You choose the topic!

Thank you for your response. It seems to be pretty well thought out, although I do see a few problems with it. "Theory One - Denial by Historical Agnosticism" I completely agree with you and accept the fact that neither one of us can prove our case 100%. That is why we each have the equal burden of proof of demonstrating that the resurrection is or is not the best explanation given the facts we have. Now I will address your points and give positive evidence for the resurrection of Christ simultaneously. When were the gospels written? I do not accept the conclusions of Bart Ehrman on this one, nor do I believe him to be an honest man. While he rarely says anything blatantly historically false, he also rarely gives the whole truth. "Despite varying opinions on specific dates, it's commonly accepted by historians that the gospels were written long after Jesus was crucified and long after His resurrection." The problem with this is New Testament scholars have long believed that the gospels were too late, and they are shown they are wrong over and over again. Even the date you cited of within 40 years of the resurrection would have been unthinkable for scholars just a little over a hundred years ago. Also, 40 years of the resurrection makes it perfectly reasonable to conclude that the authors were really the eyewitnesses, but I think it is even earlier. I will begin this analysis by examining the book of Acts. This book basically contains the early history of the church. Since it was written by Luke, a historian, it has absolutely incredible detail. This is why scholars are constantly amazed by how accurate and specific this book is. Interestingly, Acts chapter 7 recounts the death of Simon. Simon did not have a large impact, nor was he famous in his time. Even though Simon is more of a minor character, his death is mentioned. You would then expect Acts to at least mention the death of one of the biggest characters: Paul, who died in the year 68 AD. Why would it mention the death of Simon but not Paul or even Peter? This is because Acts was written before 68 AD, when neither Paul nor Peter had died. This also explains why the destruction of the temple was never mentioned in the New Testament. This event was prophesied by Jesus and occurred in 70 AD. You would think that the disciples would at least mention this event if they had written after 70 AD. Therefore, we can safely place the book of Acts conservatively around 65 AD or within 35 years of the resurrection event. In the beginning of the book of Acts, we get this statement "Theophilus, I first wrote to you about all that Jesus did and taught from the very first until he was taken up to heaven." (Acts 1:1-2). What is this other book? That turns out to be the book of Luke. Assuming a span of time of around 3 years, we can safely place Luke around 62 AD. In the book of Luke, we see the statement: Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. Luke, a careful historian, records that there was another account that was written by an eyewitness, but Luke saught to write a chronological account to make everything clear. What account is Luke speaking of? The only synoptic gospel written by an eyewitness: Matthew. We can, therefore, place Matthew around 55 AD. Since we know that Matthew copied from Mark, we can then place the book of Mark around 50 AD, or within 20 years of the resurrection. Combine this with the fact that the disciples were either teens or young adults when they walked with Jesus, this is well within the range of their lifetimes. It is therefore easy to believe that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses or by recorders of eyewitness testimonies in the case of Mark and Luke. Lastly, I would like to address an interesting statement made by Paul: 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: [that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. Unfortunately, I do not have the space to explain all of the importance of this text. Suffice to say that this record is actually being quoted from Paul from another source. The rhythm of the portion in brackets suggests that it was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek. Because of this, even Bart Ehrman believes this saying dates within 2 years of the resurrection! This is much too little time for oral tradition to take over since oral tradition is usually accurate within 200 years. Who really wrote the gospels? While the dates show that the supposed authors could have written the gospels, that does not mean they necessarily did. "Moreover, none of the gospel writers were firsthand eyewitnesses to the resurrection because most gospels were written anonymously in the third person." This is false. Every single one of the gospel writers titled their gospel by their own name, such as "the gospel according to John." Also, if the titles had been added on later, there would be several problems. Firstly, it would be the customary to write "John's gospel" rather than "The Gospel According to John." Secondly, we would have all sorts of manuscripts of the same book with different titles. Because, out of all four gospels, we have not a single instance of a contradictory title, the most logical conclusion is that the titles were written on the originals. Secondly, the gospels were widely attributed to the same authors in every ancient account that we possess including in the gospel of Luke. Also, the fact that the gospels were written in the third person is not good evidence. All ancient accounts at this time were written in the third person, even if the author was in the story. This is just another established custom of that time. This argument is not new and was debunked thoroughly by Augustine over a thousand years ago. "Furthermore, most of Jesus's followers were lower class, uneducated men; in Acts (4:13), Peter and John are revealed to be illiterate." Acts 4:13 says they were uneducated, not illiterate. Most uneducated Jews at this time were fully literate. Secondly, the verse you cite proves the opposite of your point. It says that the leaders were astonished by how much these supposedly uneducated men knew. It gives me much reason to be able to believe they could have written the gospels. Unfortunately, I do not have the space to address your supposed contradictions. I just ask: do a little more homework on them. Lastly, the gospels record information that could not have been known to the writers unless they were eyewitnesses or copied eyewitness's accounts. Jesus is recorded as sweating blood. Why would the writers make up something like this? In fact, critics mocked the gospels for this, and Christians questioned whether it should be included. Today we know that sweating blood is condition found mostly in people who are on death row. Since it is unreasonable to assume the writers made this detail up, it could only have come from an eyewitness. Another similar piece of information is that blood and water came out of Jesus when he was stabbed according to the gospels.