The Resurrection of Jesus is a historically probable event.

Regarding my first piece of evidence, Con does accept that Jesus was real and that He died. But of course, simply dying is not evidence that He would be resurrected, even though He claimed that He would be. So I will address Con's arguments regarding my other pieces of evidence.2. The Empty Tomb. Regarding the evidence for the empty tomb, this is attested in all four of the Gospels (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20), as well as in Paul's writings (1 Corinthians 15). Additionally, there were witnesses to the empty tomb. First, there were the women (Matthew 28:1-10), and then there was Peter and John (John 20:1-10).3. Appearances. Despite Mr. Seigal's claim to the contrary, it is, in fact, his claim that is a bare assertion. Many specific instances of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances are recorded, and many of those He appeared to have been named. We have, in no particular order, Mary Magdalene (John 20:10-18); the other women with her, including Mary, the Mother of James and Salome (Matthew Matthew 28:1-10); to Peter (this account is not recorded, but Paul mentions the appearance in 1 Corinthians 15:5); to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Mark 16:12, Luke 24:13-35); to the Ten Disciples (sans Judas, who hung himself, and Thomas, who was not present: Luke 24:36-49, John 20:19-23); to the Eleven (Thomas included, but sans Judas for the aforementioned reason, John 20:24-31); to seven disciples who were fishing (John 21); to the Apostles to commission them (Matthew 28:16-20, Mark 16:14-18); to the five hundred (this event is not recorded, but mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:6); to James (1 Corinthians 15:7); at the Ascension (Acts 1:4-8); and to Paul Acts 9:1-9, 1 Corinthians 15:8). So Seigal's concerns are unwarranted. These appearances were definitely physical appearances (Jesus allowed others to touch Him, Jesus ate with them so they could see He wasn't simply a ghost, etc. ). Additionally, while Paul does not mention whether he was part of the 500, we are given an account of Paul's meeting the post-resurrection Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts 9:1-9. While it is true that no one is mentioned specifically by name from the 500, the ones who had experienced the resurrection were likely well known. Paul obviously knew who they were, since he knew that most of them were "still alive to this day. "4. Testimonies. Con has not addressed this, so I will extend this argument into the next round.5. Low status of women. 5a. Women were trusted. Actually, I tend to view the opposite. It was precisely because he went out of his way to indicate they were women that proves it might not have been as reliable as if they were men. First of all, the reason he used women was because there were no men left alive to use as witnesses after the events at Gamala and Masada. If women were not an embarrassment, why weren't they used as witnesses more often as recorded by Josephus?5b. Women were the targets of early Christians. This actually does come as news to me. I don't think there's really any evidence that women were the primary target of early Christians. Richard Carrier is not know for being the most reliable critic of Christianity, especially since he takes the extremist position that Jesus never even existed, which conflicts with Con's acceptance that there was a Jesus, and He even died by Crucifixion. The book of Acts is a book of history of early Christianity. It is quite evident that women were not the primary focus of early Christianity. At the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, we see there were many people gathered there, specifically devout men from every nation under heaven. On that day alone, about three thousand people converted. Do you honestly believe them to be only women? The book of Acts recounts many men being witnessed to and saved, such as the lame man in Acts 3, and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.5c. The fallacy. Fallacies are not always fallacies. I believe it is very reasonable to suppose that if women were considered unreliable witnesses, then if the story were made up the witnesses would have been men to add credibility. The fact that the primary witnesses were women shows that the events happened and that they were faithfully recorded.6. Immediate proclamation. My partner is here splitting hairs on the meaning of "immediately. " I didn't mean immediately after Jesus rose. After all, there was a span of time in which Jesus appeared to the disciples and to others. By immediately I meant that the disciples didn't wait twenty years, or even a few generations until Jesus' crucifixion was but a fleeting memory. It happened pretty much right away, which would have been religious suicide because a body could have been produced. I don't think the rotting corpse was an issue because a God who could resurrect a man could certainly keep the body from decay (in fact, the Scriptures state that Jesus' body was kept from decay, cf. Acts 2:31). However, the Romans and Jewish leaders knew that Jesus claimed He was rise again after being dead three days. So they need not have waited until the Christians started proclaiming His resurrection, they could have showed it after the three days of Jesus' burial to quash Christianity right away. If a rotting corpse was really an issue, surely it would behoove the Jews and Romans to have shown the body right away rather than wait until the body deteriorated. Now regarding Con's further contentions. Contention 1: Jesus only appeared to his followers. I think it important to show that this does not "beg the question," which is a logical fallacy, but it might pose the question as to why Jesus didn't appear to the high priest, or anyone who wasn't his follower? However, Jesus didn't only appear to His followers. He appeared to Saul (later known as Paul), who was a staunch critic of early Christianity and even killed many of its followers (Acts 9). Paul switched gears and suddenly started preaching the truth of Christianity. Additionally, I believe the reason why Jesus didn't appear to more people who weren't his followers can be found in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16). After the rich man died and was tormented in Hell, Abraham would not let Lazarus return from the dead to warn his brothers because if they didn't believe the prophets, neither would they believe someone who came back from the dead. Jesus appeared mostly to His followers because they were cowering, and Jesus had to strenghten them by showing that He did, indeed, rise from the dead. Contention 2: The lack of evidence. First, extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence, only ordinary evidence. If I told you I have a brown dog with four legs and a tail, you would be reasonable in believing me. If I told you I have a purple dog with six legs and four tails, you would reasonably require evidence. What kind of evidence? You would just need to see the dog. The reason you believed me in the first case is because you have seen dogs and know what they look like. The same evidence is required. So Con's first premise is untrue, and therefore his argument is unsound. Historians have the same kind of evidence that they would need for any other kind of event. They have five independent, contemporary sources that speak of an empty tomb. Jesus claimed He would rise again and all the evidence supports it. Any alternate theories all fall flat. I have now read the Muslim account in the Qu'ran of Muhammad splitting the Moon. I think the resurrection is more reliable because: one, the Qu'ran does not say Muhammad actually split the Moon; and two, there is no reason that the passage should not be read poetically, as opposed to literally. I look forward to our next and final round.