Jesus Christ rose from the dead

Might as well accept, since my last debate went sour. First, id like to thank my opponent for this debate. I shall start with debunking my opponents arguments, and then go onto my own. Now i shall completely decimate my opponents arguments. A1: "it is important to keep in mind that the Bible is actually a resource from many different writers." The only parts of the Bible that are actually relevant to Jesus is the 4 gospels, and we do not know who the authors of those books are. In fact, a lot of scholars agree that at least 3 out of the 4 gospels are from the same source. That leaves 2, maybe 3 authors, to which we know nothing of. A2: Josephus. We can throw out Josephus in an instant. Most, if not all historians agree that Josephus, specifically the phrase you are quoting, is at least a 1st-2nd century interpolation. The reason for this is three-fold. First, Josephus was a known Jew, and calling Jesus Christ as a "Messiah" is something that could not have come out of Josephus. Second, when you read the antiquities, you notice that the story flows and flows, and then the insert that has nothing to do with the story is inserted, namely, Jesus Christ, and then the story goes back to what it was previously talking about. But, i wont stress that point, because it isn't too much of an extraordinary thing that people talk and talk, and then go off on a tangent for a couple sentences. Third, well known early church fathers such as Origens, never ever mention Josephus, not once. These guys were well read, well informed, they quoted from each other, quoted from historical texts, yet they never even slightly mention Josephus at all. This would've been an easy thing to confirm that Jesus at least existed. A3: The rest of the sources that talk about Jesus. Great. I have no problem in assuming that there was a man named Jesus. But none of this confirms or denies the exceptional claim of how he rose from the dead. No one is denying that Christians existed. No one is denying that there was probably a man named Jesus who was crucified. A4: "However, we have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul's." No, this is not an eyewitness account. Paul never met Jesus. His Damascus road experience was relating to the spirit of zombie Jesus, not the physical resurrected body of Jesus. In fact, it doesn't even say that Paul actually saw anything, he only heard the voice of the lord, and was also blinded by the light. This is far from an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Its as if i were to say "I was an eyewitness to this Car Crash. I saw it in a spirit vision". That is not an eyewitness account to the physical occurrence of the car crash. Its absurd to claim this was an eyewitness event. A5: "This is a powerful argument since it is unlikely anyone would have fabricated this story because the testimony of women at the time of the early first century was not allowed in court on crucial matters." This would be a powerful argument if any of the women were required to testify in court. This is an extremely weak argument because none of the women were required to testify in court, nor were the gospels used in any court proceedings in the early 1st century as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. A6: "All the Roman's had to do was drag his body into the street and Christianity would have effectively ended at week one." My opponent is completely ignoring the rather obvious possibility, that the body had already been removed before the Romans could have cared enough to bother disputing the Christians. Oh, and no, it doesn't take a resurrection to do that. Furthermore, I say "If the Romans cared enough", because the Romans could have just dragged out any body and claimed he was Jesus, and no one would know the difference(Especially if the body was in the stages of decay). Yet, they didn't. Why? Because the Romans didn't care about Jesus, it was the Jews who cared. A7: "Almost no historian disputes the fact that the disciples were transformed at a time after Jesus' death." I would like to ask my opponent to give the source that claims that the Apostles were discouraged after Jesus' death. A8: "logically mass hallucinations are all but impossible." Actually, no. Mass UFO sightings.(1)(2) Im running out of words, so ill start on my own arguments. C1: Eyewitness testimony that is decades removed, and passed on orally, cannot be used as evidence for a supernatural event. Take UFOs as an example. We have multitudes of people who have claimed to have seen UFOs. Couples. Families. All these people have claimed to have been abducted, experimented upon, and seen/interacted with real UFOs and aliens. If absolutely no one talked to these people, and we were to wait a couple decades, collected these stories, and made a book, every historian in the world would agree that that book would not be worth its weight in gummy bears as to whether or not any of it is historically accurate or true. And that's in today's society. 2000 years ago, when we are relying on oral traditions in order for those 3+ decades to be filled, we have even more reason to doubt those visions. C2: If historical evidence is evidence for supernatural events, then we would have to include other holy books such as the Quran as being accurate. Paul never met Jesus or the body of the resurrected Jesus, only the "spiritual" Jesus. Furthermore, it is generally agreed that Paul was converted some time around 33-36 AD, a couple years after Jesus died. Therefore, the gospels are the only possible accounts that talk of the resurrection of Christ. Since we have no idea who the authors are, and the fact that 3 gospels are identical to the point of each gospel being a copy of one another, it is safe to assume that 2, if not 3 authors are responsible. We also know that the gospels were written atleast a couple decades after Jesus died. The Quran, also written shortly after Muhammed died, by 2 authors who were also companions of Muhammed, and were eyewitnesses to the miraculous events that occurred to him, would have to be accepted by your stands. Yet, the Quran completely contradicts the claims that Jesus was God, or that he was in any way greater than a simple prophet. C3: Not any other event in the bible has been corroborated outside the gospels. This has to do with the credibility of the gospels as a whole. There are instances in the bible, such as Matthew 27, where the bodies of the dead saints rose from the dead and walked into town. What? Bodies of dead people walking into town, and yet no one, not one scholar saw this as even slightly odd? Not only that, but taking a quote from Pat Condell, this person should have been the talk of the desert! He rose the dead, healed the sick, healed the blind, walked on water! Yet not one scholar bothered to write about any of this. I am out of characters, so i shall end it here. Sources: 1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 2. http://www.rense.com...