The Resurrection of Jesus is a historically valid event.

I am not arguing based on my "say so." I have offered several pieces of evidence, which are historically valid. If Composer wishes to reject Jesus as historical, he must also reject Alexander the Great as myth, and not an actual historical person. I extend all of my arguments into the next round.These books are not based on hearsay. These are con's own words: "Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge." I have already explained that two of the Gospel authors (Matthew and John) were Jesus' own disciples and witness to His life and ministry. By Con's own admission, this is not hearsay. Additionally, the two other Gospel writers (Mark and Luke) were close associates of one of Jesus' disciples (Luke was an associate of Peter), and one of the Apostles (Mark was an associate of Paul, who didn't walk with Jesus but was a witness to Jesus post-resurrection), and as such they had direct access to the eyewitnesses. Additionally, Con asserts these were all "story-book characters" with no evidence that they never actually existed. However, they are as historical as any other living person, including Alexander the Great, and other people from that time period that historians accept, such as Pontius Pilate.Con has said I've made the "typical mistake" of believing the events in the Bible to be what I claim it to be. However, Con has no evidence that these events were not historical. The books contained in the Bible are all books of history. Historians even accept them as such to an extent (obviously they don't accept the miraculous portions). It is obvious that Con begins by begging the question, that the events of the Bible are not real, and likely would not believe with any evidence that is supplied. I dare say it's a good thing Composer is not a historian, otherwise we wouldn't know as much about the ancient world as we do now.I never said anything about Josephus converting. In fact, historians don't doubt that Josephus mentioned Jesus, what they doubt is what Josephus wrote about Jesus. He was a Jewish historian, so it seems, to them, that Christians later embellished what Josephus wrote about Jesus. But Josephus did, in fact, mention Jesus in his writings. To doubt this is simply irrational, and Con has an obvious bias when he says it.In fact, Con is simply wrong when he says that the majority of scholars reject Josephus' writings about Jesus as authentic. In fact, the overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" to be authentic and have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity. [1] [2] Also, almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to be also authentic. [3] Perhaps Con should stop listening to random websites and see what the scholars actually have to say.There have been many, many reputable works written and mentioning Jesus. Con's claim that they are not authentics is simply indefensible.Now, Con repeats the atheist mantra that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is simply untrue. Consider this: If I tell you I have a brown dog with four legs and a long tail, you would have no trouble believing me. Why? You've seen many dogs and you would know this to be a common attribute of dogs.However, if I told you I have a purple dog with six legs and two tails, you would rightly require evidence. What kind of evidence? You would merely need to see the dog. The extraordinary claim requires the same kind of evidence as the ordinary claim. The ordinary claim just seems more believable because of your prior experience with dogs.The existence of Jesus Christ is not an extraordinary claim. You can believe Jesus was a historical person without believing the miraculous claims surrounding him. In fact, the vast majority of scholars and historians accept a historical Jesus. In light of this, Con not thinking the evidence is good enough is simply unconvincing. I think we can trust the historians. Additionally, all of the historical evidence points to the event of the resurrection actually happening. Con has not rebutted a single one of my arguments in support of the resurrection. Con has spent this entire argument asserting things, calling my views irrational (all of which I have back up with evidence -- so who is really arguing irrationally here?), and not backing up any of his own claims. I think it's obvious which of us has the stonger argument.Since Con has not rebutted a single one of my arguments in support of the resurrection, I extend all of my arguments into the next and final round.[1] Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9.[2] Feldman, Louis H.; Hata, Gōhei, eds. (1987). Josephus, Judaism and Christianity. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-08554-1.