Atheism (Disbelief) can be Substantiated, Where The Worship of Jesus Christ Cannot.

The Historical Method My opponent bases his argument on source criticism, to invalidate the reliability of the historical evidence of Jesus. According to my opponents own source (Wikipedia), it is rare for a historical document to meat all 6 criteria he listed[1]. So we should just focus on meeting as much of the criteria as we can. 1. When When an important event it is acceptable to use oral tradition, in places that have a strong history of oral rememberance [1] such as the Jews had in that time period. From that perspective the time from Jesus's death and resurrection until the time of writing is small enough to be considered reliable. There must be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question [1]. The bible meets this criteria as well. It has the 2 original sources for the gospels Q and Mark as well as the historian Josephus, the Apostle Paul, and the Gospel of the Hebrews [2]. 2. Where The original sources can be traced back to a specific location. Experts at picking up on these sorts of things have recognized key indicators that the Bible has been translated from Aramaic. Here is a pun from the bible that can only be understood in Aramaic; "Matt 23:24, "straining out the gnat (galma) and swallowing a camel (gamla)" points in the direction of the historical Jesus.[3]" 3. By whom was it authored The culture that this comes from has a strong oral rememberance anything with-in 150 years of the actual event would be almost as good if not just as good as the original source. Given the parallel sources of the event, the gospels are very reliable. 4. From what pre-existing material was it produced Even though the "Q" document can't be located doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The similarities between Matthew and Luke, that don't correspond with anything from Mark, strongly indicate an alternate source material. Unfortunately most writing that old even important writings are lost forever. 5. In what original form was it produced. Oral tradition in this part of the world is incredibly reliable. There are other oral traditions that are considered fact by historians that have more significant lapses in time then 30 years. 6. What is the evidential value of the accounts of Jesus Christ. Evidential value can be established by looking at a few criteria. 1. Multiple attestation- The Bible meets this test by having multiple independent sources agreeing to the same events[2]. 2. Tendencies of developing tradition- The oral tradition laws have been determined to show what the earliest parts of the text are and therefore what is most reliable[2]. 3. Embarrassment- The gospels do contain embarrassing elements that the original authors would have found embarrassing. For example the story of Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist, which would indicate Jesus being of lower standing then John the Baptist [2]. 4. Sitz im Leben- This is the historical, cultural and political context of the Bible. It shows that the stories of Jesus match the context quite perfectly. I have proven the historic reliability of the existence of Jesus. The resurrection of Christ I agree with my opponent that if Jesus can be proved to be resurrected he is worthy of worship. I need not give any other evidence that Jesus is worthy of worship other then his resurrection. 1. Eyewitness testimony The choice of the eyewitnesses to Jesus's resurrection is very interesting. "In first-century Judaism, women had low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses"[4]. Why in the world would they be chosen as witnesses? This comes back down to the embarrassment factor. If these women were in fact not witness to the resurrection of Christ, then the gospel writers would have at least invented some male witnesses to place there. This embarrassment factor lends a lot of credibility to the resurrection story. Outside Resistance Very shortly after Jesus's death, his followers started preaching about his resurrection. Given the proximity to the location and to the time, if that tomb had not been empty then the Roman guards and the Pharisees would have came out in massive numbers to squash this rumor. Instead we don't see this happening [4]. If even the enemies of the Christians in this time period didn't object to the claim of an empty tomb then why should people as far removed as us do so? Not a Conspiracy It would be ridiculous to think these 12 disciples came together after Jesus's death to commit the biggest hoax in the history of mankind. We're talking about 12 men coming together and deciding to die and be tortured in the name of a silly hoax. This just simply would not happen. This men's faith was so strong because they had seen the resurrected Jesus several times. Summary There is enough historical documentation to show Jesus existed. The fact that his body was missing and several people seen him after his death shows he was indeed resurrected. All the Roman's had to do to stop this myth, had it been true was to produce the body. Their failure to do this indicates the body was missing. 12 men wouldn't have gotten together in the name of perpetrating a hoax. The only reasonable explanation for everything I have explained is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Sources [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [3] http://blue.butler.edu... [4] http://www.peterkreeft.com...