Resolved: There is sufficent evidence to believe in Jesus' resurrection

I hope we can finally have a good, rational discussion without any forfeited rounds. The resolved of the debate is there is sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus' resurrection. I will be proving this by demonstrating that the evidence of Jesus' burial, the empty tomb, post resurrection appearances and the origin of the disciple's beliefs provides an adequate framework to conclude that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the best explanation, as opposed to naturalistic explanations. First, I want to challenge the assertion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This vague maxim is constantly repeated over and over. What exactly counts as "extraordinary"? Is evidence "extraordinary" when it's powerful? Or when there is a vast amount of evidence? The ambiguity doesn't end there. What exactly counts as "powerful" evidence and how much evidence is enough? Honestly, this only appears to be a simple rhetorical device aimed at trying to heavy the burden of proof; there's really no argument to it. [1] It's highly attested by historians that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who was crucified by the Romans. [2] Gary Habermas notes, "the vast majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, generally disdain radical theses that question the very existence of Jesus. " [3] There are four crucial marks of evidence regarding the resurrection: Jesus' burial, the empty tomb, post resurrection appearances and the origin of the disciple's beliefs along with the existence of the early church. Jesus' Burial Why is this evidence and why is it important? The most important aspect of the burial scenario was the fact that Jesus was buried in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea. This account is attested for in each of the gospels [4] Furthermore, the Gospels note that Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin. Basically, the Sanhedrin was a council made of up 71 Jewish Sages "who constituted the supreme court and legislative body in Judea during the Roman period. " [5] The Sanhedrin was an important and well known aspect of society during that period. The fact that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin makes it very likely that he was a well known public figure. The Empty Tomb Matthew 28:11-15, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, and John 20:11-18 all attest to the empty tomb. Because of such an event as the resurrection, the location of Jesus’ tomb would have been well known. An event such as the crucifixion of Jesus, a man who was well known for his deeds and despised by the Jewish authorities because of his controversy, would have attracted an enormous amount of attention. Furthermore, the Bible mentions the fact that Roman guards were placed in charge of guarding the tomb. This leads us to believe that Roman authorities were definitely aware of the location of the tomb. Moreover, recall that Jesus was buried in Joseph's tomb. The fact that he most likely was a well known public figure adds more plausibility to the idea that the tomb was a well known site. Lastly, Matthew 28:11-15 describes the first Jewish Polemic to try and cover up and explain the missing body. The Jewish leaders didn’t deny that the tomb was empty; they simply explained it away by saying the disciples stole the body. Even the given Jewish Polemic assumes the tomb is empty. Origin of Disciple’s Beliefs Post Resurrection Appearances and the early church The origin of the disciple’s belief, post resurrection appearances and the formation of the early church are all closely interrelated. What could account for the origin of the disciple’s beliefs? With the death of Jesus, many during that time period had good reasons for thinking “the whole movement which [Jesus] had led was suppressed for good. ” [6] The savior of the world was crucified and killed, taken away to a guarded tomb, and Jewish authorities were out to squander any remnants of Jesus’ followers. Scripture tells us that the disciples saw the risen Jesus. Today, virtually no New Testament scholar denies that the disciple’s believed they met with the risen savior. [7] There are numerous appearances recorded in scripture where Jesus appeared to individuals and groups—Simon Peter, two disciples on the Road to Emmaus, the eleven, Mary Magdalene, and James to name a few. Jesus also appeared to non-believers such as His brother James and Saul (Paul), who was a persecutor of Christians. Paul had no disposition towards believing the Christians or wanting Jesus to rise from the dead because he was on the opposite side of the fence. Moreover, the fact that the Gospels include Mary Magdalene as a witness adds further credibility to the testimonial evidence, because if there was any doubt that she was lying, during that time women's testimony was not accepted as being credible. The disciple’s believed so strongly that they saw the risen Jesus that they were willing to suffer terrible deaths for this belief. It was this belief that set the foundation for the early Christian Church. The events recorded in Acts—the disciples preaching the resurrection— are said to have happened immediately within weeks of the resurrection event. J. P. Moreland lends some support to this by stating, “many scholars agree that the seven week time frame between the crucifixion and the first preaching of the resurrection in Jerusalem is historically accurate. ”[8] If the disciple’s made up the resurrection, it would have been foolish to spread the conspiracy so close in time to the events since their plot would have been easily foiled by the authorities simply producing the body of Jesus. It would be best to wait for the commotion to die down before spreading the “conspiracy. ” Now, I’d be the first to say that just because the disciple’s claimed they saw the risen Jesus doesn’t mean He actually rose from the dead. What I’m claiming is the events and effects that transpired after the crucifixion can only best be explained by the resurrection of Jesus. What makes the best sense of the empty tomb, the post resurrection appearances, the disciple’s belief and the early church? I believe the resurrection is the best conclusion that accounts for all the facts and makes the most sense out of them all. I now turn it over to Con to post his rebuttals. Sources [1] Wartick, J. W. . "“Extraordinary claims need…” What, exactly? « J. W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason". " J. W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason". N. p. , n. d. Web. 26 July 2011. <. http://jwwartick.com...;. [2] Habermas, Gary. "Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic. " Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. N. p. , n. d. Web. 16 July 2011. <. http://www.garyhabermas.com......;. [3] Habermas, Gary. "A Summary Critique: Questioning the Existence of Jesus. " Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. N. p. , n. d. Web. 16 July 2011. <. http://www.garyhabermas.com......;. [4] Luke 23:50-56; Mark 15:43-46; Matthew 27:57-60; John 19:38-40 [5] "The Sanhedrin - en. " The Sanhedrin. N. p. , n. d. Web. 25 July 2011. <. http://www.thesanhedrin.org...;. [6] Bruce, F. F. . New Testament history . [1st U. S. ed. Garden City, N. Y. : Doubleday, 19711969. Print. [7] Habermas, Gary. "Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic. " Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. N. p. , n. d. Web. 16 July 2011. <. http://www.garyhabermas.com......;. [8] Moreland, James Porter. Scaling the secular city: a defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Book House, 1987. Print.