The Resurrection of Jesus meets the criteria of historicity

Ok, let me take a look at your "facts" "Fact" 1. There is nothing special about Jesus dying. Either way, there are no reliable extra biblical sources that document this event happening. All extra biblical accounts were written long after the fact. While it is probable that a man named Jesus lived and was crucified, it doesn't pertain to this discussion. Paul didn't write when he was antagonistic to Jesus, so your point is misleading. Also, I already pointed out the controversy regarding the writings of Josephus. On another note, if you are going to keep using the "it is a fact admitted by almost all scholars" point, back it up with statistics, because most of the things you claim that a majority of scholars back.. They don't. The burden is on you to back up these claims. "Fact" 2. The video I posted which puts into perspective the psychology of those who are brainwashed into cults casts considerable doubt into the authenticity of these extraordinary claims. Either way, this "fact" isn't sufficient evidence to prove the historicity of the resurrection. "Fact" 3. With the growing number of Christians popping up talking about how the world was going to be ending in their own lifetimes, it doesn't seem all that weird. Also, that point that your quote is trying to put across is absurd, because it's easy to doubt that he believed what he saw. He could have been an ancient day Peter Popoff or Jimmy Swaggart. To say that there is no doubt is to deny the plausibility that he could be lying to further some kind of agenda or personal need. Assuming Paul was honest about meeting the risen Jesus, Paul himself never knew Jesus before his alleged crucifixion. He could have just as easily ran into a guy claiming to be Jesus. That said, whether Paul believed or not, whether he was honest or dishonest is irrelevant. His testimony is not enough to justify the historicity of a highly implausible resurrection. "Fact" 4. Facts 2, 3, and 4 are basically the same fact. Plenty of people converted to the side of Jesus. I'm sure there were many more skeptics who ended up converting. Hell, you claim to be one, and you didn't even live back in those days to witness these events. Do I need to go into detail about how it isn't even known if James the Just was literally the biological brother of Jesus? Also, what source do you draw from to say that James was a skeptic at all? "Fact" 5. What is your evidence for an empty tomb? The contradicting gospel accounts? Either way, don't you think it is quite a stretch to say because a tomb is empty, that means that the deceased rose from the dead? Yes, I contend that the early church in all likelihood was like the church in the video I posted. The early disciples probably didn't need counter-evidence, because like the people in the cult video I posted, they were more than likely highly deluded and unreasonable. As for your putting this "theory" up against McCullagh's historical method, it simply does not stand against the "theory" that the resurrection is a myth. Once again, you completely ignore the fact that I have stated my "theory" twice now. I do not feel the need to pit it up against yours again, because it should be patently obvious to anyone with an inkling of sense that you are advocating a crackpot theory. I don't expect to convince you, but I hope the people voting on this debate have that sense. I feel no need to attack McCullagh's method, and I feel that I am fully capable of dismantling your argument with the method that you prefer to use. I also feel like it would be an insult to the intelligence of the people watching this debate to even address the rest of my opponent's post this round, because it is obvious that he doesn't really have a case, but I would like to establish how bad my opponent's understandings of the facts are. I am not making an "Ad hominem fallacy". Especially when it is fairly obvious that the person has had an apologetic agenda straight from the start of their college career. Having a PhD does not guarantee you know what you are talking about. I'm discrediting him not for his belief in Christianity, but for believing that there is enough evidence to give the resurrection historicity status(which is clearly false). If someone with a PhD in Zoology told me that a bat was a bird, I'd call them a crack pot too. Also, pardon me for the error on Habermas' degree, on the biography section of his website, he doesn't mention a degree in the "History and Philosophy of Religion", he just mentions "philosophical theology and the world religions.". I looked at his resume, and he does indeed mention that as his Doctorate Major being in the "History and Philosophy of Religion". This doesn't look like a degree in history to me... http://religion.concordia.ca... Which means you are probably unintentionally making an argument from authority. I hold the same opinion of Habermas. As for Miller, It was a mistake for me to not look up this quote, because it is indeed taken out of context. First of all, this is a quote from Graham Twelftree(a biblical scholar obviously), and even that quote is missing a part in the middle. So you are not quoting Robert Miller technically, and saying so is misleading. Where did I find this? A book written by Habermas! Look at the last paragraph of page 32 and go down.... http://books.google.com... I'd be willing to bet that this book is probably where my opponent gets most of his faulty information, because if you go down to the sources.. You see that Habermas used the exact same cite that my opponent used for the Miller quote. Either way, I extend my arguments.