The Resurrection of Jesus meets the criteria of historicity

First, I am unable to watch the video so I cannot respond to it. I think you meant Hacket and McCullagh, I have both books. >I explained how his hypotheses does not pass the rigors of McCullagh's methodology.< Where? And I have shown step by step that it does, especially since you have not provided an alternative explanation. However, as I said before, I am not able to watch the video so if you could write down what is so devastating I would be happy to respond. >would rather put his faith in crack pot theologians and apologists(Like Gary Habermas and Robert J. Miller) than geniune historical scholars.< Ad hominem fallacy and a genetic fallacy. In answer they have PhD's from respectable universities. I'm sorry, where did you get yours? The only part the gospels play a part is concerning the crucifixion, that the gospels report that the disciples had experiences that they believed were encounters with the risen Jesus. That is all. Dates: Lets say my opponent is right. Does that mean it is automatically in error? Nope. You still have early documentation of the facts. And what of Paul's writings. Most scholars date 1Corinthians well before the gospels (and portions well before that!). However I am not convinced that this is the majority view concerning the dates of the gospels. But again, my argument doesn't depend on the general trustworthiness of the gospels. As to the first fact, that Jesus died by crucifixion, does my opponent have historical evidence that is superior, ie earlier written by eyewitnesses or had as their sources eyewitnesses? Nope. So according to historiography, the reasons for accepting it outweigh the historical reasons for not accepting it. The same can be said of the disciples sincere belief that they experienced the risen Jesus. >As for Paul, he claims that Jesus spoke to him in a vision, not physically,< You still have to account for his sudden conversion. >Point 1 is not even known to be true.< That is what we are trying to find out. What is YOUR evidence to the contrary? And is accepted almost universally by critical scholars. As for the other facts they are also accepted almost universally. But since I cannot see the video I will not respond until my opponent lays it out in writting. The Empty tomb. All my opponent says is that it is not known to be true (like the first). That is not a refutation. What are your evidences against it? >It doesn't pass the rigors of historic methodology. Any claim that you make to the contrary is simply false.<That is what we are trying to discover isn't it. So far you have as yet disprove any of the facts above. >That said, I don't feel I need to, as the historicity of this event has already been proven false.< Really? Where did you prove that. I have shown, according to the rules of historiography that you so aptly pointed out that the resurrection does indeed fit the criteria. However since you no longer want to provide an alternative that better takes into account the facts (none of which you have refuted thus far by the way) >It relies on too many suppositions and things that contradict what we know about how the world works. To believe in the resurrection is a leap of faith. It goes against things we know to be true in the natural world(supernatural by definition), and for that reason alone it should not have historicity.< Ah the "ste" argument again I fear. That didn't work so well last time. Which scientific discovery disproved the existence of the supernatural? However according to McCullagh's fifth test: 5 It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" doesn't in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don't rise from the dead naturally. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the theory that God raised Jesus from the dead. So far it looks as though you are starting to reneg on your promise to provide an alternative theory that better fits the facts. So, we are right back to where we started. Jesus's death hasn't been refuted. The disciples' sincere belief that they had experiences of the risen Jesus hasn't been refuted. Paul's sudden conversion from enemy to believer hasn't been refuted. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, who suddenly converted hasn't been refuted The Empty Tomb hasn't been refuted. If you have refuted any of these, please point to the historical evidence you posted and I shall answer them. All my opponent says pretty much is that my hypothesis doesn't meet the criteria for historicity. Yet, in my last post I have shown that it does, and with no alternative explanation to fit the above facts, according to historiography, it wins out. >and admits that we can't know if it really happened.< If that is true, which it is not, then how can you be so sure that it didn't happen, hmmm? That is what this debate is about, to see if it is reasonable to believe in the historical resurrection. >This is a more honest stance than claiming the resurrection is historical, and this is the stance of any historical scholar who isn't a crackpot.< Ah, so if any scholar accepts (and there are plenty) the historical resurrection, they are crakpots eh? Great ad hominem. Any more logical fallacies you wish to commit? You are on a roll so far.