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

Well, to start off with, what my opponent is doing is a logical fallacy known as a straw man. I am not arguing for Jesus' divinity. I am arguing for the historical probability of Jesus' resurrection on historical grounds using historical guidelines that secular historians use. In order to use the resurrection as evidence for Jesus' divinity, I would have to first provide evidence for the resurrection! I have stated this repeatedly. Also, my opponent already conceded that the apostles really believed in what they preached. They preached having experiences of the risen Jesus. The disciples' sincerity: It matters a great deal as to why they came to sincerely believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I recently stated that unlike others that die for something that they believe is true, it is another thing with the disciples. They died for something that they KNEW was either true or false. And any psychologist will tell you, lairs make poor martyrs. And my opponent agrees as to their sincerity. So the question remains historically, what accounts for the sincere belief in the resurrection of Jesus by the disciples? Is there some naturalistic explanation or is it that they really had experienced the risen Jesus? Instead, my opponent simply tries to shrug off the fact and simply say in effect, "people will believe in the craziest things." My opponent has offered no historical evidence to account for their sincerity of their belief in the resurrection. So, just to making comments that people will believe in the most wild things is not a substitute for a historical argument. I think my opponent is starting to grasp at straws. First my opponent tries to disprove the empty tomb, but offers no historical evidence to disprove the empty tomb. Now my opponent tries to attack a point that he already conceded. Vulnerability of Traditions: My opponent actually makes a case for my point. The disciples' story ALWAYS held to the resurrection. In other words there is no time for legendary tales to develop. Indeed, we have a steady chain of custody, if you will, right from the first disciples onward. What my opponent has failed to do is provide historical evidence that this oral tradition was indeed changed over time. All my opponent does is imply that since it is something supernatural (however that is what we are trying to discover, if something naturalistically occurred or supernatural), it is automatically a-priori discounted as a historical event. He is predisposing his naturalistic worldview. Eyewitness Testimony: Again imposing a-priori a naturalistic worldview. First, in order to imply that the supernatural cannot happen, is to KNOW that there is no God. However, no atheist has ever disproven the existence of God or the supernatural. Also an event that happened on earth, in time is an historical event regardless if its' supernatural implications or not. And having eyewitness testimony is the same. "I find it highly suspect that such a spectacular event would be supported simply by eye-witness testimonies, especially in the light of human culpability" And why is that? What if the witnesses were found to be trustworthy? And what would my opponent expect in the first century? Camcorders? I wonder what my opponent would take as valid evidence for something that happened in the first century? How about the 17th century? It seems you are committing special pleading by implying that eyewitness testimony is good enough for "secular" events but not for "supernatural" ones. You also show your anti-supernatural bias by stating that no eyewitness testimony would be good enough if the event happens to be supernatural. But that is what we are trying to discover isn't it? Is there any naturalistic explanation that accounts for the accepted historical facts? So far, what you have given so far fails as a more plausible historical theory compared to the resurrection. Because what you have given so far doesn't account for the facts as well as the resurrection. "Instead, what you are claiming is something that will be of quite monumental scientific and philosophical consequence." This is something I can agree with. But we aren't even there. What we have to do is see if there is a naturalistic theory that accounts for the accepted facts as well as the resurrection. If something other than the resurrection has occurred that too has great implications. Likewise if the resurrection did occur, like you said, the implications are great. Again what do we have so far? My opponent and I agree on the following facts: 1 Jesus was crucified, died and was buried. 2 The disciples had what they really believed was experiences of the risen Jesus. 3 James, the skeptical brother of Jesus suddenly converted. 4. Paul, the enemy of Christians suddenly converted. Nothing in these events is supernatural in and of themselves. I am not saying that Jesus is divine just because the disciples believed in the resurrection or Paul converted etc. The problem is what accounts for those facts? WHY did the disciples come to believe in the resurrection? WHY did Paul suddenly convert as did James? WHY was the tomb found empty? THAT is the historical question at hand. The only contention we had is the empty tomb. Nevermind the fact that an empty tomb itself doesn't Jesus' resurrection nor divinity for that matter. The historical question is WHY is it empty? My opponent tried to say that it wasn't empty but hasn't provided any historical evidence that it wasn't or that something naturalistic happened. In fact I gave a series to reasons why most scholars consider the empty tomb a fact. But here are others. 1. The gospels are unanimous on the fact. Now this could go either way. If all four gospels are independent of each other, then we have four independent early historical sources. However, if you want to say that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark then you still have two (Mark and John which no one says they borrowed off of each other). 2. Then you have Paul. 3. You have the other enemies of Christianity all stating an empty tomb. All together you have, conservatively, six early historical sources that point to an empty tomb. And to my knowledge, there have been no historical discoveries against it. According to historiography, something can be considered a historical fact when the evidence for an event outweighs evidence against it. So far my opponent has not given anything. So, my fifth fact, the empty tomb still stands. And so as my opponent already stated: "if these facts are correct they demonstrate a powerful case for the resurrection of Jesus." Well since my opponent has so far failed to provide any evidence that these are not facts (especially since he conceded 4 out of 5 and has as yet to disprove my fifth), I'd say I have a pretty good case. Here is why. So far my opponent has only put forth a scant theory, that apparently the disciples made exaggerations. However this fails on many points. The first being that my opponent already conceded that the disciples were sincere in their belief that they had experiences of the risen Jesus. The second is that it fails to account for James' sudden conversion. The third it fails to account for Paul's conversion. And lastly it fails to account for the empty tomb. However, the resurrection accounts for the death of Jesus and burial, it accounts for the disciples belief in the risen Jesus experiences. It also accounts for James' and Paul's sudden conversions and takes into account the empty tomb. So according to historiography, the explanation that best accounts for the accepted facts is the one that probably happens. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened.