The Resurrection of Jesus

I will be arguing that there is a lack of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead. Historical Criteria for Weighing HypothesesI will accept these criteria as the historical criteria for weighing the hypothesis and will basically restate my opponent's explanations in my own words so that I may better apply them to manner in which I present my argument.1. Plausibility- Does it make sense that it could have happened this way?2. Explanatory scope- Does it explain the issue at hand?3. Explanatory power- How well does it explain the issue at hand?4. Less ad hoc- Similar in a way to explanatory power. Are there things that need to be added in order to keep the hypothesis from being falsified?5. Illumination- Does this shed light on other issues at hand?The order we look at the issue is important. The first two ask whether this answer is plausible and if it answers the question, the last three ask how well does it answer the question. If we determine that it is not possible for this hypothesis to have taken place or if we determine that this does not explain the problem, then the last three really matter. Thus, if the answer to the first two questions is no, then it is not a good theory. Historical FactsFirst the big question: Did Jesus even exist? I will say that it is likely that Jesus did exist as per the definition that was accepted. The biblical account:Unless my opponent can provide evidence that the biblical account of Jesus' life is accurate, there is no historical reason to believe that it is."These are held true by almost all historians and scholars."Because my opponent has provided no proof for any these claims, I am under no obligation to accept them.Weighing the RH1. Plausibility, does it make sense that it could have happened this way?Does it make sense for someone to rise from the dead? No, it is clearly an extremely supernatural event.Supernatural- 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. 3. Of or relating to a deity. 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. [1].It takes no scientist to see how all of these definitions apply to the RH: 1. People do not come back from the dead in the natural world. 2. RH relates to Jesus' power to violate the natural force of death.3. RH certainly relates to a deity.4. RH certainly relates to the immediate exercise of divine power."A person trying to decide as to the historical nature of a past event should select the best hypothesis for the historical facts."Of course, but my opponent has yet to prove his "facts." There is no evidence to warrant such a supernatural act."Now, background knowledge includes that Jesus was known to having performed acts that many regarded as miracles, that Jesus himself believed to have a special relationship of some type with God, and that Jesus himself also believed he had been chosen by God to as an eschatology agent to bring in a new kingdom. Given this and other background knowledge, the RH is plausible."How do we know that Jesus performed these "miracles?" How do we know that Jesus believed he was the messiah? My opponent provides no evidence to support his claims of background knowledge.I have shown that RH refers to a supernatural event, and that there is no evidence to back up the claims of background knowledge. Therefore, RH is not plausible.2&3. We cannot access these until we are sure the facts are accurate.4. Less ad hoc. It is clearly a supernatural event. Most, if not all scientists would agree. Besides, the resolution does not state that we must limit ourselves to historical analysis. We must analyze the veracity of the supernatural, and my analysis above shows this to be supernatural. The RH does not pass.The RH does not pass the criterion and more importantly, there is no proof of the "facts."Source:[1]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...