The Resurection of Jesus Christ.

First of all I want to point out that the Pro has not dealt with the failed prophecy of Tyre, until he shows it false, it stands as a failed prophecy at least in this debate. The passage clearly prophesies that the city would not be rebuilt, yet is stands today. Secondly he makes no comment or rebuttal to the census issue found in Matthew and Luke. The very fact that these two do not agree on historical points shows me and many others that they cannot be relied upon. Not to mention the genealogies of Jesus don't add up as well. Thirdly the Pro makes no real argument against the lack of evidence for a flood. I also would like to point out that according to Genesis 6:17 the flood was global. Not that I was making a case for a local or global since the scriptures indicate clearly that it was not local. "Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish." I am not a bible scholar, but it seems to me the bible states that this was a global flood. If there was a global flood you would find evidence for it, such as ice cores that show sediment and disruption. Scientists have ice cores going back some 40,000 years that have no evidence of a global flood. Also the cores taken from the sea beds would show evidence of a global flood, but no such evidence is found. My point is simply this, the bible is suppose to be the word of god, true and infallible, but this is not what we see with many parts of scripture, I have only introduced a few things out of a large amount I could have chosen from. I figured these three issues would be sufficient to show that there are errors in scripture, which is why I do not believe in it. Of course we could debate on each issue in and of itself. I suppose the biggest point is that we as a people need to look at the writings of the bible like we would approach any said book that proclaims to be the words of the very one or ones that have supposedly created us. This is what some call the "Outsiders test of faith". Christianity is only one of many religions, so I ask, do Christians look at their religion skeptically like they look at all others? It is not for me to answer, but this is how I came to where I am today. In going back to my arguments about the evidence for the resurrection, I still stand on the fact that we have no direct eye witness accounts written at the time of the supposed event. Now the PRO believe that Matthew and John were eye witness accounts, but why did they wait so long to write this stuff down and how do you prove that they wrote them? Because what you have is oral tradition that was passed down until someone wrote about it. First we have Paul's writings and then the gospels, Ironically even though Paul wrote first he still was not an eye witness to Jesus other than a vision. How would Paul know this was Jesus if he never met him? The gospels written after Paul, dating later, decades after the events supposedly happened. The gospels are not contemporary accounts of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Now if the bible is the infallible word of god, then why did god wait to record such events for us? I made the point in my last post that Jesus claims that he would be in the grave for three days and three nights like Jonah was in the belly of the fish. I pointed out that Jesus was not in the tomb for this long, so I can only conclude that this is a failed prophecy. He supposedly goes in Friday night and is gone by sunrise on Sunday, I only count one and a half days at best. No resurrection narrative describes Jesus being in the tomb for three days period! This is a failed prophecy. You have the anointing of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea before burial in John 19:39,40 and then you have people coming back to the grave to anoint Jesus after his burial Mark 16:1-3; Luke 23:55,56. You have conflicting accounts of whether the stone was in place or already rolled away when they arrived at the tomb. This goes on and on, which tells me that these stories are not god inspired, but orally passed forward allowing errors in the story to occur as well as embellishments as time progressed. If we are to believe the resurrection, that is that Jesus was raised from the dead, then I think that the evidence would be more convincing. Many are not convinced by the supposed accounts or lack of evidence of martyred Christians to prove the resurrection. Plenty of people have died for beliefs that we know or believe to be false. Many Germans died believing they were the master race. How about the 39 members of Heavens Gates? Why is it not possible that those who believed in Jesus and the resurrection were mistaken? Who is to say that they died for their belief in Jesus, who is to say whether they were even offered a chance to recant their beliefs or that they even had a chance to do so? This can be said of James in Acts 12:2. What evidence do we have that all the disciples died for Jesus? How does this prove the resurrection? I find it all very lacking. As for Josephus: Why do we not have Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Terullian, Cyprian, etc- in all there defenses against pagan hostilities make no mention or reference to Josephus' words found in Testimonium Flavianum? Most likely this passage was inserted after Josephus by someone else. There is no reason why these writers would not use this man's writings if he had proclaimed what some think that he wrote about Jesus in this little section of his works. While it is plausible that Josephus made reference to Jesus, it is highly implausible that he would speak this way about him. A study of this issue can reveal what most scholars conclude about the validity of the segment found in this Jewish historians writings. Either way this does not prove the resurrection to be true, Pliney the Elder does not prove the resurrection happened, nor does any of the sources you have provided. Better yet why didn't contemporary writers leave us with anything? Justus of Tiberias and Philo of Alexandria could have easily written about Jesus yet make no mention of him, let alone his resurrection. When all is said and done there is a mountain of issues that one has to go through to believe the resurrection and to believe the bible to be the word of god and then to dedicate the remaining part of one's life to serving a god who thought this would be sufficient evidence. Besides Jesus is not the only one to be supposedly resurrected at this time, notice in: Matthew 27:52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Who did they appear to? Did this event actually happen? Why do we not have any sources of this happening outside of the bible? I believe that this event trumps the grand notion of just one man being resurrected, here you have many and with no external evidence outside of the bible to verify it! The case for the resurrection only becomes more difficult as you go through the issues and the lack of good evidence. History cannot prove the resurrection. Science cannot prove the resurrection. Outside sources do not prove the resurrection. Supposed martyrdom does not prove the resurrection. The PRO has not proven the resurrection. It fails and continues to fail as viable through the supposed evidence that one is to place faith upon. So it is plausible for me not to believe in the resurrection. I hope the PRO will deal with the main issues that he has not dealt with yet and the few more that I introduced in this round. I look forward to the next round. Thank you