The Resurrection of Jesus meets the criteria of historicity

Fact 1: There is no reliable extrabiblical evidences of the crucifixion? Why discount the biblical narrative concerning the crucifixion? They are early independent sources. Then you also have Paul, then Josephus, both of whom were antagonistic. Paul did comment as to when he was antagonistic and how he felt towards Christians. And I have already answered Josephus, something my opponent has yet to answer. Again, plz point to some historical evidence that is superior that states that something else happened. As for the fact of almost all scholars admit these points I simply point to Habermas how did an actual head count of scholarly opinion concerning the facts.(1) Fact 2: As to brainwashed disciples, it would seem that if they were "brainwashed" they wouldn't have deserted him and become dejected (as in the vid). They would have continued to believe (as in the vid). But they didn't. Also it still doesn't explain why Paul and James converted. Fact 3. It is quite relevant what Paul said. He is the earliest witness as to what happened, what the earliest disciples believed, was James saw etc. But we are right back to where we started. Why did they convert? What historical alternative do you have that meets the criteria better than the resurrection? Fact 4. James is known to be a skeptical brother of Jesus is in the gospels. Why do scholars admit this? Principle of Embarrassment, to admit this is contrary to spreading the gospel. Why would one believe if his own brother was skeptical? It would be easier to just leave that part out. Including it is a marker in integrity. That is why historians accept it. Fact 5: The empty tomb. Most scholars accept the empty tomb on the following reasons: (A) The Jerusalem factor. It is conceded by everyone that the disciples first started their preaching in Jerusalem, right where everything is said to have taken place. Since the resurrection is a bodily one (Jews who believed in a resurrection held that it was a bodily event to happen at the end of time). N.T. Wright, in his landmark study of what the ancient pagan and Jewish thought of the resurrection is that it is a bodily even. However, that being said, if the tomb was not empty, Christianity would be dead right out of the starting gate. (B) There is no historical evidence whatsoever that those who opposed Jesus produced a body, which again would have destroyed their preaching. (C) The testimony of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul mentions the crucifixion, burial and resurrection. Since, according to ancient Jews who believed in a resurrection, it is a physical, bodily event. Therefore, since Paul, an enemy of the early church, clearly believes in a resurrection, it implies an empty tomb. Therefore we have a first century historical witness, even before the gospels!. Why is that? Paul himself states that what he is passing on he received, from the apostles. It is universally accepted that the apostles preached the resurrection. Since that is so, it again implies an empty tomb. (D) The testimony of the women. Female testimony in the first century was not considered entirely trustworthy. Especially in matters of great importance. Again most scholars who comment on this state that if they were making it up, they would not have used women as the first witnesses. This is called the principle of embarrassment. (E) As my opponent already admitted, the apostles really did believe in the resurrection. But, to proclaim a resurrection is to admit an empty tomb. And they were in a position to know (right place, right time) if indeed the tomb were empty or not. If not, then they would have been found liars, but, as my opponent admits they were sincere, therefore not conscious liars. This leads to my next clue. (F) The earliest polemics against the Christians from their opponents admit and empty tomb. From Matthew (Matthew 28: 12-13) to Justyn Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho) to Tertullian (De Spectaculis 30), we know that the Jewish opponents were, for over two centuries, trying to explain the empty tomb. Which means that they too believed it to be empty. Therefore, since there are reasons leading to the fact of the empty tomb, and no historical evidence against it, it is reasonable to believe that it was indeed empty, as the majority of critical scholars admit. So, basically you contend that the someone made the resurrection up. (Who, when, why, how, my opponent doesn't say, nor does he supply any historical evidence for that claim. To account the disciples, they were just brainwashed. To account for Paul and James, nothing is offered. Just "well other skeptics converted, so?" Question remains, why? The resurrection, or something else, my opponent never explains. As for the empty tomb? Again no explanation is given. So, not only does my opponent fail to refute my facts, he offers no real challenge to the resurrection. It lacks (1) explanatory scope and (2) explanatory power since it fails to account for the disciple's belief and Paul, as well James' and the tomb and is completely vague. (3) It is not as plausible, especially if we live in a theistic universe. (4) It is more ad hoc, since it must rely upon further presuppositions to account for Paul and James, as well as the tomb. As well as making more presumptions as to other why other enemies were silent. (5) It goes against accepted beliefs, since these five are taken as facts by the overwhelming majority of scholars that have studied the subject. Even Bart Ehrman concedes the first three as historical facts, to include that Paul really believed that he experienced the risen, physical Jesus. (6) It certainly does not outstrip the rival hypothesis. So, what of the resurrection? 1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw Jesus alive etc. 2. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people saw Jesus alive etc. 3. It is plausible: given the context of Jesus' own life an claims, the resurrection serves as confirmation of those claims 4. It is not ad hoc or contrived. it requires only one additional hypothesis, that God exists. And even then that needn't be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exist. 5 It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" doesn't in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don't rise from the dead naturally. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the theory that God raised Jesus from the dead. 6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypothesis in meeting conditions 1-5. [Especially since no other theory has been given.] >also feel like it would be an insult to the intelligence of the people < Appeal to emotion. "The accuser can meet the burden of proof by offering a certain quantum of evidence, which varies depending upon the nature of the accusation, for example-in the context of legal disputes-proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal charges or, for civil charges, proof that makes the truth of an accusation more probable than not." - Annet Gordon Reed, law professor of New Your Law School, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia 1997) How does one do that? ""If the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true." - Justifying Historical Descriptions Or "But if the evidence is support of an explanatory hypothesis is strong, and there is no alternative hypothesis supported nearly as well, it is reasonable to believe it is probably true" - The Truth of History. Again, according to the rules of historiography, the resurrection wins. (1) http://www.garyhabermas.com...