listing of “Christian” that refute the crucifixion and resurrection is laughable. You can’t be a Christian and NOT believe in the resurrection. Is someone who doesn’t believe that Muhammad was Allah’s prophet a real Muslim?

You seem to have a problem with me listing the gospels as part of my sources. That’s cool, we’ll take them off of the table and you do the same since you don’t believe that they are reliable. That still leaves me with at least 7 sources that stated he died. All early, all in the right place to know what the facts are.

Also, this was to be a debate on the historical evidence, not one interpretation against another. You agreed to the rules of the debate. But ever since it started, you tried and continue to change the topic of the debate. Sorry, but not going for it. If you want to be intellectually dishonest, that’s on you.

Also, you state that none of these were eyewitnesses. However, anyone who has any kind of background in historiography will tell you that you don’t need to be an eyewitness to be accurate. The same in police work. For example, say there was an accident. I arrive on scene and interview witnesses. I put it in a report, and hand it to my superior who then hands it over to the judge advocate. Now, is my report inaccurate because I was not an eyewitness? Nope. The same here. Ancient historians did likewise. If you think that they were not accurate, then you have to supply E V I D E N C E that they weren’t. (i.e. other ancient evidence that is as good or better than mine)

You claim that my sources were unreliable. Really? Please name one Tacitean scholar what thinks Tacitus was unreliable, how about Paul?

As far as hearsay, you being a lawyer should know that there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. But, this is not a legal trial.

But lets stick with Paul for a second. He is considered the best witness concerning this issue as far as scholars are concerned.

Here is what he said. “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.” 1 Cor 15:3-7

Paul wrote before any of the Gospels were written. Notice that he said that he received what he was passing along. Namely the gospel, that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again from the dead. Since he received this creed, this material predates Paul!

But where did he get this creed? He himself states that he got this from the apostles. In fact just a few verses later, he states that what he was preaching (death burial and risen Jesus) was the same message that the apostles were preaching.

In fact, Paul states, that in Galatians 1 after preaching his message, he went to Jerusalem to see that apostles. The word he uses to see the apostles means to gain a historical account. Then after 14 years later he visits them again to see if his preaching was the same as theirs. To which he concludes that they added nothing to him. They agreed to what he was saying. So here we have first hand testimony as to what he was preaching and what the apostles were preaching.

Now you seem to be stuck on something. You claim over and over again that the gospels say that he was alive. But here we have Paul, who predates the gospels, clearly stating that the apostles preached the same thing he did, that Jesus died.

So far, you don’t have a case, historically. But lets go further. What about those whom the apostles taught? Well the apostolic fathers, don’t seem to agree with you either. They also state that Jesus died.

But what about the eyewitness to the rising of Jesus? You claim that one needs to see Jesus rising out of the tomb etc. But I don’t think you do. Here is why.

It is universally accepted that Jesus died. The apostles believed this. Ok, you got a dead Jesus, in a tomb. Then three days later, he appears to his disciples, enemies, and other skeptics. It is common sense that would tell you that he rose from the dead, that is what resurrection means.

If I saw my friend die, knew that he died, saw him buried, then I met him at the mall a couple of days later. That is what I would conclude. I wouldn’t need to see him get out of the coffin.

You keep saying that the apostles were not witnesses. But I think they were. The disciple whom Jesus loved is an eyewitness. But you fail to say that there is no indication that the others weren’t there! So, all you have is an argument from silence.

By the way how would one know if someone was already dead on a cross? Simple. You have to push up on your heels to breath, you can’t breath in the downward position. So, if you see someone not pushing up for even twenty minutes, he is dead, since he cannot last that long without air. And the stab wound to the side would seal the deal. But wait. Execution is the reason why you are on the cross in the first place. Any good soldier, especially then would make sure that he did his job. Even after coming down from the cross, all one would have to do is flick the eyes. If the person was still alive, the flick of the eyes creates an involuntary reflex, even in a coma. Marines use it today. Or even better, just listen for the sucking chest wound created by the spear. It is all too easy to see if someone was dead.

If you are saying that the just pricked his side. What is the use in that? Ok lets say for the sake of argument you are right- you’re not but lets say it. The only reason why I could see that someone would only “prick” one’s side is to see if you are still alive. Now you say that he had blood pressure. Then they would have just left there or broken his legs. Bottom line, being Roman soldiers and not Jews constrained by any law of theirs, they would have ensured he was dead.

As for medical opinion, it should be noted that the medical community is virtually unanimous that Jesus would have died from his wounds suffered at the scourging and crucifixion.

“Jesus did not unfold his gravecloth as women said "they have taken the lord" in John 20:2which proves Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken proves that he was still mortal.”

Ah now you say he was taken. So now we have this. Swoon theory, coupled with theft theory (is that what you are saying?), coupled with vision theory. Any more theories you’d like to pile on?

You claim that I used the gospels. Where did I do so? I only mentioned them because the death of Jesus is recorded there. I didn’t use them as inspired scripture, nor did I even quote them directly. The only thing I quoted from is Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and Galatians. Like I said, I don’t even need the gospels and will gladly take them off of the table. YOU are the one that first start to quote them.

So far though this is all we have from you. Nothing more than YOUR interpretation of what the bible says.
I say different. So who is right. There is an easy was to answer this. Where does the evidence point. So far, it is the unanimous testimony of history that Jesus died.
Paul, the best witness historically, clearly states that what he and the apostles taught was that Jesus died.
The apostolic fathers taught that Jesus died, they got their teaching from the apostles.
Jesus’ enemies admitted that Jesus died.
The enemies of Christianity admitted that Jesus died.
Other ancient historians testified that Jesus died.
It is universally accepted by critical scholars today, because of these evidences that Jesus died.

But YOU say that Jesus only swooned. Where do you get the evidence for that. Jesus swooned? Before you say the gospels, all you have so far is twisted scripture and what YOU think certain Greek words mean. ANYTHING to back YOUR interpretation up?

Another thing, you keep saying that my evidences is not good enough. But according to historical methodology it is. But what evidence have you given for your theories, hmmm? Any kind of evidence that Jesus didn’t die, or that Paul only saw a vision? Nope. All you rely on is scripture twisting. Not only that but I have refuted those theories. It is those refutations that are the reason why those theories are not in favor with critical scholars today.

