Jesus Christ rose from the dead

--"Jews don't accept Jesus." If by using the word Judaism, you mean Jews who don't accept Jesus then yes, Judaism rejects Jesus. However, Jews as a whole have not rejected Jesus as Messiah. There are large groups of Jews who follow Jesus and even today many Jews are being converted to Christianity. Additionally the same OT book you claim is not accepted as prophesy of Jesus also predicts that the Messiah would not be accepted by the Jews – Isaiah 53. So if Judaism has rejected Jesus as messiah, it makes him a candidate to be the Messiah. *If the Judaism would have accepted Jesus then he could not have been the Messiah. --"Virgin Birth" This question alone could be a whole debate; I'll just say some scholars accept this OT passage and others do not. --The Gospels I will concede that the 4 Gospel could have been written by three men. This is why I pointed out that Matthew may have used Mark's work to translate the Gospel into another language. I have also already stated that John the apostle probably did not write John, see my above argument. --"Eyewitnesses to the resurrection" The NT accounts of the resurrection were being circulated at least during the lifetime of those men and women who encountered the resurrection. These people could have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such claims. The writers of the gospels were also either themselves a witness or writing on behalf of a witness. How do we know this? According to Josh McDowell: "By the end of the 19th century archaeological discoveries of early papyri [had] bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from later dates. Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: ‘We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the [NT] after about A.D. 80.' Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early [NT] manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the [NT], finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "" So not only did many NT writers witness Jesus but their works are the most reliable sources of any other know. --"Jesus' other miracles." Right, the divinity of Jesus does not rest solely on the resurrection however the resurrection backed-up all the other miracles of Jesus. Also I think you are missing my point, the writers being unanimous in their recording that women were the first to see Jesus' empty tomb is a valid argument. It doesn't prove Jesus rose from the dead but it does support the writer's credibility in that they were all willing to admit women were the first witnesses even when they probably would have rather not. This is simply a powerful supporting claim that the gospels are reliable. --Did the Roman's Care? Absolutely, and for precisely the reason you mentioned. Paul and the other Christians were causing a stir. They were all converted Jews and were telling of the Jewish Messiah, the Romans most definitely cared of riots as they feared this even before Jesus' death. Frankly you should be defending your idea that the Romans didn't care about Jesus or the early Christians. It is common historical knowledge that the Romans were worried of riots, they wanted to put down Jesus quickly and quietly and the early Christians were causing the Romans to take notice at what was happening. Even later around A.D. 65 when Rome burned, Nero blamed Paul and the Christians for the whole event. Ultimately, the Romans killed Peter, Paul, Jesus and countless early Christians and we know this from extra biblical sources. The Romans cared, period. --Josephus referring to James. Josephus may have referred to different Jesus' but I have only quoted one time that he referred to Jesus and this is obviously the Jesus of Christianity. And referring to James, I never stated that Josephus gave an account of James being discouraged after Jesus' death! I said that Josephus reported James as a martyr and nothing more. James was a skeptic during the life of Jesus and at some point after Jesus' death we see James as a leader in the early church, that is a change of heart. --Mass hallucinations impossible? You stated that mass hallucinations are "absolutely not" all but impossible. The phrase "all but impossible" means "nearly impossible" or "next to impossible." How can anyone say that 500 people seeing the same hallucination is possible? Aditionally, If we did have their names you wouldn't believe it. You already don't believe the greatest and most protected manuscripts on earth. What makes you think that having the names of 500 people would make this point any better for you? Thankfully evidence does point to the 500 witnesses as being accurate anyways! Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago. Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history." Also important is the fact that the 500 witnesses all saw Jesus at the same time. This means there were many more than 500 people who saw Jesus. Also am not advocating aliens, I don't have a stance on the matter. I am only saying the acronym UFO does not mean aliens. It could be a number of non-alien, unidentified aircrafts. --"The Quran" Though it seems irrelevant in this debate ill touch on it; Muhammad, performed no miracles to back up his message (even when he was asked to by his followers. Only in much later tradition (the Hadith) do any alleged miracles even show up and these are all quite fanciful (like Muhammad cutting the moon in half) and have zero reliable testimony to back them up. Further, the Quran makes clear historical errors. Muslims believe the Bible is inspired but with some errors from editing the question they cannot adequately answer is: "When was the Bible corrupted?" If they say before 600 A.D. then how can the Quran admonish believers to read it? If they claim it was after 600 A.D., then they have even bigger issues, for we have absolutely no doubt as to the accuracy of biblical manuscripts from at least the 3rd century forward. Even if Christianity were false, the Quran still has an insurmountable problem because it makes judgments against Christians for believing things that they do not (nor have they ever) believed. For example, the Quran teaches that Christians believe the Trinity is the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son and the Quran also teaches that Christians believe that God had sex with Mary to have a son. If the Quran is really from God, then it should at least be able to accurately report what Christians believe even if Christianity is false. Thank you for debating T, I have run out of Characters again and I had more to go! C.S. Lewis Said, Jesus was either Lord, Liar or Lunatic...