The Resurrection of Jesus meets the criteria of historicity

I believe that the Resurrection of Jesus is a historical event that probably happened. It is impossible to reach 100% certainty. However, that should not detract from the discussion since that is the way it is in all of history. One can only prove what probably happened. The historical methodology used to ascertain whether something is to be considered a historical fact is the same that secular historians use, is whether the reasons for accepting it outweighs the reasons for rejecting it. "A position is demonstrated, when the reasons for accepting it significantly outweigh the reasons for not accepting it... A finding of historicity is essentially a default position, meaning that we have no other reasonable way to account for the presence of a story in the text." -Robert Miller, "Historical Method and the Deeds of Jesus: The Test Case of the Temple Demonstration." Forum 8 (1992): 5-30 Others include Principle of Embarrassment, Enemy Attestation, Multiple Attestation, etc. Also if the theory explains the facts more so than alternative theories, then according to historical methods, it probably happened. Therefore the Resurrection stands on good ground. Take crime scene investigation for example. One collects all the facts, then has to come up with a theory as to what happened. The theory that takes into account all the facts without adding one theory upon another and that far outstrips alternative theories, then it is reasonable to believe that such and such happened. The reason why I used crime scene investigation is that because they use many of the same guidelines as historians do. For both are trying to discover what happened in the past. As historian C. Behan McCullagh says in his book "Justifying Historical Descriptions": "If the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true." Also: "But if the evidence is support of an explanitory hypothesis is strong, and there is no alternative hypothesis supproted nearly as well, it is reasonable to believe it is probably true" McCullah, "The Truth of History."p.23 That means if the facts remain, then my opponent has to provide an alternative explanation that accounts for those facts better than the resurrection. For evidence, my case is cumulative. IF Jesus was crucified, IF his disciples honestly had what they considered to be experiences of the risen Jesus, IF it can be demonstrated that Paul had suddenly converted, IF James who was skeptical brother of Jesus suddenly converted, and IF the tomb was found empty, and IF the alternative theories are not able to provide an adequate answer for the aforementioned facts, that lends strong evidence for the Resurrection. It is my contention that each of these are indeed facts. In fact, they are admitted by most if not nearly all scholars both believing and skeptical to be historical events. It is also my contention that there are no alternative theories that can adequately account for the facts as well as the Resurrection. Therefore, the reasons FOR the accepting the Resurrection outweigh the reasons for rejecting it and thus meet the requirements for historicity, which is called argument to the best explanation. As for naturalistic theories I will not comment on them as yet. I want to know what my opponent thinks happened. How does he account for those facts? I don't want to waste time and refute something that he himself might not believe in. However, whether my opponent wishes to discuss the particulars in the above mentioned facts or just go ahead as discuss what alternative he thinks is a better explanation, he too, according to historical methodology has to provide evidence. As historians admit: "Third, evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms--it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object is established not by nonexistent evidence but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist." -Hackett, "Historians' Fallacies", Harper: 1970 p.62 That means that if someone wants to posit an alternative theory, or say that, for example that Jesus wasn't crucified, but instead something else happened, then the burden is also upon him to provide historical evidence for that. It is my contention that: 1.Jesus was indeed crucified and buried. This is attested to not only in the Gospels, but also by Paul and extra-biblical sources. And is admitted to as fact by almost all scholars. 2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them. This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources and is also accepted as historical fact by nearly all scholars. 3. Paul, who was an enemy of the church suddenly changed. This is stated by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Usually people will convert on the word of someone else, that is a secondary source. But Paul's conversion is due to something that he himself experienced. That is a primary source. Again, almost all scholars accept this as fact. 4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly changed. This is attested to in the Bible, and extra-biblical source reports that he was a strict Jew. The Bible also testifies that after the Resurrection, James became a leader of the church. 5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty). So, the historical question remains. What happened that fateful Easter morning? What happened that could make disciples believe something so much that they willingly suffered and died for? What happened that changed the enemy of Christians (Paul) to suddenly convert without any prior motive to? What could have happened that changed the once skeptical brother of Jesus (James) into becoming a leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem? What happened at the tomb that emptied it? It is also my contention that since there are no naturalistic explanations that can account for the above facts, the only explanation left is that Jesus has indeed been raised from the dead and therefore it is reasonable to believe that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. That is in accordance to historical methodology. And why is it important? Because it establishes the truth of Christianity. A resurrection, by its very nature is a miracle. Only God has the power over death. Jesus claimed to be divine. To back up that claim, he stated that he would give one proof, to raise himself from the dead. No other person in history made such a claim. There are other resurrections in the bible (though a rare event). However, it was always God working through a disciple or prophet. No disciple or prophet could raise himself from the dead. So even up to that point, many believed that Jesus was only a prophet. However, when Jesus made the claim He was going to raise himself, and the reason why he could do so is because He is God. Then resurrection is proof of His claim. However, did He rise from the dead? It is my belief that it is historically reasonable to believe He did for that is where the facts point to.