It is reasonable to believe that the Resurrection of Jesus is a historical event

Again thanks goes to Mr Skeptic for his timely response. What my opponent has to do to win this debate is to show that something else, naturalistically, happened that accounts for the facts given. I have laid out five facts that are agreed upon most if not nearly unanimously by critical scholars that have studied the issue. My opponent is confused on one thing that I want to clear up. My first post I listed five historical facts that lead scholars agree upon. My second post, since the only fact that my opponent has an issue with, is 6 reasons why most scholars accept the historicity of the empty tomb (my fifth historical fact in my first round). Since he has an objection to the empty tomb I supplied 6 reasons why the tomb is a historical fact. One thing is right, if the resurrection did occur, then that would provide the validity of the Christian faith. "If we were to give a cumulative case for the resurrection of an individual, then we would expect to find at least some significant differences from any other case of alleged divinity." Indeed, the resurrection DOES separate Jesus from others. However, this debate isn't about Christian's claims of Jesus' divinity. My opponent already accepts the historicity of Jesus' death and burial. Enough said. I am not claiming anything other than he died and was buried. I am not claiming anything other than He died and was buried. The Empty Tomb: My opponent admits to the empty tomb by trying to say that they just didn't find his body. Correct. The question is what happened to it? WHY is it empty? "I could have actually objected to this on historical factual grounds alone, given compelling reasons due to Romanic traditions (non-burial is considered part of the shame of crucification)[1], but I will demonstrate that even with a similar batch of historical facts I can provide a rational alternative." Then why didn't you? Not only that but you ALREADY accepted the fact that Jesus was buried. Not only that but you would have to provide historical evidence that Jesus wasn't buried. That means some sort of document from the first century perhaps. What you are doing is a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Common Practice. My opponent then goes on to question one of the reasons I gave for the empty tomb, that there is no evidence that the opponents of Jesus produced a body and says that it is of no significance. But that is untrue, given all of the reasons, especially since the disciples started preaching right in Jerusalem, where he was crucified and buried. If the disciples were lying, then all one would have to do is produce a body from the tomb and Christianity would have been aborted in the womb. And given the enemy attestation that my opponent concedes as well, then it is reasonable to believe that the tomb was indeed found empty. All we have is positive reasons for it and none against it. In fact, one group that my opponent so fondly references has this to say concerning the empty tomb: "While I tentatively agree with Craig that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb--in which Jesus was presumably interred--was empty" (1) So, as far as I can tell, my opponent has failed, and even implied consent to the empty tomb. But there is one thing: NO ONE is claiming that Jesus is divine or even the resurrection occurred just because the tomb was empty. Not even the apostles. Now about the apostles belief. I totally agree in one aspect. There are people today who will die for something they BELIEVE to be true. But there is one big difference. The apostles died for something that they KNEW to be true or false. So, is my opponent saying that they were liars? The question remains, WHY did they come to believe in something as to willingly die for? My opponent hasn't answered that question. Then there is the objection to the women. But again my opponent's objection doesn't meet the criteria for historical investigation. For example, if the apostles want to make something up, such as the empty tomb, then why even use women as the first eyewitnesses to the empty tomb in the first place? Why not use men, whose testimony would have had greater weight. My opponent says that there should be doubt as to how many women were at the tomb. However, any historian, or lawyer for that matter or even crime scene investigator, will tell you that discrepancies in details isn't to be taken automatically as a contradiction, they could be complimentary. Not only that but it still doesn't negate the fact that there were women there. Then my opponent alludes to legendary development. However if you were to read Paul's letter to the Corinthians you can find otherwise. Here is 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 "For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Then He appeared to over 500 brothers at one time, most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one abnormally born, He also appeared to me." Most scholars put the death of Jesus around 30 A.D. Paul was converted about 5yrs later. But notice what he says. "For I passed on to you as most important what I also receive…" That is a Jewish phrase for passing on of a tradition. That means that this tradition was in existence before Paul received it. And notice it is already in a formalized format before Paul's conversion. Most scholars put this creed within months after Jesus was crucified. And also what Paul says in verse 11: "Therefore, whether it is I or they, so we preach and so you have believed." In other words, the resurrection is what the apostles also preached and was always part of the story. Therefore there is no time for mythological/legendary development to occur. And not only that but 1 Corinthians itself predates the gospels possibly decades before! But my opponent offers no evidence for legendary development in his rebuttal. Just claiming something is suspect is not the same thing as proving it. How does my opponent KNOW that the oral traditions concerning Jesus' resurrection is suspect/distorted? Then there is this puzzling statement: "Don't you think a supernatural event would take more than just testimonies of eyewitnesses?" Huh? What more could you want? Any historian would welcome eyewitness testimonies… (2) So to sum up my opponent argued that it is legendary/lies told on the part of the apostles. For if they were "blowing the story of Jesus out of proportion" then they would either be consciously lying or sincerely mistaken. But this fails on a number of grounds as a historical explanation. Here is why. It takes into account Jesus' death and burial. It tries to account for the apostles belief. But it fails because as my opponent conceded already, that they really believed that they had what they believed are experiences of the risen Jesus. It completely fails to take into account Paul's conversion. Even if the disciples were making it up, Paul, an enemy of the disciples (who at the time was throwing them in prison) would want to convert in the first place. It fails to take into account James' conversion. Before Jesus death, he thought Jesus was nuts. Jesus' death would have confirmed that rationale. It also fails to account for the empty tomb. If they were making stuff up, then what happened at the tomb? Where is the body? On the other hand, the resurrection can account for all of the above. So according to historical methodology, the hypothesis that best account for the accepted facts is the one that probably happened.(3) So far, the resurrection wins out. Referrences: 1. http://www.infidels.org... 2. R. J. Shafer A Guide 3. C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions p.26