The Resurrection of Jesus is a historically probable event.

Microsuck has layered a hefty claim against the Scriptures, namely that they are unreliable. Also that the witnesses are unreliable. However, even a cursory read through Microsuck's arguments have led me to the conclusion that his arguments are simply unreliable.First, I will extend most of my arguments from the opening round since they have not been adequately addressed in Microsuck's last round. These arguments are: Jesus actually died, post-resurrection appearances, testimonies, low status of women, and immediate proclamation. The only argument he attempted to refute is that of the empty tomb.Reliability of Paul and the GospelsCon has rightly pointed out that the last eleven verses of Mark (16:9-20) are not in the oldest and most unreliable manuscripts, so they may not even belong (although, contrary to his claims, this is not a controversial statement). However, this does not mean the entire Gospel is unreliable. Microsuck uses an article by Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics Research Institute. But in the same article in which Con takes his argument from, Mr. Slick mentions that the Gospel of Mark is still reliable. Taken from the article:"...I am not saying the Bible is untrustworthy. It is 98.5% textually pure. The remaining 1.5% of textual variation are almost entirely of insignificant spelling errors and minor word omissions or additions that do not change the meaning of the text." [1]His argument from contradiction is also unconvincing. First, if the accounts were exactly the same then claims of plagiarism could be leveled against them. The fact that they differ slightly lends credibility that they were written by different people.As theologian Norman Geisler points out: "The fact that various accounts do not fit together with perfect ease should be expected of authentic testimony from independent witnesses. Were the accounts perfectly harmonious on the surface, there would be suspicion of collusion." [2]Regarding the difference in time, John was probably using the Roman measurement of time (from midnight to midnight), whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for the most part, used the Hebrew system of measuring a day (from sundown to sunup). John wrote his gospel in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, and therefore in regard to the civil day he would be likely to employ the Roman reckoning. [3]The Gospels do not overtly contradict each other. Whenever it appears they do, there is always a reasonable explanation for why they differ.Con has taken Romans 3:7 out of context. Paul was not saying he was lying. First, this passage isn't even about the resurrection, so even if he lied here this would not indicate that he lied about the resurrection. Secondly, in the context of the passage Paul is saying that even if everyone lied, God would still be true. If everyone on Earth didn't believe in God, God would still be faithful to us. In the verse in question, Paul was saying "so if I lie, knowing that God's faithfulness is increased to His glory, why am I still considered a sinner?"In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul, again, was not lying. He was saying that he became all things to all men. Not that he was lying and telling people he was something that he wasn't. He became as a Jew to the Jews. He reasoned through the Jewish Scriptures to show that Christ rose. To those under the law, he became as those under the law to show why living by the law can't save anyone. And so on. He met people where they were to show the love of Christ, rather than expecting others to rise to his level.In 2 Corinthians 12:16, again, Paul is not saying he is a liar. Paul and the ones he sent did not take advantage of anyone (he even points this out in the passage). But again, as we see in 1 Corinthians 9, Paul convinced them through his own ingenuity. To some people he reasoned through the Scriptures, others he reasoned with their own poets and philosophers. He met people where they were to save them.Now, the conversion accounts in Acts are a little troubling if you haven't done your homework. It's telling that Con uses the KJV, which is not the best translation. And here what we have is a simple error in translation. Unfortunately, the translators of the King James Version did not take into account the fact that the same Greek word meant both "heat" and "understand." Also, the same Greek word can mean both "sound" and "voice." The apparent contradiction is correctly solved by the translation of the NET Bible, as well as that of the NASB and the NIV.Acts 9:7 should read: "And the men who traveled with [Paul] stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one."Acts 22:9 should read: "And those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me."There is also no contradiction in who fell to the ground. Acts 9:7 does not state that no one fell to the ground, just that at one point they stood speechless. [4]Finally, Con contends that Jesus may have been removed from the tomb. But this contention is baseless. Siegal notes that it is reasonable to assume that Joseph asked for the other bodies as well, but this is not reasonable. The only body, according to the Gospels, that Joseph asked for was Jesus. There is no reason to assume he asked for any others, especially since he was a follower of Jesus.It is illogical to assume that Jesus was removed from the tomb, especially when no one else knew about it. Pilate and the Jewish leaders knew Jesus was there, a huge stone was rolled in front, and a soldier, who could not let Jesus be removed under penalty of death, was placed there to guard the tomb.The resurrection of Jesus is a historically valid event. Con has not offered any strong evidence to challenge this. In fact, his last round was really an attempt to undermine the Scriptures by taking verses out of context, and making blatantly false claims.[1] http://carm.org...[2] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p. 657.[3] Archer, Gleason, Encylopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 364[4] For a more detailed explanation of these alleged contradictions, see: http://www.harvardhouse.com...;