So I don’ t think you did a real good job so far with Jesus’ death.
And what I have put forth so far is still the best explanation for the accepted facts. Only the resurrection takes into account the fact that Jesus died and was buried, that the disciples had experiences what they believed was the resurrected Christ, that Paul, an enemy of Christianity, suddenly converted, James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly changed, and the empty tomb.

Your swoon theory fails because it doesn’t take into account Paul’s conversion. Indeed, it confuses it. If Jesus only swooned, then you wouldn’t even need a vision theory which you said he had. Why? All Jesus would have to do is show himself (barely alive, bleeding, hungry, weak, limping, beaten up, organs showing, etc) to Paul. But I have a hard time believing that Paul would have been convinced, since he believed that Jesus was a blasphemer, and that wouldn’t convince James either, who was skeptical of Jesus before the crucifixion. He probably would have stuck to “see, my brother is nuts” thing.
If Paul had a vision, then what happened at the tomb? If Jesus was alive because of the swoon theory, then there is no way that Paul could have had a vision of the spiritual Jesus, since his spirit would still be in Jesus!
If Paul had a vision of the spiritual Jesus, then Jesus was dead. However, if dead, how do you account for the empty tomb?!

That is why your reasoning is ad hoc according to historical reasoning.
The resurrection takes into account all of them, without posing one improbable theory upon another.
The principle is called by historians, argument to the best explanation. In short, the theory that best explains the accepted facts without having to pile on theory upon theory is the best explanation and is the one that probably happened.

So, until you can come up with some sort of evidence that is equal to or better than mine, then I still think I have made my case.

All you have so far is straw men and red herrings.

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

- You saying "I have named a bunch of sources that state Jesus died" is true; however, these 11 independent sources you had quoted are hearsay because none was an eyewitness to the event.
- All writings including your 11 independent sources about Jesus "death" were written after the alleged crucifixion from either unknown authors as the case is with the Gospels or people who had never met an earthly Jesus as the case is with Paul, Mark and Luke.
- Also, the death accounts by the disciples cannot serve as a reliable evidence because the disciples were not eyewitnesses when Jesus was on the cross because Mark 14:50 says "All of them fled and forsook him" at his arrest and continued to fail to present themselves when Jesus was on the cross as not a single name of the twelve disciples is mentioned when Jesus was on the cross at the same time the names of the women were given to us. Had the disciples been present, they would have mentioned their names as they did mention the names of the women. Besides, Luke and Mark were not eyewitnesses at all, none saw Jesus rising.
- You saying "the death of Jesus is taken universally by scholars that it is a fact – Jesus died" is wrong because a universal fact is a fact that is not disputed by average persons such the sun risen from the east. However, the alleged death of Jesus has been disputed by people since the time of Jesus. For example, "Cerinthus, a contemporary of Peter, Paul and John, also denied the resurrection of Jesus" according to (The Nazarenes, John Toland, p 18.) There are testimonies of Christians refuting the crucifixion and the resurrection as follows;

1. If Jesus did not die upon the cross? A Study in Evidence – by Judge E.B. Docker
2. Dug Jesus pa korset? (Did Jesus Die on the Cross?) By Physician by Hugo Toll, Sweden, 1928
3. 'Letter to the Smyrneans' by Bishop Ignatius (died 110 A.D)
4. Jesus did not Perish on the Cross (Jesus Nicht am Kreuz gestorben) - Kurt Berna. Zurich, Switzerland, 1975.
5. Testimony of the Shroud - Rodney Hoare, New York, USA, 1979
6. Karl Bahrdt, ca. 1780
7. Karl Venturini, ca. 1800
8. Heinrich Paulus, 1828
9. Robert Graves & Joshua Podro, 1957
10. J.D.M. Derrett, 1982
11. B. Thiering
12. Former Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev David Jenkins, 1984
13. “Resurrection or resuscitation” by Dr. Trevor Davies, former personal physician to the Queen of England, his wife, Margaret, a theological scholar, 1991
14. Jesus Conspiracy/Turin shroud and the Truth About the Resurrection by Holger/Gruber,Elmar R Kersten (Author)
15. Andreas Faber Kaisers,1977
16. “One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection” by Telegraph, 2002.
17. Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopalian (Anglican) Bishop of the Diocese of Newark, New Jersey.
- You saying "These sources are in the right place and the right time" is not enough and could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical resurrection, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts because in the case of your 11 independent sources, none of the historians about the "death" was an eyewitness nor gave reliable sources to eyewitnesses; therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

- Your question "What ancient sources did you quote to back up you twisted scripture passages and Greek understanding?" is the Bible.

- You saying "You can’t be a Christian and NOT believe in the resurrection" is true according to Paul, who said "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" in 1 Corinthians 15:13 & 14. However, according to Jesus, to be Christian is to be a follower of the commands of Christ as Jesus said "If you love me keep what I commanded you" according to John 14:15.

- You saying " anyone who has any kind of background in historiography will tell you that you don’t need to be an eyewitness to be accurate" is wrong because "a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus ("death") give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay."
You saying "You claim that my sources were unreliable" is wrong because I never said so. All I asked to prove to us that the sources of the writings of the 7 independent writings outside Christianity are reliable or from eyewitnesses because "none of the historians about Jesus ("death") give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay."
- You saying "there are exceptions to the hearsay rule" is true, but to accept hearsay evidences we need reliable nonbiblical medical and police (Roman Soldiers) testimonies outside Christian saying Jesus medically "died" about Jesus "death" of the time of Jesus. However, all medical studies testifying Jesus "died" are based on the assumption that the New Testament is accurate in what they reported because there is not a single reliable nonbiblical medical and police (Roman Soldiers) testimonies outside Christian saying Jesus medically "died" about Jesus "death" of the time of Jesus.

- Even if we take the New Testament as accurate, the method Jesus "death" was concluded was not reliable because no forensic pathologist supports the belief death can be determined without examining the body. However, in the case of Jesus, without examining the body of Jesus, they have concluded that he had to have been dead.
- You saying "But lets stick with Paul for a second. He is considered the best witness" is wrong because Paul writings still do not serve as historical evidence of the resurrection because Paul was not an eyewitness when Jesus was on the cross.
- You using 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and Galatians 1 proves you are using the Bible at the same time you objected to my usage of the Bible.

