Was Jesus resurrected

I now better understand your argument, so now I may refute it better: Firstly, you say there were plenty of eye-witness accounts recorded in the bible (specifically the gospels) My argument is that the gospels are not accurate sources of information to draw the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected. You argument is that the contradictions in the gospels don't make the entire gospels unreliable. My response is that no, I'm not saying the entire gospel is a lie, but rather we don't know which parts are true or which parts are lies. I infer that you believe God inspired the gospels? If so, I could reason there *should* be no mistakes or errors (this is, after all, supposed to be a detailed account of Jesus life! ). Alas, there is, which I showed you in that website I linked. I believe Jesus was a real person, and died on a cross, and was buried. I do believe that Jesus disciples wrote many eye-witness details about Jesus' life and such. Nonetheless, they also make quite a bit of stuff up as well. So my reasoning goes like this: If these gospels seem unreliable, why should we use them as source of information regarding Jesus resurrection? Even many separate eye-witness accounts TODAY would have a difficult time convincing critics that they saw ghost Jesus, far less a bunch of unreliable books written 2000 years ago by random Jews during a time when people often made up stories! However, I do NOT have to give a theory regarding the disappearance of Jesus in the tomb. You are making the claim that Jesus was resurrected, and I'm unconvinced. I don't have the burden of proof! You do. Furthermore, even though the burden of proof is not on me, I said that grave robbers could have easily raided Jesus grave as there were probably no guards about, nor anyone stoping them. The only account that mentioned the guards at Jesus tomb was Mathew, whom probably simply added that in to give more credibility to the story. You also argue that because there is no natural explanation for Jesus disappearance (which there is, but I will pretend there isn't for the sake of argument), then therefore Jesus was resurrected. This is false, and a "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Even if we had no idea where Jesus went, it still gives no credence to the claim that he turned into a ghost and flew away! I'm sorry, that was a little condescending, but you get my point, it's sounds a little ridiculous. I also want to point out that you're again using the gospels as your source of information, which they shouldn't be! You say that Jesus was resurrected, and that the very gospels making this claim also give anecdotal evidence in support of it (including the whole flesh touching thing by Thomas)! The gospels aren't reliable enough, and the possibility of bias is too high to take them seriously. You could skip any hallucination theory altogether and simply say "The gospel is t reliable enough"! As Christopher Hitchens once said: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" You have provided no evidence the gospels are reliable besides "But Mathew said this. .. and Luke said this. .. and Mathew and Mark said similar things therefore Jesus was resurrected" Not evidence. And don't feel like your somehow being hard-done by: The scientific community and critics alike shouldn't believe even the most respected scientists or person in the world if he/she still remains without sufficient, verifiable evidence. (Also, as a side note, John 20:29 DIRECTLY contradicts Proverbs 14:15 which says: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. " . .. The bible seems like a very wibbly-wobbly kind of book)