The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is historically probable

Apparently my opponent didn't even bother to read my last post. Each fact that I point to is admitted by virtually all scholars. Jesus' death by crucifixion is attested to by first century documents, (Not just the gospels, but also by Paul, who wrote before the gospels, Josephus, and Tacitus) Therefore, we have multiple, independent, early texts that point to Jesus' death by crucifixion. If my opponent wishes to contest this, then he is under obligation, by the rules of historiography, to provide counter evidence, not just shrug it off. As skeptic scholar John Dominic Crossan states: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything can ever be" Likewise for the disciples' sincere belief that they saw Jesus alive after his death. "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" New Testament skeptic Gerd Ludemann Paul and James are in the same boat. We have early documentation of their conversions. Again if my opponent wishes to contest this, then he needs to provide evidence to the contrary. The empty tomb, three things point to the empty tomb. The Jerusalem Factor. Christianity started off in Jerusalem, the very place where Jesus was crucified. If the tomb had not been empty as asserted, all one would have to do is visit the tomb and see. If it were not empty, Christianity would be dead in the womb. The second is enemy attestation: Not only did Christians attest to the empty tomb but also its enemies, although indirectly. Early critics accuse Jesus' disciples of stealing the body: Matt 28:12-13, Justin Martyr, Trypho 108, Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30. There would be no need for an account of a missing body if the tomb weren't empty. The testimony of the women. Since female testimony was not considered reliable, to have them the first to discover the tomb would be counter-productive to spreading the gospel. That falls under the historigraphical principle of embarrassment. Again if my opponent wishes to counter this, he needs to provide E V I D E N C E. As acknowledged by even skeptical historians. "Third, evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms--it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object is established not by nonexistent evidence but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist. " -Hackett, "Historians' Fallacies", Harper: 1970 p.62 My opponent mentions crime investigations. That is up my ally, since I am a cop and just finished my Master's. This is exactly how we investigate crime scenes. We gather the facts, come up with theories to try to explain the facts, and the one that explains the facts the best, we go with. My opponent states that I am assuming the accounts we have are accurate. Nope. I am not basing my argument on the accuracy of the gospels or their inspiration at all. So that is a straw man. All I am basing my argument on is well attested historical fact that are admitted to by nearly all critical scholars that have studied the subject. The next one is science. My opponent states that all we know of physics and biology it is "impossible" for a dead man to rise. In fact he says "This involves a direct violation of everything we know about science. It cannot possibly be true," I would agree with my opponent if all that existed were the natural realm. But I am not sure how my opponent is soooo sure that the supernatural does not exist. Science can tell us nothing of the supernatural. In fact what he is saying is that dead men stay dead. And I would agree, if all that exists is the natural physical realm. And I would even agree that as the norm, dead people stay dead, but that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing what happened in Jesus' case. So in order to prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, he would have to provide at least as historiography goes, an alternative explanation of the accepted facts, or disprove the facts I have provided. Actually I don't know why he has a problem with them, not one of the facts I have mentioned is supernatural or even spectacular! And are regarded as historical facts even by skeptics (as I already pointed out and used their references). >The laws of physics cannot be blatantly suspended for the desires of anyone in any circumstances. Not ever. No resurrections or virgin births or ascensions to heaven. No conversations with God up mountains. These things did not happen for the simple reason that they cannot physically have happened. < Again this is an a-priori argument. How does my opponent KNOW these things? Hmmm? Again I would agree if God didn't exist (who created the laws of physics in the first place), but it is up to my opponent to prove he doesn't exist. Just to sit there and say it is impossible is not an argument. And I am arguing that the theory that Jesus was resurrected fits the facts better than alternative explanations. If that is so, then by the rules of historiography, it is reasonable to believe that the resurrection did infact happen. So, what do we have so far? Well it seems that my opponent agrees that Jesus died by crucifixion. He seems to have problems with my other facts, however, since he offers no counter evidence at all, they stand. Second, my opponent offers no alternative explanation, so the resurrection theory still stands. All my opponent tried to do is say that it is scientifically impossible. But science is incapable of proving anything historically, it cannot prove Lincoln was shot, or Washington crossed the Delaware. Nor can it disprove the supernatural. The only way to disprove the resurrection, is to do it historically. The way to do that is to either get rid of my fact by giving historical evidence that is greater than what I have, or, barring that, provide an alternative explanation that takes the facts into account better than the resurrection. You see, if there is a better naturalistic explanation, then one can say that something naturalistic probably happened, therefore no need to believe in the supernatural, however, if the facts point to the resurrection then indeed it is reasonable to believe in the supernatural. But one cannot believe or disbelieve a-priori, which is what my opponent is doing, he is showing his bias without weighing the evidence beforehand. In fact, in a debate, one of the world's leading atheists, Richard Dawkins himself commented that there are serious arguments that point to God's existence. Apparently the arguments are good enough for Anthony Flew to give up on atheism. Again notice what I am NOT doing. I am not saying that the bible is historically trustworthy, nor inspired (though I do believe it is), what I am doing is using what is accepted as fact (none of which by the way is supernatural) based upon historical evidence and using historical guidelines that critical scholars use to see which theory best explains the facts and basing my argument on that. To say otherwise is committing a straw man. First we must get the facts, and then weigh the theories to see which direction the facts point to.