Here is what he said. “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.”

- You saying "Notice that he said that he received what he was passing along. Namely the gospel, that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again from the dead" is clearly mentioned in the verse. However, Paul believed that the resurrected will be a spirit with no flesh and bone because after Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a physical body and it is raised a spiritual body", Paul went on to say "the last Adam (Jesus) was a life-giving spirit" after he rose proving that the term "spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44 means spirit according to 1 Corinthians 15:45 because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" according to 15:50.Since he received this creed, this material predates Paul! However, Jesus after he appeared from the tomb he was flesh and bone as Jesus said in Luke 24:39 "For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have." Therefore, according to Paul resurrection, Jesus was not resurrected.

- You saying "here we have first hand testimony as to what he was preaching and what the apostles were preaching" is wrong because neither Paul nor the disciples were eyewitnesses because none of them was present when Jesus was on the cross. We want the testimonies of Josephus, Nicodemus, the women, Pilate, and the Centurion because they were present when Jesus was on the cross. However, their testimonies were not given to us. Also, none saw Jesus rising from the tomb. Therefore, there were no real eye-witnesses.

- You saying "So far, you don’t have a case, historically. But lets go further. What about those whom the apostles taught? Well the apostolic fathers, don’t seem to agree with you either. They also state that Jesus died" is not enough because the disciples, who taught the apostolic fathers, were not eyewitnesses at all. Therefore, both of the disciples and their apostolic fathers were depending on hearsay because none was present when Jesus was on the cross.

- You saying "You keep saying that the apostles were not witnesses. But I think they were" proves you have no evidence except assuming the disciples were eyewitnesses as it can be seen from your usage of "think."

- You saying "The disciple whom Jesus loved is an eyewitness" is fine, but the disciples who Jesus loved was not John the disciple. Had been "the beloved disciple" been John, John name was mentioned repeatedly in the book of Revelation (Revelation 1:1and 22:8). Also, all the disciples, who fled and forsook Jesus at his arrest according to Mark 14:50cannot be beloved.

- You saying "But you fail to say that there is no indication that the others weren’t there! So, all you have is an argument from silence" is wrong because in my former post dated October 17th 2007 I wrote "Even the disciples were not eye-witnesses because not a single name of the disciples including Peter who followed Jesus after the flee were not present when Jesus was on the cross. Had they been present, the names of the disciples would have been mentioned as the names of the women were mentioned in names since they were present when Jesus was on the cross. Therefore, the disciples preaching Jesus was resurrected was based on hearsay. And any case based on a hearsay presented in any civilized court will be thrown into the face of the affirmative."

- You saying "You have to push up on your heels to breath, you can’t breath in the downward position. So, if you see someone not pushing up for even twenty minutes, he is dead, since he cannot last that long without air. And the stab wound to the side would seal the deal" is wrong for several reasons;

1- Jesus was on the cross before taken down for three hours which cannot kill a young healthy man according to Roman historians because Crucifixion, which was used to kill, was a slow lingering death. Commenting on Mark 15:44, John Gill's Exposition of the Bible states “For death, by crucifixion, was a slow lingering death; persons that were in their full strength hung a great while before they expired; and the two thieves, which were crucified with Christ, were not dead when he was.”

2- “In order to prolong the agony, Roman executioners devised two instruments that would keep the victim alive on the cross for extended periods of time. One, known as a sedile, was a small seat attached to the front of the cross, about halfway down. This device provided some support for the victim's body and may explain the phrase used by the Romans, "to sit on the cross." Both Eraneus and Justin Martyr describe the cross of Jesus as having five extremities rather than four; the fifth was probably the sedile”.

3- Medicine tells many people who revive after they stopped breathing and therefore were diagnosed dead.

- You saying " Bottom line, being Roman soldiers and not Jews constrained by any law of theirs, they would have ensured he was dead" is true, but knowing that Pilate was sympathized with Jesus and was also determined to release him, so was the Centurion sympathized with Jesus according to Luke 23:20and Luke 23:47which say "Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them" and "The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man." Therefore, the Roman soldiers were not to be worried about their lives to let Jesus go alive.
- You saying "As for medical opinion, it should be noted that the medical community is virtually unanimous that Jesus would have died from his wounds suffered at the scourging and crucifixion is wrong because many professional doctors disagreed that Jesus died such Dr. Primrose and Davies.

- You saying " Ah now you say he was taken. So now we have this. Swoon theory, coupled with theft theory" is wrong because the verse in John 20:2 says "they have taken" not "stole."

- You saying "The enemies of Christianity admitted that Jesus died" can be true but none of the authors of these ancient sources was an eyewitness to the event or from real eyewitnesses as these eyewitness did not leave their first hand testimonies ; therefore, their knowledge of the event was based upon a hearsay. And a case based on hearsay presented in any civil court will be thrown right away because of the lack of eyewitnesses or first hand testimonies.

- Your question "But what evidence have you given for your theories, hmmm? Any kind of evidence that Jesus didn’t die, or that Paul only saw a vision? " is answered by the following medical and historical evidence ;

THE SHROUD OF TURIN

“The imprint on the piece of cloth universally known as the Shroud of Turin is truly the face of Jesus of Nazareth! This is the conclusion of Maria Grazia Siliato, a Swiss archaeologist and expert on the Shroud, who granted us an exclusive interview.”

WAS THE MAN OF THE SHROUD DEAD OR WAS HE IN A STATE OF COMA?

This question seems at first like impertinence. However, the voices of those increase, who state that observations on the cloth speak for the assumption that the man must still have lived under the shroud.

The late Prof. Bonte, who has been at that time the head of the department for forensic science at the university of Dusseldorf and president of the world federation of forensic science (obituary), wrote in his expert opinion: " ... in my view everything speaks for the fact that the blood circulation activity had not ceased yet [the man must still have lived.]... I clearly negate the question, whether findings on the shroud indicate that rigor mortis had started. " *)

Rodney Hoare at that time president of the British shroud society visited a forensic-medical institute to find out the cause of death. He had 2 enlargements of the shroud under his arm. To his astonishment he got - after a long discussion among the experts - likewise the answer that all indications speak for the fact that the man must still have been alive under the cloth. **)

If a dead body is assumed, there is no natural explanation of the formation of the image. But there is one, if a living person with a warm body is assumed.

