It can be proven that Jesus rose from the dead

Excellent argument by Pro*. As a skeptical Con, however, I would point out that Pro implies much more knowledge of the crucifixion of Jesus than we in fact have. Documentation of medical details of Jesus’ crucifixion. From my understanding of the documentation: we have no first person accounts recorded in their own words of the details of the crucifixion. We know how crucifixions were usually carried out, but not how this one, particular crucifixion was performed--whether Jesus’ legs were broken, that he was clearly dead in the medical sense that we would use, etc. There is obviously no physical evidence. There is disagreement over who exactly was in attendance. In fact, we are not even sure of the year in which he died.[1] Pro then seems to get his cases mixed up claiming that “if Jesus was in such bad shape that he appeared dead, there's no way he could've convinced his disciples that he had risen to immortality...” The question between us isn’t whether or not Jesus appeared dead. We both agree that he appeared dead. The question is was he dead (and then alive.) Whether his apostles sought medical help or not, he was in bad shape. There is disagreement in different gospels about whether he wanted to be touched. It is claimed that he still had wounds for Thomas to put his hands in. Cognitive dissonance and the argument from embarrassment While the argument from embarrassment may be evidence of the crucifixion, it proves nothing regarding the resurrection. Truly followers of a messiah would not have wanted him to be crucified or to die. If he were crucified, though, they would absolutely want him to rise again. What other followers of putative messiahs did is beside the point. It is clearly possible and though not as moving, more probable that the disciples wanted to believe in a resurrection, and may have seen a near miraculous post-crucifixion survival. Pro asks if we are to believe that Jesus’ disciples abandoned him in his weakened state. Isn’t it possible that they saw him later die with a few of them in attendance and that he was buried in secret to keep his “second” death quiet. Would it be so strange that founders of a religion exaggerated the life and death of their prophet?The power of various explanations Pro says the miraculous resurrection would be a more powerful explanation. CLEARLY, that is why hundreds of millions of people have followed a religion based on that story. However, it is not the only explanation that agrees with the evidence. Pro says that people at the time would have believed other explanations, except that the resurrection explanation overcame their skepticism. Shouldn’t we from the 21st century world of science and medicine, and with no first hand evidence, be skeptical of the supernatural claims, based mostly on hearsay of over 2000 years ago? Interestingly Pro states, “Con’s only problem with the resurrection is that it’s a miracle.” Well, yes, but that is a BIG problem. The reason I haven’t offered any argument against miracles is that I don’t have to. When it comes to the supernatural the BoP is on Pro. We agreed to that from the beginning. Pro needs to provide stronger evidence in support.SUMMARY I will repeat my case in opposition to proof that Jesus rose from the (medically) dead: Impossible to prove he was medically dead; Scarcity of first person accounts of the details of his crucifixion; Clearly possible that his appearance post-crucifixion was embellished by the founders of Christianity. Again, I thank Pro for his thoughtful arguments. And look forward to his next round. NOTES * I made a mistake in Pro/Con. I’m Con. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org...