The Resurrection of Jesus meets the criteria of historicity

Fail dreadfully short of a refutation? I beg to differ. You claim that the default position is to believe a text as soon as it is found. This is both foolish and impractical. If historians were to actually do this, then basically any text lucky enough to survive instantly becomes historical fact. This is patently absurd, and false. If you or anyone who reads this debate takes the time to actually read the link I posted to Fischer's book or even the link I posted to McCullagh's “Argument to Best Explanation”, it will be obvious that my opponent has a very poor grasp of historicity. My opponent is right though when he comes to the conclusion that there would be very little left of ancient history to know about. This is true. There is very little of ancient history that we can honestly say we know about. We can only paint a vague picture. Up until fairly recent times, the human race has not been very effective at documenting moments in time. Even now, if some catastropic event were to occur, the people of 1,000 years ago would have trouble painting an accurate picture of life in contemporary times. I am making no straw man of my opponent's position. His hypotheses is that Jesus of Nazereth rose from the dead after being deceased for 3 days. I explained how his hypotheses does not pass the rigors of McCullagh's methodology. My opponent has a very weak understanding of epistemology, and would rather put his faith in crack pot theologians and apologists(Like Gary Habermas and Robert J. Miller) than geniune historical scholars. There is a reason that you don't find the Resurrection of Jesus in history books. I would also like to add that I never claimed that my opponent believed in the accounts because of the gospels, I simply stated that they are historical documents that reference a resurrection, and that they are unreliable. However, my opponent's username, his opening statement saying that his hypotheses is contingent on the super natural, and statement that if his hypothesis is true proves Christianity should make it pretty obvious that the gospels do play some part in my opponent's beliefs concerning this matter. According to “Understanding the Bible” by Steve Harris, Contemporary Scholars date Mark(The earliest gospel) to being written around 70 AD. It is believed to have been written by a disciple of Peter named John Mark, though the majority of Scholars say it is unknown. Matthew and Luke derived most of their material from Mark. The author of Matthew is unknown, but most biblical scholars agree that it was not written by a disciple of Jesus. Luke was obviously not written by a disciple of Jesus, as this is plainly explained in the introduction. The author of the book of John has been debated as early as the 2nd century, but most scholars agree that it was probably not written by an actual disciple of Jesus. However, all of this is irrelevant, because your own hypothesis does not meet the standards of historicity. As for Paul, he claims that Jesus spoke to him in a vision, not physically, and the events surrounding the supposed meeting are fairly extraordinary. It is something that is firmly placed in the realm of faith, and outside the realms of historicity. Anyway on to your little 5 points that you feel are not refuted. Point 1 is not even known to be true. Points 2,3, and 4 are refuted by the video I posted which shows the real inner workings of a cult, and exposes a lot of their psychology. Watch until the end. After the world was supposed to have ended, and they still believe. Right now, their cult leader is locked up for child molestation. He still has followers who believe. Point 5 is not even known to be true. You don't have a case at all. The historicity of Jesus' resurrection is not accepted by most scholars, and for good reason. It doesn't pass the rigors of historic methodology. Any claim that you make to the contrary is simply false. I do not even have to offer an alternative explanation. If we continue this discussion further, I will attempt to present a more plausible explanation. That said, I don't feel I need to, as the historicity of this event has already been proven false. It relies on too many suppositions and things that contradict what we know about how the world works. To believe in the resurrection is a leap of faith. It goes against things we know to be true in the natural world(supernatural by definition), and for that reason alone it should not have historicity. There is nothing inherently anti-Christian about this stance. A position that the resurrection lacks historicity is not a position that the resurrection didn't take place. It is a position that is neutral on the matter, and admits that we can't know if it really happened. This is a more honest stance than claiming the resurrection is historical, and this is the stance of any historical scholar who isn't a crackpot.