The shroud of Turin is for some a kind of proof for the supernatural resurrection of Jesus of Christ and for others a kind of proof that Jesus of Nazareth has survived the crucifixion naturally. This seems to be the real explosiveness of this remarkable historical object.”

- You saying "the disciples had experiences what they believed was the resurrected Christ" is true, but preaching what a group of people believes does not make its preached doctrine true.
- You saying "Paul, an enemy of Christianity, suddenly converted" is true but as I have proven above Paul's resurrection was immaterial creature. Therefore, Paul said Jesus was "a life giving spirit" according to 1 Corinthians 15:45.

- You saying "James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly changed, and the empty tomb" does not prove Jesus was resurrected because changed because of a belief does not make the belief true.
- The empty tomb all only conveys Jesus was not in any longer then you have to assume that Jesus was resurrected. That's assumption.

CONCLUSION

- You have failed to respond to the evidence of the Shourd of Turin which proves Jesus was not dead
- You were all times relying on hearsay
- You have failed to quote medical study outside the Christian writings not based on the Bible that Jesus died.
- You have failed to stick to the rules you have place by quoting 1 Corinthians 15.
- You failed to prove to us the independent sources you have mentioned were eyewitnesses and the people who the independent sources relied on were real and reliable eyewitnesses and left first testimonies.

[Bible Defender]

Dear Ahmed,

As for ancient historians and not being eyewitnesses is ludicrous. You don’t necessarily have to be an eyewitness in order to be accurate in your reporting. Again just ask any Tacitean scholar if they thing Tacitus is inaccurate or unreliable. You being a lawyer know this. So I think you are being a little intellectually dishonest on that one. If you don’t, then I don’t want you defending me.

As for the disciples not being eyewitnesses, you again are twisting Scripture. Scripture states that they fled when Jesus was arrested. It doesn’t say that they didn’t witness the death of Jesus. John’s Gospel for example states that he was an eyewitness. Even if they weren’t there, they did have eyewitnesses that would have told them, both friend and foe of Jesus were there.

The death of Jesus is taken universally as fact by critical scholars that have studied the subject.

As for your “Christian” scholars, not one of them is a historian. Oh, and by the way, Ignatius DID believe that Jesus died was resurrected. “Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord…”

“That death [of Jesus], though some deny it, is the very mystery which has moved us to become believers, and endure tribulation to prove ourselves pupils of Jesus Christ, our sole teacher. In view of this, how can it be possible for us to give him no place in our lives…”

So, all you are doing is regurgitating what you said earlier.

And Cerinthius did believe that Jesus died, even though he was a Gnostic.

As for being in the right place at the right time not being good enough, it is for historians, sorry.

You saying " anyone who has any kind of background in historiography will tell you that you don’t need to be an eyewitness to be accurate" is wrong because "a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus ("death") give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

Duh, and who do you think were the sources for Josephus, Paul, Tacitus, etc?

You saying "But lets stick with Paul for a second. He is considered the best witness" is wrong because Paul writings still do not serve as historical evidence of the resurrection because Paul was not an eyewitness when Jesus was on the cross

.

This is incorrect. First, prove that he wasn’t present. Second, even if not present, his teacher Gamaliel was a member of the Sanhedrin, of which was at the crucifixion. Third, he is at the right place at the right time to interview witnesses as to the facts of the case. Indeed, when he went to see Peter and the disciples in his letter to the Galatians, he uses the word that means to gain a historical account. So, either way you want it, if not present, he had at his disposal those who were, and that according to the methods of historical research is good enough. That is why he is taken as the best witness regarding this issue historically by virtually all critical scholars.

As far as you and I using the Bible. I am only using it for historical reasons. I even took the Gospels as documentary witness off of the table, something you refused to do I notice. All you are doing is rehashing a debate you had with another opponent under another topic. You are not using historical arguments at all, but polemic ones based upon YOUR INTERPRETATION. Not only that, but you continue to commit special pleading. You (as Muslim) claim that the NT is not reliable, then you turn around and use those same documents to prove your case. Let me ask you, do you accept the NT as reliable or not? If not, then why even bother using them at all? Hmmm?

As for Paul teaching a spiritual versus spiritual resurrection, I already answered this with no refutation from you. All you keep doing is vomiting the same arguments back up.

You saying "here we have first hand testimony as to what he was preaching and what the apostles were preaching" is wrong because neither Paul nor the disciples were eyewitnesses because none of them was present when Jesus was on the cross. We want the testimonies of Josephus, Nicodemus, the women, Pilate, and the Centurion because they were present when Jesus was on the cross. However, their testimonies were not given to us. Also, none saw Jesus rising from the tomb. Therefore, there were no real eye-witnesses.

Well, you don’t have it. But it is recorded. Josephus was there? Josephus testifies that he was dead! We do have the report from the women. But you won’t accept that because according to you, the reports are unreliable because they are recorded in the Gospels, you know, the ones you use to make your argument. Pilate wasn’t there. How do you know the disciples weren’t there, point to where it says they weren’t? Paul could have very well been there, his teacher was member of the Sanhedrin, and they were there. Also, notice that even the opponents of Christ did not deny the death of Jesus, but report that the body was stolen. Sooooo, what historical E V I D E N C E do YOU have that state that Jesus didn’t die?

The disciple whom Jesus loved is indeed an eyewitness. If not John, (again scholars are against ya on this one,) then he was an eyewitness to the crucifixion and death. A good source for info don’t ya think? Even you accept that he was an eyewitness.

The apostolic fathers and eyewitness. The apostles claim that they were eyewitness (Acts 2, John 20:24, Acts 2:32, 3:15, 4:20, 5:32, 10:39, 1Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-2). What this shows is that the apostles taught that Jesus died and the apostolic fathers passed on that message. But it also does something further, you keep claiming that the gospels do not teach that Jesus died. But according to the apostolic fathers they did teach it. Again, the historical evidence is against you.

Also you need to look up argument from silence. You keep saying that they weren’t there. I keep asking where it states that.

