Jesus Christ rose from the dead

A01: "Jews as a whole have not rejected Jesus as Messiah" There are two ways of looking at the word "Jew". One is religion, the other is ethnicity. If you are talking about Jews as an ethnicity, then you are correct, there are people of Jewish lineage who are christian. However, clearly i was not talking about Jews as an ethnicity, as clearly there are some people of Jewish lineage who are Muslim, and some who are Hindu. All I care about are those Jewish Rabbi scholars who've spent their lives reading and interpreting the Torah, to which their lineage dates back even further than Christ, yet they all systematically reject Jesus Christ. As for the Jews rejecting the Messiah in Isaiah 53, although i was not able to find the passage, it makes littler difference, as it still does not change the fact that Jesus fails the prophecies on multiple accounts. A02: "These people could have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such claims. " Again, do we know the names of these people? As for Josh Mcdowell, although he isn't a scholar at all and I've read his books and they all fail miserably, here is what is wrong with his arguments. First, what William F. Albright wrote, has nothing to do with whether anything in the bible is true. Although this is only the opinion of one scholar, as most other scholars and historians agree that since Paul was written at least as late as 95 AD, and thus there could not POSSIBLY be a new testament before that, this says nothing to the fact that the date of the bible and the historical accuracy of the bible are not related, any more than dating the Quran and the historical accuracy of the Quran are related. Second, Sir William Ramsay is a chemist. I am sorry if i am reluctant of taking advice about medicine from my car mechanic. A03: "the writers being unanimous in their recording that women were the first to see Jesus' empty tomb is a valid argument. " I never said it wasnt a valid argument. I said it was a completely and utterly WEAK argument. A04: "This is simply a powerful supporting claim that the gospels are reliable. " Again, no. You are completely ignoring, and failing to take into consideration the fact that the apostles, who are all male by the way, saw and talked to Jesus after his resurrection, on the mount. It doesnt matter if the first eyewitnesses were women, because, guess what, if the bible were to be taken to court in 1st century Rome, the Christians would use the fact that the apostles, a group of men, witnessed Jesus Christ as an argument! A05: "--Did the Roman's Care? " Sure, the Romans cared about keeping the peace, stopping riots, etc etc. And if we were talking about those, you would be right. But guess what, Jesus wasn't causing Riots and only when Paul was causing riots, was he arrested. The Romans did not care about the Christians as long as they were not causing trouble. Clearly they had no reason to bring out Jesus' body, because, oh, the Christians weren't causing massive riots around the city. And by the time they would've cared enough because the Christians had become a nuisance based on their constant protests and riots, the Body of Christ would've been long rotted to the point that no one would notice who the body was anyways. This does nothing to dismiss my original point of how the Romans didn't care enough about the Christians to pull out Jesus' body to disprove their faith. But, if that is not enough, I submit Pontius Pilate into evidence. He, despite being a governor of Rome, didn't want to execute Jesus, but because the Jewish council pressed him, he reluctantly agreed. A06: "I never stated that Josephus gave an account of James being discouraged after Jesus' death! " Actually, you did. And this is where the English language comes into play. You wrote: "There is also a change in the disciples mentioned in Christian testimonies of Clement of Rome and Ignatius. Secular reports are found in Tacitus and the Josephus. " I never said that James did not exist. I never said that James was not killed for his beliefs. But what I did say, was ask for sources on where it states that the disciples were discouraged after Jesus' death. You brought up the entire fact about how the Christians were changed, and then directly after, mentioned that the secular reports are found in Tacitus and Jospehus. A07: "The phrase "all but impossible" means "nearly impossible"" Actually, the phrase "All but" can mean both "Nearly" or "virtually". Since you titled your previous argument with the words "Mass Hallucinations are impossible", yet made no stride to discredit the fact that you never meant to say that, i thought you meant virtually. Since you start off your argument with "How can anyone say that 500 people seeing the same hallucination is possible? " You clearly mean "Impossible in the literal sense". A08: "If we did have their names you wouldn't believe it. " That alone? Of course not. But it does give credence to Paul's writings. When we know that Paul of course had ample reason to lie, if Paul had provided a proper name list complete with a lineage background(assuming that these people had parents) we could at least confirm that some of the eyewitnesses existed. A09: "St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them. '" Sorry, but I can trump your argument with one easy question. Who is "Them"? And this is the point. This is the equivalent of saying "If you don't believe me, you can ask my friend who lives in Montana. " Well, that's great, cause there are hundreds of thousands of people who live in Montana. Am i going to ask them all? A10: "500 witnesses all saw Jesus at the same time. " This is the other problem with no-name witnesses. How do we know if these people saw Jesus? If i take 1000 people in front of me and say "I am Christopher", great, 1000 people saw Christopher. That does nothing to the possibility that i am NOT Christopher, and furthermore, none of the witnesses know this, because they've never met me or Christopher. We have no idea if these witnesses had known beforehand who Jesus was or how he looked like. A11: "It could be a number of non-alien, unidentified aircrafts. " It doesn't matter if we use Unidentified air crafts, or the grey skinned large-eyed aliens themselves. It doesn't matter if 100 people testify that they've met Aliens. No historian is ever going to give credence to any of these testimonies at all, and i doubt you will either, if 100, no, 1000 people claimed to have met Vishnu. A12: "Though it seems irrelevant in this debate ill touch on it" How is this irrelevant to this debate? Were discussing the evidence that is required to accept a supernatural claim! A13: "Muhammad, performed no miracles to back up his message" Nor did i, or any Muslim, claim that Muhammed did any miracles. Furthermore, this does nothing to change the fact that the historical evidence of the Quran is just as good as the Bible. A14: "Further, the Quran makes clear historical errors" So does the bible. A15: "makes judgments against Christians for believing things that they do not" Ive tried searching for your examples, like the trinity, and have not found them. Not sure if you are confusing the Quran, and general Muslim ignorance regarding Christianity. CS Lewis forgets the fourth option, Legend. I have no problem agreeing that a rabbi preacher named Jesus walked around and preached peace. But when you consider the UTTER lack of scholarly evidence, such as the supposed earthquake and the ZOMBIES who walked into town(Matthew 27), sorry, no. There is barely any reliable evidence, and no Good evidence to support that Jesus rose from the dead.