Did the resurrection of Christ happen

Christ myth theoryPro tries to back away from this by saying “Jesus’ existence is assumed.” It isn’t assumed by the resolution – only by Pro. I’m challenging that assumption. There’s no rule against challenging an assumption. Pro’s contention to this argument is based on the consensus among academics. But consensus does not always determine science.I. Historical Value of the New TestamentThe New Testament makes a lot of historical errors and inaccuracies. For instance, there are a lot of internal inconsistencies within the Gospels. Raymond E. Brown notes an obvious contradiction regarding the death of Judas Iscariot. In Matthew 27:3-8, Judas returns the bribe he had been given and hangs himself. On the other hand, in Acts 1:18, Judas’ death is attributed to injuries from having fallen in the field.[1] There's also an inconsistency between Matthew and Luke regarding the genealogy of Jesus. The NT is filled with inaccuracies, historical errors, and internal inconsistencies.II. Non-Christian References to JesusThis was established last round as well. The first secular reference to Jesus was in the 2nd century, and was influenced by a Christian source. Actual references to Jesus’ existence came long after his life, which could suggest the creation of Jesus – at least as the founding figure of Christianity – by the then-followers of the religion. The first reference to even the religion of Christianity comes from Pliny the Younger, who doesn’t mention the resurrection.[2] The resurrection’s first mention from a non-Christian is in the 2nd century, from Lucian, a critic of superstition, whose information was probably from a Christian source. But that’s irrelevant to this point - Pliny’s mention of the religion and other mentions were the first non-Christian mentions, and they all came from after the first century.III. Pagan Roots of ChristianityThis isn’t even disputed. There are multiple similarities to the myths of Jesus, Horus, the Buddha, Mithras, and others. A lot of Christian philosophy is borrowed from pagan philosophy.Considering all of this, the simplest – and strongest – explanation seems to be Christ myth theory. I'm not necessarily saying it is the best explanation (merely that it seems to be), but it cannot be discredited by my opponent so easily.Historicity of the ResurrectionEven if Jesus existed, the historicity of the resurrection is questionable. I’m going to list the claims Pro makes, and show how some of the claims are false, and when the others are put together, inference to best explanation doesn’t entail a resurrection of Jesus. What are the “facts” Pro presents? Let me list them:1. Jesus died by crucifixion after amassing a group of followers2. Three days following his death, his tomb was empty3. There were multiple sightings of Jesus, even by skeptics#1. This point itself is questionable. As seen above, Christ myth theory is a justifiable position clearly, and Pro’s fundamental assumption could very well be false.#2. Pro doesn’t present much non-Biblical evidence for this. I’ve established last contention that the NT is not a historical text, and lacks historical value. Bart Ehrman disputes the idea of the “empty tomb,” arguing that there’s no proper evidence for it: for instance, women were well-represented in those times, thus allowing for fiction, unlike what many apologists believe. Most arguments for it are unsound.[3]#3. This is the most disputed assumption of Pro’s. Helmut Koester argues that the majority of the sightings mentioned in the NT and outside are absolutely unreliable. The few sightings that could be considered reliable are especially vague and poorly described.[4] Thus, the sightings of Jesus by skeptics probably didn’t even happen.Inference to Best ExplanationEven presuming points 1 and 2 (point 3’s falsehood is almost indisputable), an alternative explanation would hold better ground than the resurrection via inference to best explanation, which follows the following criteria:1. Principle of simplicity2. Explanatory power3. Background knowledge#1. The “principle of simplicity” posits that, among a set of competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with east assumptions is most likely a priori. The assumptions of, for instance, the “stole the body” alternative are merely: the disciples stole the body from the tomb. The assumptions of the resurrection is: the body went missing, Jesus was resurrected, a supernatural power capable of doing that exists. One assumption vs. three naturally means, via the principle of simplicity, the resurrection is probably false.#2. The resurrection lacks explanatory power. That’s because it is an extraordinary assertion – one which isn’t in line with background knowledge and requires something supernatural without proper evidence for its claim. It lacks the power to explain the events in question clearly and concisely.#3. This is clearly a victory on my side. There’s no evidence for resurrection to be possible at all, since death means the end of the processes within a biological system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics holds that the entropy within a system won’t decrease at all. If resurrection occurs, then entropy decreases, thus violating the Second Law and exceeding the limits of background knowledge.On these accounts, the resurrection probably didn’t happen. Thanks for a fun debate so far.References1. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 1142. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...