The Resurrection of Jesus is a historically valid event.

So I will address that first before making my case for the historicity of the Resurrection. Con has made quite a radical claim, that Jesus didn't even exist. The fact of the matter is that most critical and historical scholars concur that there was a literal Jesus who lived some 2,000 years ago. First, regarding the alleged lack of evidence regarding Jesus. There are at least three points to consider:1) There are over 42 sources within 150 years after Jesus' death which mention his existence and record many events of his life, including nine traditional New Testament authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude), 20 early Christian writers (e. g. Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc. ), four heretical writings (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection), and nine secular sources (e. g. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon (a freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian, etc. ). The claim from the website that these were not reliable accounts is simply false, and are used as historical records by historians. [1]2) If one is going to doubt the existence of Jesus, one would also have to doubt the exist of Tiberius Caesar. There are over four times as many sources for the life and deeds of Jesus as there are for Tiberius Caesar. [2]3) The fact is that few records survive for thousands of years. There are a number of ancient writings that have been lost, including 50% of the Roman historian Tacitus’ works, all of the writings of Thallus and Asclepiades of Mendes. In fact, Herod the Great’s secretary named Nicolas of Damascus wrote a Universal History of Roman history which comprised nearly 144 books and none of them have survived. So there is no reason to doubt the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. [3]Now, regarding Con's second point, two of the Gospels definitely were not hearsay. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses who walked with Jesus during his ministry. The other two Gospels, Mark and Luke, were close associates of two of Jesus' other disciples. However, if Con wishes to reject Jesus' existence on the grounds of hearsay, he must also reject the existence of Alexander the Great, as the only writings about his life was written 200 years later, yet it is used by historians as a reliable source of informtion. The fact is that it is not uncommon for other records from antiquity -- which critics accept -- to be written centuries after the events about which they speak. [4]The existence of Jesus is uncontroversial. Also uncontroversial are most of the events that prove Jesus' resurrection. In fact, the resurrection can be proven as historically probable due to at least six reasons:1. Jesus was actually dead. Jesus was crucified on the cross.2. The empty tomb. The tomb that Jesus was laid in was empty on the third day.3. Appearances. Post-resurrection Jesus appeared to many people. He appeared to the women at the tomb, to the aforementioned pair of men on the road to Emmaus, to the ten disciples (sans Thomas and Judas, who hanged himself after Jesus' crucifixion), to the eleven disciples (Thomas included), and even to 500 people all at once.4. Testimonies. The disciples were cowards. Peter denied Jesus three times. They hid when he was captured. They were uneducated and had low social standing. Yet after Jesus rose, they were suddenly bold and empowered. They were willing to die for what they believed (and most of them did). This dramatic change in their character is only explained by the Resurrection.5. Low status of women. If the disciples had wanted to make up the resurrection event, they wouldn't have used women (Mary, Mary Magdalen, Salome, and the other women with them) as the primary witnesses as the event due to the fact that women were not considered reliable witnesses. The best explanation is that they were actually the primary witnesses to this actual event.6. Immediate proclamation. The Jews started proclaiming Jesus immediately, in the city in which He was said to have risen. They would not have done this if Jesus hadn't actually risen. If Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead, the body could have been produced and the new movement of believers would have been crushed right then and there. Alternate theories have been produced to explain away some of these evidences, but I'll wait to see which line of reasoning Con intends to pursue before addressing them. I look forward to our next round. [1] Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004, p. 233. [2] ibid. [3] ibid, p. 234. [4] Geisler, Norman L. , The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p.389.