Your question "What ancient sources did you quote to back up you twisted scripture passages and Greek understanding?" is the Bible

So you admit that you haven’t done any kind of research as to what a word means in ancient literature or even phrases. It shows. Or what the author meant by reading what his or her contemporaries that were engaged with them in debating.

You saying " Bottom line, being Roman soldiers and not Jews constrained by any law of theirs, they would have ensured he was dead" is true, but knowing that Pilate was sympathized with Jesus and was also determined to release him, so was the Centurion sympathized with Jesus according to Luke 23:20and Luke 23:47which say "Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them" and "The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man." Therefore, the Roman soldiers were not to be worried about their lives to let Jesus go alive.

Again pure speculation. Please provide E V I D E N C E. So far, the historical testimony both friend and foe alike all acknowledge that Jesus died.

So all we are left with so far from you is the swoon theory, coupled with vision theory, coupled with the theft theory. Oh by the way, if you take something that you are not supposed to, that is called stealing.

So you admit that the enemies of Christianity did indeed admit that Jesus died. Yet they WERE witnesses to the crucifixion! The first to oppose Jesus and the disciples came from the first century, and were present.

Now we get to the Shroud of Turin. First, prove it is Jesus. Second, it is greatly debated that it is even authentic. Let alone the image of Jesus. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

So, if that is the extent of your historical evidence, my first century witnesses far outweigh that by a mile.

So lets get to your theories. First the swoon theory. Well, so far it is refuted by the historical evidence like:

This theory originated around 1828 and was put to rest by skeptic D.F. Strauss in 1879.

It fails to take seriously the wounds of Jesus received during flogging and crucifixion.

The soldiers that were there verified that He was dead.

The spear wound in the side with the resultant blood and water pouring out was most likely the pericardium surrounding the heart.

Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who wrapped Jesus would have noticed if Jesus was still alive. It is probable that they too would have checked to see if He was dead to avoid suffocating Jesus.

Jesus, barely alive, somehow unravels the grave clothes, move the stone, escape the guards, and proclaim to the disciples “I have risen” is entirely improbable.

The appearance to Paul is a “glorious” appearance; a half dead Jesus is hardly “glorious”.
A half dead Jesus wouldn’t have convinced his followers of his resurrection. Alive? Barely. Risen? Hardly. A half dead Jesus would have had the opposite effect!

All ancient sources attest to the fact that Jesus DID die on the cross.

There is no evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross.

It also fails to take into account Paul’s conversion and James’.

It contradicts your other theory of visions. If Jesus only swooned and then appeared, why do you need the vision theory in the first place? And it also doesn’t take into account James’ conversion.

As for your vision theory, it falls flat for the following reasons. One, it fails to take into account the empty tomb. The Gospels, whom you claim is unreliable and yet use them, is unanimous that Jesus’ appearance was physical.

So these don’t even hold up on their own. But not only that it is ad hoc reasoning. The theory that Jesus was indeed resurrected fits all of the facts without piling one improbability upon another. As far as historicity goes, I have the better theory as to what probably happened.

You saying "Paul, an enemy of Christianity, suddenly converted" is true but as I have proven above Paul's resurrection was immaterial creature. Therefore, Paul said Jesus was "a life giving spirit" according to 1 Corinthians 15:45.

Already refuted.

As for the disciples’, Paul and James’ conversions, what you say is true. Just because the suddenly believed it doesn’t automatically mean it is true. But my question is, and I have asked this repeatedly, what accounts for their belief? Hmmmm?

So far, as far as I can tell, the resurrection still stands head and shoulders above what you have put forth so far.

As for the empty tomb. Yup it accounts for the fact that Jesus’ body wasn’t there. But it confounds your vision theory. It is not an assumption for a resurrection. If Jesus died, then appeared physically, that is a resurrection. It is a resurrection according to pagan, Jewish, Christian and Muslim meaning of the word. That is why Paul repeatedly states that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.


Now we get to your conclusions. Here is why they are so faulty.

You have failed to respond to the evidence of the Shourd of Turin which proves Jesus was not dead

First, there is no way to prove that it is Jesus. Second, it is hotly debated as to whether it is authentic in the first place. Third, the resounding amount of scholars, which state that it was a body in the shroud, and not a forgery, state that the body in it was dead and shows signs of initial decomposition.

You were all times relying on hearsay

I am relying on historical documents that are taken as historically accurate by virtually all critical scholars that have studied the subject.

You have failed to quote medical study outside the Christian writings not based on the Bible that Jesus died.

Blatantly false. You yourself conceded that the enemies of Jesus admitted to the death of Jesus.

You have failed to stick to the rules you have place by quoting 1 Corinthians 15.

Not at all. I never said that using the bible was against the rules. But what you are doing is placing your entire argument on YOUR interpretation of what a verse means or what a Greek word means. In essence what you are trying to do is rehash a debate “Did Jesus rise from the dead according to the Bible” You are trying to engage in a polemical and semantic debate. Not a historical debate using the methodology that historians use. Again the moderators agree with me on that one.

As further proof, I also used extra-biblical sources. And even offered to take the Gospels off of the table, just to be more accommodating and especially since muslims like yourself regard the Gospels as unreliable. But I notice you refuse to do so. Hmmm, I wonder why. But that is nothing more than special pleading on your part.

You failed to prove to us the independent sources you have mentioned were eyewitnesses and the people who the independent sources relied on were real and reliable eyewitnesses and left first testimonies.

Historical documentation does not necessarily need to be an eyewitness account. Only that their sources have to be reliable and the research done by those historians is reliable, and you know this. These sources are considered reliable again by virtually all critical scholars who have studied the subject.

Well, the way I still see Ahmed, you have as yet to provide any kind of historical evidence against the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You admit to most of them.
You even admit to eyewitnesses.
You admit to the empty tomb.
You admit to the disciples, belief in a physical experiences of Jesus after the crucifixion and burial.
You admit to the sudden conversion of skeptics and enemies of Jesus.

But what accounts for those facts? What you have given so far (swoon plus vision) fails to stand up under their own weight, and fails to take into account for the five facts I have laid out, both independently and put together

You have repeatedly resorted to special pleading. You regard the Gospels as unreliable and so deny anyone else the use of them, all the while you quote profusely from them when trying to make your case. Are they reliable or not? Can’t have it both ways.

