It is reasonable to believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical event.

"[W]hat is the evidence that [mass hallucinations] happened repeatedly to different groups, individuals with different states of mind over a 40 day period following THAT Easter morning?" As I've repeatedly explained, it is incorrect to ask for evidence of hallucinations just as it is incorrect to ask for evidence that the appearances were real appearances of Jesus, since both are just hypotheses that are there to explain the data. "[A]s my opponent agreed, Paul believed in a physical resurrection which entails an empty tomb. He was also in the right place and right time, he certainly could have checked out the tomb for himself." Yes, Paul's beliefs did entail that he believed Jesus left wherever he was buried. But Paul never says Jesus was buried in a tomb (he may have been buried in the ground) nor does Paul say that he checked the tomb, nor is there any reason to believe he would have or could have. Nor does it mean that Jesus' corpse would have been still recognizable at the time Paul converted. Nor does it mean that Paul could have recognized Jesus' corpse, since Paul had never met Jesus during Jesus' lifetime, and there were no photographs in those days. "Literary device? My opponent refers to Mark 10:31 (Matt 19:30).[1] However, even a superficial reading of the texts IN CONTEXT reveals that Jesus is speaking of who will enter the kingdom of heaven." No, Mark 10 simply says that those who have followed Jesus will recieve 100 times as much as they have lost in the present age and the age to come. The female followers, who were less respected in society, are therefore portrayed as recieving the honor in being the discoverers of the empty tomb and the first to see Jesus. "Just because the women were the underlings that "understood Jesus the best", it doesn't follow that they didn't discover the empty tomb." Right. It just means that the evidence you cite for the empty tomb (the 'embarassing' testimony of women) is worthless and therefore you have no evidence for the empty tomb. "[I]f [early Christians] really believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and as my opponent agrees, it is a physical event, why even need a 'literary device' to explain the tomb? Not only that, but it would make them liars. Which is contrary to what my opponent agreed to as fact." No, telling symbolic or ironic stories does not make one a liar. And the author of Mark wasn't one of the earliest Christians. He was not a disciple and may not have written until 40 years after Jesus' death. My original response: >Further, there seems to be a theme of "reversal of expectation" in the gospel of Mark: Who carries Jesus' cross? Not Simon Peter, the one whom prompted Jesus to say "You must take up your cross and follow me" (Mark 8) but another Simon, Simon of Cyrene.< "Again, just a cursory reading of the text reveals that Peter wasn't even around to carry anything." I didn't say Peter was around. I'm just noting the irony and reversal of expectation in the story. My original response: >Who buries Jesus? Not his father Joseph (which customary for Jews) but another Joseph, Joseph of Arimathea.< "After the birth of Jesus, his father is mentioned little if at all. Most NT scholars contend that Joseph was probably dead by that time. Hence, not around." So what? Jesus wasn't buried by the person, Joseph, who would normally have buried him (perhaps because he was dead) but by another Joseph, Joseph of Arimathea. The story portrays an ironic reversal of expectation. >Who discovers that Jesus has risen? Not the male disciples, but the lowly female followers.< "Exactly right! That falls right into the principle of embarrassment." Nope. It falls right into the literary theme I've been explaining. "Again producing any body would be hard for Christians who preached the resurrection (and hence an empty tomb, especially to Jews), if any sort of body was discovered. The opponents of Jesus would certainly want to investigate and provide a body. Not only that, but the historical evidence we DO have point to the empty tomb, such as enemy attestation." And I've already addressed that point by giving you evidence of cognitive dissonance seen in cults. And enemy attestation means nothing because the opponents may have simply assumed the empty tomb for the sake of argument in trying to persuade people otherwise. In other words, your "evidence" for an empty tomb is EPIC FAIL. "I say that they weren't in the right frame of mind because of the evidence. They didn't believe the women, when it would seem that they should have," The reports of the women not being believed all come from later sources. It's not in Paul and not in Mark (the original ending of Mark ends at verse 16:8). Besides, just because later sources something doesn't make it true. "Paul certainly didn't want to see Jesus alive (he was quite content arresting the blaspheming Christians)" But you don't know that he was "content". He may have felt guilty. "James was a skeptic (as Mark and John both report)." And you have never shown that James' skepticism had not disappeared long before Jesus' death. Just because James was doubtful early in Jesus' career does not mean that he stayed doubtful. "About postulating mental illnesses, that is because there is no evidence for it." Except that most cults have more mentally ill members, and Christianity must be assumed a typical cult until proven otherwise. And the evidence in Paul which shows that he was epileptic (the references I gave for that earlier list numerous peculiar things about Paul which are common in epileptics). My original response:>No you didn't. You didn't give one shred of evidence to show that James' skepticism lasted for more than just a temporary period of time.< "Sure did." No you didn't. Your sources state that James was doubtful earlier in Jesus' career, and later on mention that he joined the group. But they don't say when. Could've been well before Jesus' death, and even if it wasn't, there are a million reasons (like gaining power) that James might have wanted to join the cult. "Again notice what my opponent has to do. Again, what my opponent has to do is pile on one theory on another. But that just makes it more improbable. For example. My opponent has to combine at least four theories. Lets say that each one has a 60% chance of being correct (that is being generous), .6x.6x.6x.6=.1296 or 13% chance of being true." Using your reasoning, you also have four theories: that the disciples actually saw the risen jesus, that the tomb really was empty, that Paul was completely sane and in a sound state of mind, etc. etc. If we give each theory of yours a 60% chance, then your theory is just as improbable as mine. Hopefully this will prove to you, and the readers, that your above reasoning is completely bogus. My original response: >we are both taking the facts, drawing inferences from the facts, and then coming up with an over-arching theory to explain those inferences< "Right on. However, my opponent doesn't have one. He has to combine four." No, my overarching theory was that early Christianity was a typical cult. Much of what I postulated (hallucinations, etc.) followed from that theory, as I showed before. In conclusion, I'd like to note that my opponent never responded to the evidence that I cited against the empty tomb (the fact that Paul never mentioned it). Nor did he respond to the point that every hypothesis I have advocated is more likely than a resurrection (since lying, hallucinating, etc. occur all the time and resurrections have never occurred as far as we can tell-- we have no direct experience of them). I refer to my posts in Rounds 1 and 3 that show why my theory is better. I offer my opponent an e-handshake, and walk away with the confidence of knowing I have argued my case correctly and won the debate (at least in my own eyes).