It is reasonable to believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical event.

I apologize for missing the last round, military service doesn't wait for debates unfortunately, neither do criminal investigations. So I will just respond to as much as space provides. Empty tomb. According to the historical method, something can be said to be fact if the reasons for believing in it outweigh the reasons against it. I have given for the empty tomb. My opponent has given that it may just be a literary device used by Mark. What about the other gospels, and 1 Corinthians? What of the earliest polemics of the opponent's of Christianity accepting the fact of the empty tomb? And what evidence is there for Mark just being a literary device? There is another problem with the full tomb view. My opponent says that the preaching didn't start to occur until 40 days later, and to believe that Jesus would be recognizable is outlandish. I'm not saying that at all. If ANY body was in the tomb, Christianity would be dealt a death blow. Even in your prior post, all you state is there is not enough evidence for the empty tomb. That is not good enough. Even when asked how much evidence you would need all you state is "a lot" which goes to shows how subjective of your methodology is. You have to provide historical evidence that the tomb wasn't empty.[1] Since you only hold that the story was only a literary device, then it seems that thomb would still have a body inside the tomb. Paul mentions the crucifixion, burial and resurrection. Since, according to ancient Jews who believed in a resurrection, it is a physical, bodily event. Therefore, since Paul, an enemy of the early church, clearly believes in a resurrection, it implies an empty tomb. Therefore we have a first century historical witness, even before the gospels!. >The testimony of women may have been part of a literary theme in Mark in which he reverses the expectations of the reader< May have been? Evidence please. I have already given reasons why historians believe the testimony of the women is valuable (principle of embarrassment). This is what I am talking about, all you have given so far is speculation. Your treatment of Tertullian and Justin Martyr is special pleading. Other ancient historians (ie Tacitus) also write of things that happened a hundred years before, that doesn't automatically mean that the testimony is worthless. >How do you know that they knew where Jesus was buried< The wrong tomb theory, really? Do you really want to go there? So, the first theory is literary device. Jesus' appearance are. Grief hallucinations? Here is what is wrong with that theory. No evidence for it. There is no evidence that Paul felt any kind of guilt at all. That is just speculation. Please provide historical evidence for the hallucinations. A hallucination may be defined as "a false sensory perception that has the compelling sense of reality despite the absence of an external stimulus". [2] Also, there is also no known group hallucination. [3] But there is one other problem with the hallucination theory, the empty tomb. If the disciples and Paul all experienced hallucinations, then the tomb should still have a body in it. It is a full tomb view. So now my opponent has to account for the tomb. Here is more: If everyone did have hallucinations, a simple check at the tomb by their enemies would have erased any misguided beliefs. Diversity of appearances can't be explained by the theory. He appeared not one time but many times, not just to individuals, but also to groups, at different locales, not just to believers, but to skeptics and enemies. Hallucinations cannot be shared, therefore are not a group phenomenon. Since that is true, they also will not have the same hallucination. [4] Hallucinations come from what is already in the mind. Hallucinations do not provide anything new since it cannot go beyond what is already in the mind. Paul, wasn't in the right frame of mind. He was an enemy of the Church, he didn't want to see Jesus alive. He believed that Christians were blasphemers. James, was also a skeptic, and didn't believe during his lifetime, and was a devout Jew wasn't in the right frame of mind. It even has problems accounting for the disciples' belief. In Judaism, the resurrection was to occur at the end of history, but not in the middle of history. So, at best, they would be looking for the resurrection on judgment day, now so soon after the crucifixion. They were also skeptical of the women's claims which shows that they weren't in the right frame of mind. This theory is also improbable because those who are promoting this theory are trying to psychoanalyze historical figures. But the data to do this is simply insufficient. Historians reject psychobiography precisely for this reason. It is begging the question whether such experiences could possibly be objective, or even supernatural. In other words, why must a naturalistic, subjective explanation be assumed?[5] Some proponents admit that group hallucinations have a "dubious status" because it is not possible to ascertain whether these individuals were actually hallucinating![6] In fact regarding Paul you admit that there is no evidence that he had hallucinations. It is not whether people have hallucinations therefore he had to have had one, the question is did PAUL have one? And where is the evidence for that? Yup you said it, there is none. James' conversion. My opponent gave six theories. But again notice no historical evidence for them, just speculation. Please give historical evidence for James' hunger for power, his not being a real skeptic, etc. I have given historical reasons as to why I believe what I stated. Just giving alternatives without supporting evidence for them is speculation and again doesn't take into account the empty tomb. Now for my opponents question. It is off subject but I will answer it. Jesus didn't need to show himself alive to everyone on the planet. In the Bible there is what is called Natural Law, even though people who never knew of Christ has enough evidence from nature that there is a God. [7] But the debate here is not why Jesus did or didn't show himself to everyone on earth, it is to see if Jesus' resurrection is a reasonable belief. So what do we have so far? Again my opponent has to combine at least four theories to try to explain the data. The problem is, he offers no historical evidence for it, and each one that he offers suffers from a myriad of problems! He states that there is not enough evidence for the empty tomb and it's just a literary device (theory 1), but offers no evidence otherwise.[see ref. 1] He offers hallucinations (theory 2), but offers no evidence. He says that James' might not have been skeptical but a power monger etc (theory 3), but again no historical evidence to back up the claim. And Paul the epileptic (theory 4)? The historical evidence is…..? Nothing. So, to wind up, my opponent has to stack one improbable theory upon another in order to try to account for the facts. But that just makes it more IMprobable. That is ad hoc. I say facts because the reasons for them outweigh the reasons against them. While the resurrection takes into account for all of them. "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true." [8] Mine does, which is why my opponent has to add theories on top of each other to try to explain the facts. Therefore according to historical method, the resurrection is the more reasonable belief.