Atheism vs. Christianity

Honestly, I have yet to read his arguments due to time constraints on myself. I will read it after I finish, though. I will, in this debate, focus on one and only one argument. Firstly though, I must explain why my argument is so important. If my argument is true, there will be no escaping the fact that there is a God of the Christian proportion. My argument is a simple one. I will argue that the Resurrection, the crux of Christianity, happened. Of course, because we were not there, we cannot say that it is an absolute certainty, just like we cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no God either. For the resurrection, we would have to trust eyewitness accounts, and for atheology, we would have to rely on logic. Con 1: Jesus physically rose from the dead In the Christian Holy Texts, known as the Bible, we find a whole section (The New Testament (NT)) dedicated to teaching the theology of the Christians. Of vital importance is the story of the physical resurrection of the Head of the Christians, a being known as Jesus Christ. It is widely accepted among scholars that the historical narrative, clearly recorded by the first four books of the NT (The Gospels), and not so clearly by other historians, is historically credible. [1] That is, they are able to accept that Jesus resurrected in some form. Let us look at things logically first, before the evidence. If the disciples were lying, then they were the greatest hoaxers ever to have walked the planet. If they were not lying, then they were telling the truth. There is no middle ground on this. I believe that the background information regarding the death of Jesus is indisputable. If one still thinks that it is, they need look no further than [2]. Most of the evidence I will be taking will be from [3]. To keep focus, I will not be using all the evidence given. Rather, I will take only a few of the many pieces of evidence that can easily be found. First of all, though, we must confirm the reliability of the NT. “William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A. D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today. "” “Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "”““I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . . ” E. M. Blaiklock Professor of Classics Auckland University” [3]Based off these statements alone, one can confidently say that the NT is reliable. For more on reliability, please see [4], although I will use that source if reliability is objected. The three pieces which I find most convincing is: The Empty Tomb. Large Number of Witnesses, and the change in Disciples Lives. EMPTY TOMBAfter the Resurrection of the Christ, his disciples did not go off to far away places to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was "too notorious to be denied. " Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned. "Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu. " Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine. "Gamaliel, who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the rise of the Christian movement was God's doing; he could not have done that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts of Christ's body. Paul Maier observes that " . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement. " (Quoted largely from [3] without the quotation marks for ease of reading, as is all evidence in this round. I will probably use another complementary source in the next round)Large Number of WitnessesThe large number of witnesses of Christ after the resurrection morning is perhaps the most convincing of them all. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them. ' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago. " If we take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom, and if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history. Change in the Disciples’ LivesThe most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ? Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts--prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits--we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this "risen Christ . "As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking. Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message. I think this is evidence enough. Considering all these evidence, it is nearly, if not impossible to deny the Resurrection of the Christ. This is evidence of the supernatural having an effect on the natural, which means that the supernatural has to be more “super” than the natural. Something less than the Christian God cannot possibly have such power, because it would be illogical. 1. . http://www.leaderu.com...2. . http://www.debate.org...3. . http://www.leaderu.com...4. . http://www.tektonics.org...