You choose the topic!

This is a very interesting topic and I look forward to debating it with you! :) In accordance with the terms you set in round one, I will be opposing your claim that Jesus Christ really did rise from death. I accept your insistence that all gospels and other accounts will be treated as historical accounts open to scrutiny. I will also accept the statement: "God may or may not exist, so miracles may or may not be possible. Theory One - Denial by Historical Agnosticism This first argument is more theoretical and philosophical, but I am interested to hear your opinion on it. As an agnostic, I neither believe nor disbelieve in a supreme being. I have never had contact with a supreme being, however, I acknowledge that a supreme being may still exist. For this first argument, I will apply agnosticism to history. Since (I can safely assume) that neither of us - nor anyone alive today - witnessed the resurrection firsthand, I argue that we don't know for sure if the resurrection ever really happened. Think about it like this: In school, we all learn that George Washington was the first president of the United States and commander in chief of the Continental Army. While Washington's existence is accepted as historical fact, neither of us met Washington in person; by this logic, we don't know if Washington truly existed, however, we acknowledge that simply because we haven't met Washington firsthand, he could still have existed. Similarly, I could deny the resurrection ever happened because I didn't witness it. The same goes for you; since you didn't witness the resurrection firsthand, you can deny it as well. That being said, I acknowledge that the resurrection may have occurred despite not seeing it in person. Basically, what I'm saying is if you weren't there in person, you can't be 100% sure that it happened. Theory Two - The Gospels Are Wrong About the Resurrection Despite varying opinions on specific dates, it's commonly accepted by historians that the gospels were written long after Jesus was crucified and long after His resurrection. The first accounts of the resurrection in the gospels were recorded nearly 40 years after the resurrection. While some would argue that Paul wrote about the resurrection prior to the gospels, Paul's writings date nearly twenty years after the resurrection. According to Bart Ehrman, an American New Testament scholar, we don't have any eyewitness accounts of the resurrection that were published at the time of the resurrection. Moreover, none of the gospel writers were firsthand eyewitnesses to the resurrection because most gospels were written anonymously in the third person. Furthermore, most of Jesus's followers were lower class, uneducated men; in Acts (4:13), Peter and John are revealed to be illiterate. The authors of the gospels, therefore, were likely educated Greek scholars who never claimed to be disciples of Christ. With all this information taken into account, it's hard to deny that these stories - which were told orally until they were documented by Greek scholars decades after the resurrection - were altered over time. In fact, as evidence, there are many discrepancies and contradictions between the accounts of Mark and John regarding the death of Christ regarding things like the date and time of day, who carried the cross, the actions of the robbers, etc. Regarding the resurrection - the topic of this debate - there are also discrepancies. In John (20:1), it is revealed that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone whereas Mark (16:1), Matthew (28:1), and Luke (24:1) all claim that Mary Magdalene went with other women. Mark (16:4), Luke (24:2), and John (20:1) claim that the stone at the tomb was rolled away whereas Matthew (28:2) upholds that the stone was not rolled away. Mark (16:5) claims that the women saw a man in the tomb, Luke (24:4) claims that the women saw two men in the tomb, and Matthew (28:2) claims that the women saw an angel in the tomb. Synthesis - How My Theories Connect My first theory discusses how I, nor my opponent, know whether or not Jesus truly rose from the dead because we were not present at the time of the resurrection. It applies agnosticism to history. Because of this, we must rely on historical evidence. The gospels that record the resurrection, as I demonstrated in my second theory, are a flawed account due to the contradictions that likely result from slight changes in the story as it was recited orally for decades until anonymous Greek scholars finally recorded it. In essence, I argue that Jesus Christ did not rise from his tomb because the evidence we rely on is flawed and we did not witness the resurrection firsthand. Because I'm very inexperienced with religious topics, this argument took longer for me to research and write. I'd like to thank my opponent for their patience! -- Links to Sources Used and Referenced Official Definition of 'Agnostic' - . https://www.merriam-webster.com... Bart Ehrman Video -