You repeatedly resort to arguments from silence. You contend that the disciples were not witnesses at the crucifixion for example, and yet where does the Scripture state this?

You flaunt the rules of the debate continually. This is to be a debate on the historical evidence, not polemics.

You admit to not doing any kind of in-depth research into the biblical languages.

So far, I have not done any such thing. I have provided independent evidences that are considered reliable by virtually all critical scholars who have studied the subject. Likewise, those five facts are accepted by virtually all critical scholars.

And so far, the resurrection (as historians put it) is the “argument to the best explanation.”

My reasoning is historical, Ahmed not polemical.

Is this the best you have? After five rounds, I am beginning to think so.

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

Dear brother,

- You saying "You don’t necessarily have to be an eyewitness in order to be accurate in your reporting" is true which is considered a exception to the hearsay rule ,but to accept hearsay evidences we need reliable nonbiblical medical and police (Roman Soldiers) testimonies outside Christian saying Jesus medically "died" about Jesus "death" of the time of Jesus. However, all medical studies testifying Jesus "died" are based on the assumption that the New Testament is accurate in what they reported because there is not a single reliable nonbiblical medical and police (Roman Soldiers) testimonies outside Christian saying Jesus medically "died" about Jesus "death" of the time of Jesus.

- You saying "Scripture states that they fled when Jesus was arrested. It doesn’t say that they didn’t witness the death of Jesus" is true but still the disciples were not present when Jesus was on the cross the disciples were not eye-witnesses because not a single name of the disciples including Peter who followed Jesus after the flee were not present when Jesus was on the cross. Had they been present, the names of the disciples would have been mentioned as the names of the women were mentioned in names since they were present when Jesus was on the cross. Therefore, the disciples preaching Jesus was resurrected were based on hearsay. And any case based on a hearsay presented in any civilized court will be thrown into the face of the affirmative."

- You saying "John’s Gospel for example states that he was an eyewitness" is an assumption based on the assumption that the beloved disciple, who was an eye-witness, was John the apostle. But the beloved disciple was not John because John would have mentioned his name, but John did not do so. Had been "the beloved disciple" been John, John would have mentioned that the beloved disciple is John because John name was mentioned repeatedly in the book of Revelation (Revelation 1:1and 22:8). Also, all the disciples, who fled and forsook Jesus at his arrest according to Mark 14:50cannot be beloved.

- You saying "Even if they weren’t there, they did have eyewitnesses that would have told them, both friend and foe of Jesus were there" would have been true if we were told who these witnesses were, and how reliable they were before accepting their testimonies.

- You saying "The death of Jesus is taken universally as fact by critical scholars that have studied the subject" is wrong because a universal fact is a fact that is not disputed by average persons such the sun risen from the east. However, the alleged death of Jesus has been disputed by people since the time of Jesus. For example, "Cerinthus, a contemporary of Peter, Paul and John, also denied the resurrection of Jesus" according to (The Nazarenes, John Toland, p 18.)

- You saying "As for your “Christian” scholars, not one of them is a historian" is not true because one of the ones I quoted was a judge; Judge E.B. Docker, who wrote "If Jesus did not die upon the cross? A Study in Evidence."

- You saying "And Cerinthius did believe that Jesus died, even though he was a Gnostic" is an assumption based on no sources. However, "Cerinthus, a contemporary of Peter, Paul and John, also denied the resurrection of Jesus" according to (The Nazarenes, John Toland, p 18.)

- You saying "As for being in the right place at the right time not being good enough, it is for historians, sorry" is true but none of the 11 independent sources you have quoted were ALIVE when Jesus was on the cross or Jesus was buried.

- You saying "Duh, and who do you think were the sources for Josephus, Paul, Tacitus, etc?" is a question in which I asked you to provide the sources on which these 11 independent sources based their conclusions about the "death" of Jesus because none of these 11 independent sources were alive when Jesus was on the cross because "a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus ("death") give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

You saying "But lets stick with Paul for a second. He is considered the best witness" is wrong because Paul writings still do not serve as historical evidence of the resurrection because Paul was not an eyewitness when Jesus was on the cross.

- You saying "prove that he wasn’t present" is a valid demand provided by Luke, Paul's companion. Had Paul been present when Jesus was on the cross, Luke, Paul's companion, would have mentioned the name of Paul as Luke mentioned the names of the women who were present.

- You saying "Second, even if not present, his teacher Gamaliel was a member of the Sanhedrin, of which was at the crucifixion" is true because Paul says in Acts 22:3 " I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day." But Gamaliel testimony of Jesus "death" is not given. Therefore, we need the testimony of Gamaliel. If not given, your argument that Paul got the news of Jesus "Death" from Gamaliel is an argument from silience.

- You saying "Third, he is at the right place at the right time to interview witnesses as to the facts of the case" would have been true if we were told if they were really eyewitnesses, who these witnesses were, and how reliable they were before accepting their testimonies.
- You saying "do you accept the NT as reliable or not?" is answered by saying whatever matches historical evidences, I have not problem to accept.

- You saying "As for Paul teaching a spiritual versus spiritual resurrection, I already answered this with no refutation from you. All you keep doing is vomiting the same arguments back up" is false because I have refuted all your comments on the spiritual resurrection Paul was describing without any refutation from you as follows;

[

My Refutation on November 4th, 07
- You saying "Notice that he said that he received what he was passing along. Namely the gospel, that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again from the dead" is clearly mentioned in the verse. However, Paul believed that the resurrected will be a spirit with no flesh and bone because after Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:44"It is sown a physical body and it is raised a spiritual body", Paul went on to say "the last Adam (Jesus) was a life-giving spirit" after he rose proving that the term "spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44means spirit according to 1 Corinthians 15:45because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" according to 15:50.Since he received this creed, this material predates Paul! However, Jesus after he appeared from the tomb he was flesh and bone as Jesus said in Luke 24:39"For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have." Therefore, according to Paul resurrection, Jesus was not resurrected.

Please see me show me your refutation to my refutation of November 4th, 2007.
- You saying "Well, you don’t have it. But it is recorded. Josephus was there?" is false because Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account because Jesus alleged "death" was in 30 or 33 CE.

