It can be proven that Jesus rose from the dead

Jesus didn't die Con may have misunderstood me. I argue that given the way crufixion kills, it's not possible for Jesus to have appeared dead if he didn't really die. If Jesus was not dead, his strained efforts to breathe would've been obvious. If he appeared dead, then he would've been still, and therefore unable to breathe, and therefore quickly dead.It's irrelvant whether his legs were actually broken, and we don't need medical proof of his death. I mentioned leg breaking to illustrate that person on a cross had to push themselves up to breathe, making it obvious they were still alive.Con also seems to misunderstand my comment about Jesus appearing dead, then convincing his disciples that he had risen to immortality. The was that if Jesus appeared dead, then he must've been a very bad physical shape, and if he was in very bad physical shape, his appearance to the apostles would not have made them think he had risen to immortality. There's nothing glorious about being mangled half to death. cognitive dissonance Con claims it is beside the point what followers of other messiahs did when their messiah died. But it is relevant because it shows a pattern of behavior among messiah followers. If there had only be one person to continue Jesus' movement, we might be able to dismiss that as an anomaly, but apparently, not only all of Jesus original apostles claimed to see the resurrected Jesus, but even Jesus' brother, James, claimed to see the risen Jesus.Con moves from cognitive dissonance to disception. If there was deception, then they knew Jesus wasn't the messiah. That is completey implausible for two reasons: (1) because it would mean they gave up hope for the redemption of Israel and the fulfillment of God's promises, which is the whole reason anybody followed a messiah to begin with. If they still maintained hope, they would've looked for another messiah, not pretended that a dead one came back to life. (2) It doesn't makes sense that the apostles would be willing to suffer persecution and risk their lives over something they knew wasn't true. The power of alternatate explanations Con says the resurrection is not the only explanation that accounts for the evidence. Actually it is. Every other theory must either dismiss some part of the picture, or come up with ad hoc and distinct explanations. For example, the hallucination hypothesis would explain an appearance, but it does not explain conversion or the empty tomb (which admittedly I haven't brought up). You'd need separate explanations for that. The resurrection is the best explanation because it explains all of the evidence, and does so more powerfully and with fewer ad hoc assumptions. It's really the only explanation that follows the evidence where it leads.Yes, I do think we should treat miracle claims with a general degree of skepticism just as the original apostles did. Like I said, they initially thought they were seeing a ghost, and it took much more to convince them that Jesus had risen from the dead. They required what we would require--touching, eating, etc. They behaved just as we would expect them to behave.Yes, I agree that a person who claims a miracle bears the burden of proof. But I fulfilled my burden of proof in my opening. If Pro wanted to dispute it on the mere basis that it's a miracle, then he needed to offer some kind of argument against miracles in order to overcome my argument for a miracle. Embellishment If the resurrection was a later embellishment, then nobody believed it early on, and if nobody believed it early on, then we're left without an explanation of why Jesus' movement survived his death.ConclusionThe resurrection of Jesus is a superior explanation of the survival of Jesus' movement.There are a lot of issues surrounding the resurrection, including presuppositions, background knowledge, etc. It was a real challenge doing this debate with only 4000 characters per post, but it was a lot of fun, too. Thanks proglib.