The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ Historically Occurred

My opponent, unfortunately, broke the rules by posting the counter rebuttals in Round 3 as opposed to 4, giving him an unfair advantage if he gets two sets of counter rebuttals. I will not be addressing his counter-rebuttals to keep in check with the rules. He should refrain from a second set of counter-rebuttals or rebuttals. This round should be for him, in effect, a forfeit, to keep the discussion equal.I will deal with the rebuttals with counter rebuttals... since that was the purpose of round 4, not 3.Let me also address two things:1) Inane is a real word and not an insult. I was saying that making a detective a scholar, like making a scholar a detective, is foolish and does not follow as an argument. I did not mean to write "insane." I was precise with my language. 2) Clearly, everyone has a bias, but I was pointing out a form of a specific fallacy being used that undermines his entire argument. Again, I was precise with my language.3) I also assumed you were a Protestant based off of an exclusive use of Evangelical apologetics, previous debates where you defend inerrancy, and a debate where you specifically said deism was wrong and a Protestant version of theology was correct. 4) Deism by nature is God not interfering in the world, and certainly not raising Jesus from the dead and not performing thousands of miracles. Belief in a God who performs miracles for Christians and raised Jesus from the dead is the opposite of deism. Now, on to the actual arguments.1) Spiritual Nature of the ResurrectionMy opponent attempts to use Acts as evidence that Jesus was bodily raised. Acts was written by the same individual who wrote Luke, and it is decades later than Paul (1) and is written as a Greco-Roman novel, not history. (2) Indeed it contradicts Paul as we saw. My opponent did not deal with 1 Corinthians 15 in any way, which was the crux of my argument from Paul. It remains valid.2) Empty TombMy opponent missed the point of the argument. If Paul thought Jesus was spiritually resurrected, his lack of mention of the empty tomb makes sense. It misses the point. This is an argument from absence, not ignorance, with an explanation as to why.3) QMy opponent was specifically asked if he accepted the 2-source theory. Not if it was possible, but if he accepted it. Either he has lied, or he did not understand the question. Either way, he broke the rules again. I specifically listed Kloppenberg as a source. He is the world's leading scholar on Q and a major player in the critical ediction of Q. Those scholars who accept Q know much of its context. My original argument is, again, an argument from absence, not ignorance, with a specific explanation. The rebuttal, however, is indeed an argument from ignorance as it simply doesn't take into account any methods or conclusions of Q scholars.4) The Vision of GabrielMy opponent stated, "This tablet was written after the events of Jesus." This is false. The tablet was written in the 1st century BCE, as I stated and cited. This was BEFORE Jesus may have even been born and certain before his death.My opponent misunderstood and did not deal with my point: previous Jewish groups believed their Messiah was resurrected on the third day, specifically as appearing in visions.This argument still stands.Final ConclusionI'll make this quick.1) My opponent did not specifically address my treatment of visionary and experiential "appearances" of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15. This argument still stands.2) My opponent did not deal with my evaluation of contradiction between Luke and 1 Corinthians 15 with the spiritual resurrection of Jesus. This argument still stands.3) My opponent misunderstood and misrepresented my arguments from Q and Paul's mention of the empty tomb. He also did not address Thomas. These arguments still stand.4) My opponent should not have a second round of counter-rebuttals or deal with what in this round. This is in accordance to the rules he agreed with, and it ensures equal amount of time for debate. He should concede this round. I did not deal with his counter rebuttals to keep the rules. As of now, we are equal in opportunities to argue.I hope you enjoyed the debate and will vote for the side which aligns best with the evidence. May your journey to truth be strong and exciting.Sources(1) The New Oxford Annotated Bible, pg. 1919.(2) Bart D. Ehrman, "The Near Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings," (ed. 5), pg. 156, 160-161.