- You saying "We do have the report from the women" is true, but the women saying in John 20:2 "They have taken the Lord" proves Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken according to John 20:2 proves Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken is not a sign of the resurrection body.

- None of the women said Jesus was risen or Jesus was resurrected. To the contrary, the women testified Jesus was alive according to Luke 24:23 that Jesus was alive.
- You saying "How do you know the disciples weren’t there, point to where it says they weren’t?" is proven by the texts of the Gospels who while mentioning the names of the women in details, they never mentioned a single name of the twelve disciples.

- You saying “Also, notice that even the opponents of Christ did not deny the death of Jesus” is not enough because they were not eyewitnesses and their sources on which they based their claim of the “death” of Jesus are unknown.

- You saying “report that the body was stolen” is a lie invented by the Jews to save their face water, which was refuted by the women, who were the real witnesses, said in John 20:2 said “they have taken the Lord” proving the Jews were wrong and Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken according to John 20:2 proves Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken is not a sign of the resurrection body.

- You saying "The disciple whom Jesus loved is indeed an eyewitness" is true, but John because John would have mentioned his name as the beloved disciple.

- You saying " If not John, (again scholars are against ya on this one,) then he was an eyewitness to the crucifixion and death" is also true, but not John because according to J.Philips Vicar of the Church of the Good Shepherd, London and expert in Biblical translation proved in his book "The disciple whom Jesus loved" that John was not the beloved disciples because the beloved disciple when reached the tomb in John 20:4 believed according to John 20:8 ;however, the disciples when they were told Jesus was seen and alive, they disbelieved according to Mark 16:11.

- You saying " The apostles claim that they were eyewitness (Acts 2,John 20:24,Acts 2:32, 3:15, 4:20, 5:32, 10:39, 1Peter 5:1, 2Peter 1:16, 1John 1:1-2)" remains a claim until you prove it practically because in the Bible there are many claims, but never fulfilled. For example, Jesus said when on the cross to the criminal "today you will be with me in paradise" in Luke 23:43, which was not fulfilled because on that very day Jesus was not in paradise as Jesus said, but in the tomb for three days. The contradicting accounts produced by the Gospels writers of the moment Jesus was on the cross till Jesus appeared proves they were not eyewitnesses rather they relied on hearsay.

After Peter had denied knowing Jesus, he was never seen again during the crucifixion of Jesus. Had he been present, his name at least would have been mentioned once by at least Mark who based his Gospel on the information of Peter as the names of the women present were mentioned in the Gospels whether standing close or far off the cross. Also Peter would have been physically present without hiding or standing at a distance as Peter said “I will lay down my life for thy sake” John 13:37 and “And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death” Luke 22:33. Had Peter been an eyewitness of the crucifixion, he would have been standing boldly with no need to be afraid of the Jews because he was ready to be with Christ in prison and death.

Had the disciples been eyewitnesses of the crucifixion but hiding or standing at a distance, the names of the disciples present would have been mentioned in the Gospels of Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 as the names of the women present were mentioned in the Gospels whether standing close or far off the cross.

Saying the disciples were eyewitnesses but hiding or standing at a distance is wrong because not a single name of the disciples is mentioned. Had they been present, they would have been seen close to Jesus because they were willing to die according to Mark 14:31 “But he spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said they all.”

- You saying "you keep claiming that the gospels do not teach that Jesus died" is true because the Gospels teach Jesus gave up the spirit, which is a biblical phrase that means going unconscious as shown when the daughter of Jairus gave up her spirit as "her spirit returned and rose" in Luke 8:55 though she did not die before her rising as Jesus said "stop wailing for she is not dead, but sleeping" in Luke 8:52.

- You saying "Also you need to look up argument from silence. You keep saying that they weren’t there. I keep asking where it states that" is a question by saying where does Jesus literally "I am God?" in the Bible.

- You saying "So you admit that you haven’t done any kind of research as to what a word means in ancient literature or even phrases" is assumption based on the wrong wording of this statement " Your question "What ancient sources did you quote to back up you twisted scripture passages and Greek understanding?" is the Bible" by which I meant I used the Bible as my sources as a whole.

- You saying "So you admit that the enemies of Christianity did indeed admit that Jesus died" is true but admitting they said Jesus "died" does not validate their testimonies because they were not eyewitnesses because none of them was alive when Jesus was on the cross. If they relied on sources, we do not know how reliable these sources were.

- You saying "First, prove it is Jesus" is a valid question answered by Dr. Maria Grazia Siliato, one of the world’s foremost experts on the Shroud and a scientific researcher specializing in early Christian archaeology said the following;

"The latest and most dramatic discoveries concern a piece of writing on the Shroud itself. For years, people had been asking why below and to the sides of the chin there are three clear and regular lines where no imprint is present. The Paris-based organisation CIERT (Centre International d’Etudes sur le Linceul de Turin, The international centre of studies on the Shroud of Turin), which I represent in Italy, has conducted studies in the most advanced institute in Europe for image analysis via computer, the Institut Optique d’Orsay, whose director is Professor André Marion. All official photographs of the Shroud were divided into tens of thousands of squares which were then given a corresponding optical density and transferred onto a visualisation programme. By means of an extremely advanced programme, some letters gradually began to emerge, in Latin and in Greek: under the chin, we find written ‘Jesus’ and on one side, ‘Nazarene’."

- You saying "Second, it is greatly debated that it is even authentic" still does not invalidate its authenticity of the Shroud of Turin because, for example, the authorship of the Bible is debate over and over.

- You saying "So, if that is the extent of your historical evidence, my first century witnesses far outweigh that by a mile" would have been correct if they were real eyewitnesses which was not the case because none of the 9 sources were alive when Jesus was on the cross.

- You saying " It fails to take seriously the wounds of Jesus received during flogging and crucifixion" can be true. However, the scourging that Jesus received was not killing because after Jesus was severely flogged and scourged, Jesus was able to carry the cross according to John 19:17"Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha)."

- You saying " The soldiers that were there verified that He was dead" is an assumption not supported because the Greek text of Mark 15:45I is "when he knew of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph", therefore, we do not know from Mark 15:45whether the Jesus body was ALIVE till the doctor Luke in Acts 2:31says "his body did not decay in the grave" proving Jesus body was laid alive in the tomb because it is only the living body that does not decay for three days period because buried.

