You choose the topic!

Criticism of Bart Ehrman: Thank you for responding to this point. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just wanted further clarification. After viewing your sources, I now agree with your claim that Dr. Ehrman has two sides; "scholarly" Bart Ehrman doesn't really doubt the New Testament whereas "popular" Barth Ehrman does. The problem with this accusation is that it doesn't necessarily apply to the source I provided. In the article and video, the main issue that is raised about Dr. Ehrman is his contradicting perspectives. In the video I used as my source, he doesn't doubt the New Testament; he simply highlights discrepancies and discusses background information regarding the accounts of the resurrection of Christ. No Eyewitness Accounts Published At the Time of the Resurrection: The problem I have with the lack of immediate eyewitness accounts is that the stories may have been altered - even slightly - before they were documented, which was years after the resurrection allegedly occurred. I would be more open to accepting the resurrection if it was recorded in writing much closer to the time of the resurrection. I understand your argument about the disciples being killed, however, the resurrection story would be more plausible if eyewitness accounts were documented immediately following the resurrection. Reliability of Oral Tradition: My Bart Ehrman video from round two upheld that accounts of the resurrection were told orally for decades until they were eventually documented by highly trained Greek scholars. I agree with your statement that "the only element of doubt is the memory of the witness." This is one of the main reasons why I question the validity of these oral stories. Furthermore, you can't assume that the eyewitnesses didn't forget anything because the resurrection was such a fantastic event. They, like all other humans, are susceptible to forgetting things and getting details mixed up. You have no evidence that their memory was completely unaltered from the time they witnessed the resurrection to the time it was documented. Even the source you provided concedes that the oral traditions were "generally reliable", meaning that they're not always reliable. I'd also like to point out that the source you provided is biased because it is a Christian source, so it will obviously uphold that the early church's oral traditions were reliable. Writers of the Gospels and Illiterate Disciples: In the case of John, you claim that "it is likely that" his father was literate and that he taught John how to read and write. This is simply an assumption, not a historical fact. Also, simply because John's father was slightly influential, doesn't mean he was literate. You're assuming that he falls into 1.5% of the population. The source you provided is based on assumptions as well. For instance, it relies on phrases such as "it's not a stretch to think", "was probably not an illiterate peasant", "was probably bilingual", and "probably knew Greek." I acknowledge that some of these assumptions seem plausible, however, they're little more than assumptions. You're making a bold statement by asserting that the disciples fell into 1.5% of the population because they may have been literate based on their backgrounds. I would like to agree or at least compromise, however, these assumptions shouldn't be accepted as sound evidence of literacy among the disciples. Sweating Blood Argument: I was using your argument to demonstrate that it's possible for eyewitnesses of the crucifixion (not the resurrection) to have described Jesus sweating blood prior to His death. I'm not conceding that these eyewitness accounts are legitimate or reliable. I think we have a misunderstanding on this point. Three Options for What Happened: So I see you've narrowed the possibilities into three categories: the disciples lied, the disciples were wrong, or the resurrection actually occurred. I'll admit you've made some pretty solid arguments against the first two, however, I won't concede this debate to you. My position is not necessarily that the disciples lied or that they hallucinated (though I admit these ideas may be possible); instead, I believe the argument for the resurrection is shrouded in assumptions and discrepancies within the gospels to be taken as historical fact. I see you debunked the discrepancy regarding the date of the crucifixion, however, you simply generalized all of the other discrepancies as false. These discrepancies severely discredit the possibility of the resurrection and therefore make the resurrection appear less plausible. In the next round, I would encourage you to respond individually to the other discrepancies I listed. They are: who supposedly discovered the empty tomb, where the stone was placed when the tomb was entered, and what was found in the tomb. Conclusion: I will continue to negate my opponent's claim that Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead. The accounts of the resurrection are too unreliable and based on assumptions to be considered valid, historical facts. This is demonstrated by the discrepancies within the gospel over the crucifixion and the resurrection as well as the timing between the resurrection and the documentation of supposed eyewitness accounts. Thank you to my opponent for choosing an interesting topic! I really enjoyed debating with you! :)