Jesus Christ rose from the dead

Tkubok, Thanks for taking the debate, I really appreciate it! --"The only part of the Bible actually relevant to Jesus is the 4 gospels." Actually there are numerous books in the Bible that are relevant. The OT is full of prophets who predicted the coming Messiah. Isaiah 7 predicted the birth of the Messiah. It was prophesied that the virgin would conceive and give birth to a baby boy who would be called Immanuel the baby born would be called Mighty God and Everlasting Father. And finally that He would be punished for sins and he would not defend himself. There is also much more. In fact Isaiah seems to be a picture of the NT stories of Jesus. Isaiah was understood by the Jews long before Jesus. Daniel 9 predicted that the Messiah would be cut off and thereafter Jerusalem would be destroyed. (Christ was crucified around 33 A.D. and Jerusalem was destroyed around 70 A.D. Micah, Zechariah, Malachi and many more also predicted the birth, life and/or death of a coming messiah. Astonishingly Isaiah 53 almost seems like a Gospel account of the cross. The Gospel of Matthew was probably not written by Matthew as most scholars now point out. Matthew was written in Greek according to Papias. Most scholars including critical scholars believe the author was a Palestinian Jew who took Mark's work and Matthew's work to compose this Gospel in Greek. Mark - the first of the four Gospels. Papias, a Bishop of Hierapolis in A.D. 60 recorded that John-Mark wrote this Gospel and that he was an interpreter to Peter. Eusebius tells us that John-Mark composed his gospel in Rome while in the service of Peter. They would not have credited authorship of Mark to John-Mark if they did not have good reason to do so; he was such a minor figure. The Gospel of Luke is written in a style unlike any of the other four. It was also written by a man who spent much of his time with Paul, something that could not be said about the author of Matthew or Mark. Luke was probably the last Gospel written and in chapter one the author points out that he has studied other works and investigated them clearly so that he could provide an accurate account. This infers that he was not the author of previous similar Gospels. In A.D. 175 Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, identified the author as Luke, the companion of Paul and Eusebius agreed adding that Luke was from Antioch. This means it is a logical conclusion that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke. Historically John is the author of the Gospel of John and the fact that the author was an eyewitness of Jesus confers. Additionally, John 1, 2 and 3 in the NT are so grammatically similar to the Gospel of John that all four books were likely written by the same person. It has been said by many critical scholars the author of the Gospel was actually John the Elder, a disciple of John the Apostle. Even if this is true, The Gospel of John does not have the same author as any other of the Gospels. The New Testament is also full of references to Jesus, his death and resurrection by different writers. --"Josephus" You are right there are interpolations within this passage. If you look at the regularly used vocabulary of Josephus it is obvious some of phrases have been added here. Miami University Professor Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi (leading expert in ancient history) says the first line is almost certainly authentic: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man." Yamauchi goes on to say that "if indeed one ought to call him a man;" seems to be an interpolation. "For he was one who wrought surprising feats" seems to be genuine for various reasons. And finally, "He was the Christ" is almost certainly an interpolation. Josephus wouldn't have called Jesus the Messiah but he did confer that Jesus lived, we both agree here so let's move on. --Paul meets Jesus? "However we have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, Namely Paul's." I too do not agree with this statement either (for different reasons); however, in context I was pointing out that Paul was changed after the resurrection – for whatever reason, and quoted from the atheist philosopher Michael Marin. This statement has nothing to do with being an eyewitness account here but does show that Paul was changed by a bizarre event. --"This would be a powerful argument if any of the women were required to testify in court." This is a powerful argument period. The writers of the Gospel accounts where not only appealing to the average person, they were appealing the greatest minds of the time and men of the highest authority. Their argument was risky to say the least; they wouldn't have used it unless it really is what they thought happened. The writers knew all to well that those in the legal system were paying attention as the Roman authorities where the ones who crucified Jesus in the first place. If the Romans could care less about Jesus, why did they crucify him and why were men like Paul imprisoned and even beaten. There is no doubt that there were early martyrs and while this doesn't prove Jesus rose, it does show that the authorities cared about what was going on. --Were the disciples changed after Jesus' death? It is widely held by Christian and secular scholars alike that something happened to the disciples after the death of Jesus. Of course the Bible makes this point clear in over 25 places recording the disciples being discouraged and then being changed shortly after… I am sure you are not interested in the Bible as a reference source here. We see that both Paul and Peter were martyred according to Clement of Rome and both Josephus and Hegesippus give accounts of James, the brother of Jesus being martyred. James the brother of John, Peter and Paul are also included in Eusebius. There is also a change in the disciples mentioned in Christian testimonies of Clement of Rome and Ignatius. Secular reports are found in Tacitus and the Josephus. These sources along with the Bible make it extremely likely historically that the disciples were changed. We also know they would have been naturally discouraged after his death since they did follow Jesus. --Mass Hallucinations are impossible. Mass hallucinations are extremely unlikely. Paul recorded that over 500 people believed that they had witnessed Jesus after his death. You are also making an assumption that the people in your source did not see a UFO; these sources have pictures of this particular UFO so the people in these articles you have provided were obviously not hallucinating, they took pictures... --Eyewitness oral testimony reliable? Critical scholars usually agree that Paul's records had remarkable early origins. Joachim Jeremias calls it "the earliest tradition of all." Ulrich Wilckens declared that Paul's material "indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity." Walter Kasper even states, "We have here an ancient text, perhaps in use by the end of A.D. 30." Most other scholars who provide a date think that Paul received his tradition between two and eight years after Jesus' death. Not Decades of Oral tradition as you mentioned. Put that against other ancient works that secular scholars hold as accurate and there is simply no comparison. Even match the oldest manuscripts of the Bible with today's modern translations and the accuracy is extremely remarkable, over 90 percent accurate. --"We would have to include other holy books." You have mentioned twice that we have no idea who wrote the Gospels, this is incorrect there are likely candidates. You have said it is safe to assume that 2 or 3 different men wrote the four Gospels. Let's just say 3 men wrote the Gospels and not four. Does one copied Gospel prove the other three wrong? I have already explained that some of the four were translated into other languages and it is possible that Mark could have been used to complete the Gospel of Matthew. Actu