- You saying "The spear wound in the side with the resultant blood and water pouring out was most likely the pericardium surrounding the heart" is an assumption as can be seen from your usage of the word "likely."

- Had the word "pierce" meant penetration, the text would have used "pierced through" as Luke 2:35uses the phrase "pierce through."

- The Greek word used in John 19:37("They shall look on him whom they have pierced") is ekkenteo, which means only prick out according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Therefore, when Jesus was pierced, Jesus was pricked out.

- The piercing of Jesus was not penetrating because Jesus was pricked according to John 19:34"One of the soldiers pricked his side." The pierce was not killing proving that there was blood pressure in order to make the blood and the water flow.

- Your saying "his heart was pierced" is wrong because Jesus ,who stood after he rose, showing his pricked side to the disciples proves the spear did not penetrate through Jesus side because a pierced side, which CAN BE SHOWN, was not neither penetrated nor a heart, but pricked according to John 20:20"he showed them his side and hands."

- You saying "Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who wrapped Jesus would have noticed if Jesus was still alive. It is probable that they too would have checked to see if He was dead to avoid suffocating Jesus" is wrong because had the wrapping of Jesus body been killing, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus would not have done the wrapping. Since "his body did not decay in the grave" according to Acts 2:31,then the wrapping was not killing at all because Jesus was alive as his body in the tomb was "SOMA" which is according to the Gospel of Luke means living body in Luke 23:55.

-Jesus body was not washed before it was wrapped with spices inside proving Jesus did not die because according to the Jewish Burial Customs, the dead body has to be first washed then wrapped even if the Sabbath was close or the body belonged to an evil person. Had the body of Jesus been washed, such an important piece of information would have been stated clearly as the quantity of the spices was mentioned in John 19:39.

- You saying "Jesus, barely alive, somehow unravels the grave clothes, move the stone, escape the guards, and proclaim to the disciples “I have risen” is entirely improbable" can be seen false once you realize that:

1 Jesus did not unfold his gravecloth as women said "they have taken the lord" in John 20:2which proves Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken proves that he was still mortal.

2) Jesus did not move the stone, it was the angel that moved the stone according to Matthew 28:2which proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to 1 Corinthians 15:43.

3) The guards came ONE DAY after Jesus was laid according to Matthew 27plus the guards did not check if Jesus was in or not.

4) The Greek word for "resurrection" is anastasis according to Jesus in John 11:25"I am the resurrection (anastasis)" and the Greek verb is anastemi according to Jesus in Mark 12:25"When the dead rise (anastemi)." However, in reality Jesus rose (egerio) as Lazarus when he rose (egerio) according to John 12:1. Therefore, Jesus was not resurrected.

- You saying "A half dead Jesus wouldn’t have convinced his followers of his resurrection. Alive? Barely. Risen? Hardly. A half dead Jesus would have had the opposite effect!" is refuted by Jesus words "For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:30proving Jesus was not equal unto angels; therefore, Jesus was did not die nor was resurrected because the resurrected will be equal unto angels according to Jesus in Luke 20:36"Neither they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels."

- "All ancient sources attest to the fact that Jesus DID die on the cross" , but none of the authors of these ancient sources was an eyewitness to the event or from real eyewitnesses as these eyewitness did not leave their first hand testimonies ; therefore, their knowledge of the event was based upon a hearsay. And a case based on hearsay presented in any civil court will be thrown right away because of the lack of eyewitnesses or first hand testimonies.

- Your saying " There is no evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross" is a claim refuted Jesus words after he rose when he said ""For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:30proving Jesus was not equal unto angels ; therefore, Jesus was did not die nor was resurrected because the resurrected will be equal unto angels according to Jesus in Luke 20:36"Neither they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels."

- You saying "It also fails to take into account Paul’s conversion and James" is not true, but it rejects their conversions because they were not eyewitnesses when Jesus was on the cross. Because one converts because of an event, it does not make the doctrine true.

- You saying "It contradicts your other theory of visions. If Jesus only swooned and then appeared, why do you need the vision theory in the first place? And it also doesn’t take into account James’ conversion" is an assumption that I believe in the visionary theory, which is not true.

-You saying " The Gospels, whom you claim is unreliable and yet use them, is unanimous that Jesus’ appearance was physical" is true, but the resurrected will be spirit because Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15 Jesus, who was resurrected, was a spirit according to 1 Corinthians 15:45"This is what Scripture says: "The first man, Adam, became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit" because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" according to 1 Corinthians 15:50. However, Jesus was not practically spirit according to Jesus words after he rose "For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:39.
- You saying "But my question is, and I have asked this repeatedly, what accounts for their belief? Hmmmm?" is hearsay because they heard from people Jesus "died" because none of them was an eyewitness. Their knowledge of the event was from hearsay.

- You saying "If Jesus died, then appeared physically, that is a resurrection. It is a resurrection according to pagan, Jewish, Christian and Muslim meaning of the word" would have been true if Jesus was a spirit because the resurrected will be a spirit because according to Paul, Jesus, who was resurrected, was a spirit according to 1 Corinthians 15:45"This is what Scripture says: "The first man, Adam, became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit" because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" according to 1 Corinthians 15:50. However, Jesus was not practically spirit according to Jesus words after he rose "For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:39.

- You saying "I am relying on historical documents that are taken as historically accurate by virtually all critical scholars that have studied the subject" is not true because the authors of your historical documents were not eyewitnesses when Jesus was on the cross.
- You saying "You yourself conceded that the enemies of Jesus admitted to the death of Jesus" is not true because none of them was alive when Jesus was on the cross. Therefore, we need you to quote medical study outside the Christian writings not based on the Bible that Jesus died.

SMALL REQUEST

Prove to us the independent sources you have mentioned were eyewitnesses and the people who the independent sources relied on were real and reliable eyewitnesses and left first testimonies.

[Little Shepherd]

Moderated By: Little Shepherd

Ahmed_Deedat82 is going to be away until January 14. Bible Defender may post his next reply at any time, but Ahmed will not reply until after January 14, at which point this debate will continue as normal.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Kelp]

Moderated By: Kelp

Debate abandoned. Thread closed until further notice.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.