Jesus Christ rose from the dead

Many thanks to my opponent for the debate. Pro opens up the final round explaining that Tacitus mentioned superstitious Christians, and cites Annals 15.44 as an example of historical mentioning of Christians. As you can see, this does not prove that 'the' Jesus existed but rather that there were people who believed in 'a' Jesus' divinity. Nothing about these sources exclaims something contrary to what I said in the last round. I proposed that just because there were people who believed in a potentially mythical figure (Christians) doesn't mean that Christ (a) existed or (b) was as divine as they claim. In fact, I will gladly cite the verse my opponent is talking about so the audience can see for themselves that these texts merely mention Christians in general and are simply describing what was then seen as a cult following [1]. Further, Josephus' testimony about Christ is clearly biased and therefore barely admissible. Quite obviously he was a Christian himself as he refers to Jesus as the Messiah, which is something a Jewish person at the time would never have done. Only a Christian would claim that Christ was the Messiah, so a Christian believing in Jesus' divinity is not exactly proof that Jesus was in fact divine. Many historians believe that Josephus' testimony about Jesus is riddled with arguments against authenticity [2]. So again, just because this particular individual believed in Christ dying and rising from the dead does not make it any more true then me writing about a flying spaghetti monster makes it true. As you can see, Pro has merely cited people who believed in Christ's divinity. Again, just because people believed he was divine does not make it so. Indeed it does help the case that Christ may have existed as a historical figure, but again there is no direct conclusive evidence and Pro has not provided any even if there IS evidence. A bunch of people can write about those who believe in the lochness monster, but just because historians, journalists, etc. write about a group of people who believe something once again does not make their beliefs valid; they merely report what is going on. Additionally, Pro did not fulfill his burden in the last round. Sure, he mentioned a bunch of people who MAY have written about 'the' Jesus in question. However this debate isn't only about whether or not Jesus existed - it's about whether or not he rose from the dead. In the last round, I presented several arguments assuming that Jesus did exist as a historical figure. I pointed out that even if he existed as a historical figure, there is no proof that he rose from the dead. The only "proof" my opponent has offered is that many people believed in Christ's cause. However, once again that does not prove anything. It is Pro's burden to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but he hasn't even proven that Jesus was crucified to begin with (for which there is no direct evidence... and again, if there is, he hasn't provided it). Most frustratingly, Pro has completely ignored all of my arguments. First, he completely ignored the fact that the story of Jesus mirrors the story of the Egyptian god Horus. This is crucial to my argument as it demonstrates that the story of Jesus' ressurrection is probably just a similar myth. Second, Pro never responded to my arguments about how mass "hallucinations" or brain washing was possible, or why the cult following of Christianity (as it was considered) probably lead people to believe or repeat unplausible things. Third, he did not respond to my argument that just because people converted to Christianity or chose to believe in Jesus' divinity does not necessarily make Jesus divine. In fact, all Pro did in this round was repeat the same individuals who did believe in Jesus (which doesn't prove anything but merely shows that some people believed it). Another argument that Pro ignored was that of the empty tomb. I presented many plausible scenarios about why the tomb Jesus was allegedly buried in was later found empty. In fact, I cited a source proving that Jesus' disciples agreed that his body was probably stolen (as grave robbery was very common at the time). Yet another argument Pro ignored was that of Jesus and his documented relation to psychadelics. Finally, Pro did not respond to my most important contention - that rising from the dead contradicts every single logical, physical and biological law. I pointed out that many other explanations were plausible or at least POSSIBLE, wheras Christ rising from the dead is logically impossible. It is/was Pro's burden to prove that the logically impossible was more likely to have occurred then the logically possible. In conclusion, Pro's argument was far from conclusive. I explained how some historians doubt that Jesus lived in the first place let alone was crucified [3]. Christ myth theorists often cite the lack of contemporaneous non-Christian sources that mention Jesus. The few non-Christian sources that do refer to Jesus are rejected as corrupt (such as the remarks of Josephus) or viewed as dependent on the beliefs of later Christians (such as Tacitus's passing reference to a Christ), and thus providing no independent corroboration [4], [5]. Now, for the sake of debate, I have accepted that we can argue from the position that Jesus did indeed exist as a historical figure. Pro has failed to present evidence of his crucifixion let alone his ressurrection. But let's even assume that we accept Christian testimony as proof of his crucifixion. Pro expects us to accept that Christ probably died simply because a few Christian women said that this was so, and a few people subsequently wrote about what they saw. First - how do we know these women really saw dead Jesus? Couldn't it have been someone who looked like him? That is far more plausible and logically permissible then accepting that a man defied the laws of logic and physics. In other words, there is probably a more realistic explanation: either they were mistaken, or the entire thing was fabricated. Either way, documents of hearsay do not prove a thing. If I understand Pro correctly, the argument here is that because people wrote about Jesus rising, that in fact it must be true. This is nothing more than wishful thinking (at least from a debating standpoint). Indeed many people at the time DID refute what was said about Jesus as complete and utter fabrications; there was a LOT of opposition to the story at the time. So again, just because a few believers wrote about Jesus does not make his story true. Even if you personally believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, you must accept that my opponent hasn't proven it whereas I have given other plausible and possible arguments demonstrating how he probably did not. Thank you. [1] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.vexen.co.uk... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.jesusneverexisted.com...