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

Here is my final rebuttal for the debate. "My response should be obvious -- of course I know that, but I never implied that the resolution of this debate is about Jesus' divinity (though I do note that it if the resolution is true, it would easily lead to such a conclusion). " Then why did you bring it up? (round 1 and 2) The issue here is whether the it is reasonable to believe that the resurrection is an historical event. Never once did I argue for the implications of that event. The debate is simply to see if it happened. In fact you will look long and hard for one historical piece of evidence the he presented that accounts for the accepted facts of the debate. "Rather, historians often spend their time arguing about how certain events were started (usually by drawing a casual chain preceding such events). " Exactly, just how and why did the disciples come to believe in Jesus' resurrection? Now I do agree with my opponent in some respects. Just because they are sincere doesn't mean that they were right. All I can say historically is that they were sincere. However, as I stated in my opening round, my evidence is cumulative. We agree that Jesus died. We agree that the disciples were sincere in their belief in that they had experienced the risen Jesus. We agree that James' suddenly converted. We agree that Paul suddenly converted. And I guess we agree that the tomb was found empty. Nothing in and of themselves is out of the ordinary. Question is historically, what accounts for all of these facts? So far my opponent hasn't accounted for all of the facts. All he has done so far is say "yup they believed, so what"? My opponent hasn't put forth a theory as to why they believed that is contrary to what they preached, AND accounts for Paul converting and James' and why the tomb was found empty. If the disciples were wrong in their belief, the how do you account for the empty tomb? How did it get that way? How do you explain Paul's conversion and James'? Did they hallucinate? What is the historical evidence for that? And still how do you account for Paul and James', not to mention the empty tomb. THAT is the kind of explanations that I have been looking for. But alas none has been forthcoming. You see even what you have given doesn't account for all of the facts. However the resurrection does and according to historiography, the theory that can account for all of the facts is the one that probably happened. There is another point to be made. My opponent's examples of OTHERS coming to believe and dying for their beliefs are quite different than the disciples. You see, today a Christian or Muslim or whatever will die for what they BELIEVE to be true even though they might be wrong. However, the disciples, as well as James and Paul died for what they KNEW to be true or false. They didn't believe simply because someone else told them, they themselves claim to have witnessed the risen Jesus. If you want to say "sure, they really believed that they had experienced the risen Jesus, but that doesn't mean that they were right", that is fine and dandy, however you still have to come up with a reason as to WHY came to believe that, and still account for the rest. As for what I put forth. We already agree upon the facts! Why would I have to go into more detail if both sides agree that they are facts? So, I must say that I am disappointed here. I put forth that this was to be a debate on the historical probability that the resurrection did occur or that something else happened that accounts for the facts agreed upon. Not the interpretation of those facts or it's implications etc. In fact, as you yourself stated in the first round, "I will agree that if these facts are correct they demonstrate a powerful case for the resurrection of Jesus". Well, we have agree so far as to all of the facts bud. In order to have disprove the resurrection, you would have to give evidence that Jesus' wasn't crucified and buried, or the disciples weren't sincere, or James and Paul were somehow mistaken/liars and/or the tomb wasn't found empty or something else happened to empty it. But nothing has been brought forth. "Given that we know many oral traditions have been tainted due to human error and time (look at your common old wives tales, or stories about mythical creatures), it is reasonable to assume this is the case for the disciple's stories UNLESS conflicting evidence is provided. .. which you haven't done. " Really, it is reasonable to ASSUME that? This is a debate about historical evidence. Not assumptions. If you make a claim, then it is incumbent to put forth evidence. Here is my evidence that the tradition of the resurrection has been kept. As I already stated in a previous post, We have the writings of Paul. 1 Corinthians was written BEFORE the gospels. He himself stated that he experiences with the resurrected Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15, he uses a phrase for the passing on of a tradition that he himself received. And then mentions who he got that tradition from. He also states the disciples and Paul were preaching the same message – the resurrection of Jesus. That tradition can be traced therefore to the original disciples. Therefore there is no time for legendary material to creep into the tradition. "While I won't bother exploring historical evidence for any changes in this particular oral tradition (though there were competing versions of Jesus' ascension)". Then why even bring it up, hmmmm? You have had four rounds to do so. And the ascension is different from the resurrection. So I have provided evidence for the integrity of the oral tradition, all you have done so far is to assume that the tradition is erroneous. As far as parsimony is concerned, parsimony is the use of the simplest or most frugal route of explanation available. Mine is quite simple, the resurrection. It explains all of the accepted facts. What is yours? You have as yet to up with one. Stolen body won't do, while it tries to explain the empty tomb, it fails to account for the experiences of Paul and James and the disciples. Hallucinations won't do, it fails to account for the experiences and the empty tomb, spiritual resurrection doesn't account for Paul nor the empty tomb. In order for those theories to be affective, you have to combine them. However that goes against parsimony, and historiography, it is ad hoc. And just combining theories doesn't make them more probable, but more improbable. The resurrection is the simplest theory and the one that takes into account all the facts. Therefore according to the historical guidelines it is what most likely happened. You claimed that I charged you with misrepresenting my position and then say it is wrong. Here is how I understood your position. I do apologize if I got things mixed up, but I don't think so. In your own comments you stated that "The resolution is of whether or not Jesus resurrected". That is exactly right. But then you turned right around and instead "attacked it's validity" by attacking the implications of the resurrection. But what implications arise from the resurrection is not the topic of this debate. I agree with you. If, IF the resurrection occurred as a historical event, then Christianity is true. If it didn't then there are other implications. However, before that, we have to see if the resurrection is the most probable explanation. So I think I am correct in my charge. And likewise, since I NEVER in this debate talked about Jesus' divinity etc. To say that this is what I am debating is indeed a straw man. So, according to historiography, my theory outstrips everything you put forth, it accounts for all the facts and is simple, therefore it is more reasonable to believe that it actually happened. And what is that? Exactly what they said happened.