Did the resurrection of Christ happen

OK I'm not trying to back away from the myth theory at all. The purposes of this debate was whether or not the resurrection happened. In the outline of the debate I establish this. The Christ myth theory is a different debate i'd gladly have later. 1-historical value of nt: the Bible makes no more errors or inconsistencies than any other work of antiquity. In fact the new testament has more manuscript evidence in a closer proximity than any other work of antiquity. https://carm.org... If you're going to throw out the new testament you must also throw out every ancient work which would make ancient history unknowable. 2-non Christian references: to this point I say, so what if non Christian sources came about in the early 2nd century? As one can see by the link I provided in point 1, that's closer than any other work. We claim to know a lot about Alexander the great yet all our sources for him are over 300 years after his life. History shows that it takes at least a full generation for legend to develop. Besides that, it's in error to discount the Bible as a source as it is a collection of historical documents, not simply a holy book and even the most skeptical scholars use at least 7 of the 13 books of Paul. http://www.nelsonprice.com... 3-pagan roots: to say this isn't disputed is to be in blatant ignorance of history and well known facts. The pagan myths theory has been debunked more times than I can count and this is also irrelevant to this debate. Again the parameters of this debate were set up to assume his existence. Also all pagan gods he supposedly was influenced by came after him with the exception of Horus. And upon inspection of the Horus story one sees no real connection to Christ at all. http://www.amazon.com... https://m.reddit.com... https://youtu.be... History of resurrection 1-as seen above the Christ myth theory is bankrupt and for the purposes of this debate his existence is assumed 2-as seen above there are plenty of non biblical sources for Christ, but it is also in error to throw out biblical sources as it would require the abandonment of all ancient historical sources 3-nearly all scholars in a relevant field agree that Jesus's disciples had experiences that they believed to be the resurrected Christ --The only thing that we can certainly say to be historical is that there were resurrection appearances in Galilee (and in Jerusalem) soon after Jesus"s death. These appearances cannot be denied" (Gerd Ludemann. ."What Really Happened To Jesus?" p. 81) "We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead." (Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pg 230). "That Jesus" followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know." (E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, pg 280) And these are atheist scholars with no dogs in the fight IBE 1-the resurrection hypothesis is actually the simplest explanation as it requires only that God exists. If God does not exist then you would need many natural assumptions to try to account for the resurrection and you would find none. I agree that by natural means, nobody is resurrected, but if God exists, He is certainly capable of such an act. 2-see point 1 above 3-there is no clear victory on my opponents side here. The second law of thermodynamics aka the law of entropy is irrelevant to this discussion as I've explained above, there's no natural means of resurrection. This law doesn't apply here for the same reason it doesn't apply to evolution, because we're essentially in an open system (with energy input from the sun). To summarize: We have a series of facts (agreed on by the vast majority of relevant historians) surrounding the historical Jesus. We have no theory given by Con that even comes close to the explanatory power or explanatory scope that the resurrection supplies. And any layering of naturalistic explanations would have a greater degree of ad hocness. "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 at Auckland University To deny the facts surrounding the ressurection one must be willing to throw out much of ancient history. And the resurrection is the best explanation regarding those facts.