The Resurrection of Jesus meets the criteria of historicity

So, let me get this straight. Your whole thesis is that it was a lie. Ok fair enough. How does that stack up against the resurrection according to historiographical guidelines? Since my opponent is pretty vague as to who lied about what I will assume he means the disciples are the one's that are guilty of mythologizing (though, by my opponents admission, he has no idea who did the mythologizing). Does it explain the five facts as well as the resurrection? I do not think it does. Here is why. 1. It doesn't explain the death of Jesus. My opponent offers absolutely no historical evidence as to what "really" happened to Jesus. He implies that the gospel accounts are biased. But does bias automatically mean that they are in error? No. For example, the Jews of the holocaust, when writing of their experiences, are biased. But bias can be an asset. In fact it was their bias that ensures it's accuracy. As McCullagh points out: "The fact that people have certain preferences does not mean they cannot reach true, justified, conclusions about the past." – The Truth of History, 1998. So, we are still left with early, testimony, written within the lifetime of witnesses. We also have testimony of those who were antagonistic (which would have the opposite bias) to Christianity, namely Paul and Josephus. And it is a fact admitted by almost all scholars who studied the subject. As Bart Ehrman states: "One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate." - Can Historians Prove that Jesus Rose from the Dead? (debate with Mike Licona, 2008) 2. It doesn't account for the disciple's sincere belief that they had experienced the risen Jesus. Their willingness to suffer torture repeatedly and martyrdom speaks of their sincerity. This is admitted by biblical and extrabiblical testimony that is early. Again my opponent offers no historic evidence for this. Again to quote Ehrman: "Why, then, did some of the disciples claim to see Jesus alive after his crucifixion? I don't doubt al all that some disciples claimed this. We don't have any of their written testimony, but Paul, writing about twenty five years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I don't think he is making it up. And he knew at least a couple of them whom he met just three years after the event (Gal 1:18-19)" – The Historical Jesus: Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook. p.261-262 3. It certainly doesn't explain Paul's sudden conversion from an enemy of Christianity to an apostle. How would you get Paul on board and lie about the resurrection? Again Ehrman, "There is no doubt that [Paul] believed that he saw Jesus' real but glorified body raised from the dead." – Can Historians Prove that Jesus Rose from the Dead? (debate with Mike Licona, 2008) 4. It doesn't explain why James, the skeptical brother of Jesus during his lifetime, would suddenly convert. Again how would you get him to go along with the lie? 5. It doesn't explain the empty tomb. Was it empty or not? My opponent then tries to say that the early church is that like the video. So he believes that the disciples, after Jesus died, opposite from feeling dejected that their Messiah, died a humiliating death, aside from feeling frightened that they had to hide, they decided to become fanatical. Why? What counter evidence were they faced with that they still said that they were going to believe anyway? And what of Paul and James? It fails every one of McCullagh's tests for weighing hypothesis. It lacks (1) explanatory scope and (2) explanatory power since it fails to account for the disciple's belief and Paul, as well James' and the tomb and is completely vague. (3) It is not as plausible, especially if we live in a theistic universe. (4) It is more ad hoc, since it must rely upon further presuppositions to account for Paul and James, as well as the tomb. As well as making more presumptions as to other why other enemies were silent. (5) It goes against accepted beliefs, since these five are taken as facts by the overwhelming majority of scholars that have studied the subject. Even Bart Ehrman concedes the first three as historical facts, to include that Paul really believed that he experienced the risen, physical Jesus. (6) It certainly does not outstrip the rival hypothesis. Here is the resurrection hypothesis and McCullagh's tests. 1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw Jesus alive etc. 2. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people saw Jesus alive etc. 3. It is plausible: given the context of Jesus' own life an claims, the resurrection serves as confirmation of those claims 4. It is not ad hoc or contrived. it requires only one additional hypothesis, that God exists. And even then that needn't be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exist. 5 It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" doesn't in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don't rise from the dead naturally. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the theory that God raised Jesus from the dead. 6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypothesis in meeting conditions 1-5. [Especially since no other theory has been given.] Again with the ad hominem attacks on authors. But, what of McCullagh? He is an eminent historian, and a skeptical one at that. In his book "Justifying Historical Descriptions":"If the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true." Also: "But if the evidence is support of an explanatory hypothesis is strong, and there is no alternative hypothesis supported nearly as well, it is reasonable to believe it is probably true" McCullagh, "The Truth of History."p.23 Logical Fallacies: If what you say is true and I am arguing from ignorance, then as an investigator, I wouldn't be able to do my job. We use the same guidelines. We gather facts, then come up with theories that try to explain those facts, it is called inference. It, like history and science is based upon probability. We do not know with 100% certainty what happened. But that doesn't stop the historian, nor the investigator, nor the scientist from inferring from the facts as to what probably happened. It is hardly an argument from ignorance. >While science has not disproved the existence of the supernatural, it has not proven it either.< Then you cannot be dogmatic and say that it is impossible can you? Ad hominems, yes you are. You are making personal attacks because, although they have earned their Ph.D.'s you call them crackpots. If I were to call Richard Dawkins an idiot, you would be in the right to charge ad hominems. Mr. Miller is a skeptical scholar of the Jesus Seminar who is a professor of religious studies, who earned his Ph.D. in Clearmont. In other words, he is one of yours. But I am not here to defend them, you can contact them and challenge them if you'd like. Habermas holds a Ph.D in history and Philosophy of Religion from Michigan State, and that from his own website… Guess you missed that part. The next point he brings up is some sort of blind faith even in the face of contrary evidence. But this shoots his argument in the foot. If that is what happened to the disciples, it still shows their sincerity. Hence, they couldn't have consciously made it up. Not only that, but it still fails to account for Paul, James and the empty tomb. So, according to historiography, my theory out performs my opponents, henceforth can be awarded as historically probable. Until my opponent gives an alternative that out performs mine or disproves any of my facts, then I am still on solid grounds according to historiography.