You choose the topic!

Overview: It is my goal to demonstrate the following statement: "The best explanation for the facts surrounding the supposed resurrection of Jesus is that He really did rise from death." The explanation you provided is the loss of memory, as you agreed with the statement "the only element of doubt is the memory of the witness." The evidence you provided is alleged discrepancies in the testimonies. Therefore, I will address the issue of memory, discrepancies, and authorship if I have space. I now have the burden of showing that the resurrection is the best explanation by showing that it is a better explanation than memory loss. Discrepancies: Before I address the individual passages, I would like to make several points. Even if such contradictions are in place, that would not make the testimonies less reliable. Eyewitness testimonies always disagree on minor details, but they are reliable for the accuracy of main events. I don't need to be certain of every detail surrounding the resurrection, I just need the account to be reliable enough to tell me that he was seen after death. Secondly, if you remember this statement, most "contradictions" will disappear: If you have to assume something for there to be a contradiction, it isn't actually a contradiction. For example, if one account mentions one person and another mentions two people, a contradiction will appear if you assume the first account means there is ONLY one person. Solution: don't assume that, and there is no contradiction. - Two angels were in the tomb in the form of men. One account describes them as men, the other as an angel; they are both correct. - Multiple people discovered the empty tomb; either at the same time or at different times. An account is not obligated to repeat the list of every character for every event; that would be silly. By not mentioning someone, accounts are not claiming that the person wasn't there. - According to Matthew, the stone was being rolled away by an angel as Mary was going towards the tomb. Therefore, the other accounts are also correct. There is not even a hint of contradiction in the above examples. You are also mistaken that the gospel accounts are not generally reliable. They are enormously accurate in every way we can test them. Take a look at the articles below for more information: http://crossexamined.org... Memory Loss: Let's use an example for this. Imagine a good friend or relative of yours that has passed away. For the case of this example, I will say it is your grandfather. Imagine that your grandfather appeared to you when you knew he was dead. You would likely be quite shocked and amazed. Imagine that you hugged him and had lunch with him. Now imagine you continued to talk and do things with him over the course of weeks before he left for good. Now let's say 20 years later, you are writing down this story for some reason. You might have forgotten some things like what you ate for lunch with your grandpa, but you would never forget that you saw your grandfather alive from the dead. Such an experience is completely unforgettable, even if details are. I don't care about the details of Jesus resurrection; I care that He rose. Memory can easily remember that for decades. Combine this with the fact that we are not relying on the memory of one person but many eyewitnesses. Authorship: The evidence I provided that John may have been literate doesn't exist in a vacuum. If the fact that he was certainly not a peasant is all I had, it would be reasonable to doubt his literacy. However, this is not all I provided. -John wrote his name on his gospel, and the evidence shows the title was not a late addition. We have more manuscripts of the gospel of John than any other gospel, and none cite a different author. John was well known at this time, and it was common knowledge that he wrote the gospel of John. There is no reason to suppose another author. -Luke was a historian. He was obviously literate and excruciatingly detailed. If his account is not a reliable account of what the disciples did and said, we can't trust any document including most modern works. -Matthew was a tax collector and certainly knew how to write. He should be treated as a reliable eyewitness since he spent three years walking with Jesus. He wrote his name on his gospel, and there are no contradictory manuscripts that suggest a different author. Furthur, the style of writing, especially the genealogies is characteristic of a Jew of his time. Unintended eyewitness support statements: We have already gone through several things that had to come from eyewitnesses (embarrassing details, sweating blood, blood and water pouring out), but there are more instances of eyewitness accounts. If one account seems unclear until another account fills in a detail that the first account left out, we have an unintended eyewitness support statement. According to cold case homicide detective J Warner Wallace, this is extremely common in eyewitness testimonies and in the gospels. In fact, everything in the gospels is typical of eyewitness accounts. One example is a guard hit Jesus and asked Him to prophesy who hit him. That seems like an odd request since the guard was presumably standing next to Jesus. The detail is filled in by another gospel which says that Jesus was blindfolded right before He was hit. *All I need is for one account to be reliable enough to record that the disciples claimed to have seen Jesus alive from the dead* If this point is granted, the rest of my case simply falls into place. As the disciples could not have lied or been mistaken, Jesus must have risen. Change in Disciples: I have clearly shown that it is not reasonable that the disciples lied or that they were mistaken. Therefore, if I have shown that the disciples actually claimed to have seen Jesus, my case falls into place. But, as I assume you are still skeptical, I will provide one more reason to accept the resurrection as the best explanation we have for the facts. The following facts that I will present are accepted by pretty much all New Testament scholars because they are multiply attested in several reliable accounts. These are not necessarily Christian scholars, as much of the scholarly community is skeptical and secular. One of those scholars includes Bart Ehrman. 1) Jesus died by crucifixion 2) That Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb. (Thus making the burial site common knowledge) 3) After Jesus' death, his disciples became discouraged and retreated. 4) That Jesus' tomb was found empty by women 3 days later. 5) That the disciples had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus. 6) The above experiences happened to different individuals and groups of individuals at different times and locations. 7) That the lives of the disciples were transformed as a result of these experiences to the point where they would spread the gospel around the world and die for what they saw. 8) That James, the brother of Jesus, became a Christian as a result of his experience with the risen Christ. 9) The Christian persecutor Paul became a Christian after a similar experience. https://ses.edu... Any explanation must be able to account for all of the above facts that are agreed upon in mainstream scholarship. One alternative is to come up with one explanation for the empty tomb, another for the experiences, another for the transformed lives, and another for the conversion of Paul. On the other hand, it is much simpler to have only one explanation of the above facts: Jesus rose from the dead. Since my opponent agreed that miracles are possible, this is the most likely possibility. Conclusion: I think I have shown quite conclusively that there is no superior explanation to that of resurrection. I thank my opponent for a most intelligent, respectful, well-rounded, kind debate. It was a pleasure.