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

I also appreciate the fact that Mr Skeptic concedes most of my point and admits that if they are facts, then it does indeed provide strong evidence for the resurrection, he is right. Yes, the gospels do claim an empty tomb. But I am not using the gospel accounts as evidence for the empty tomb. The empty tomb, like the rest is nothing extraordinary. No one is claiming that Jesus rose simply because of the empty tomb, not even the apostles! However, taken together with the other already agreed upon facts, I do believe it is more evidence for the resurrection. As I understand Mr Skeptics last response then, this is the only point of contention we have, as well as which explanation best accounts for what probably happened. Again the process that I use is the same ones that secular historians use. At one time the empty tomb was the scorn of the modern world has now become a generally accepted fact among the majority historians and scholars today. So here are some of the evidences that lead critical scholars to conclude that the tomb was indeed found empty. 1. The Jerusalem factor. It is conceded by everyone that the disciples first started their preaching in Jerusalem, right where everything is said to have taken place. Since the resurrection is a bodily one (Jews who believed in a resurrection held that it was a bodily event to happen at the end of time). N. T. Wright, in his landmark study of what the ancient pagan and Jewish thought of the resurrection is that it is a bodily even. Pagans, both Hellenistic and/or Roman, believed that the spirit goes to the underworld, that there was no physical resurrection. The Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection and the Sadducees didn't believe in it. All the cultures involved, then, both pagan and Jewish, held that the word for resurrection, meant a bodily one. . However, that being said, if the tomb was not empty, Christianity would be dead right out of the starting gate. 2 There is no historical evidence whatsoever that those who opposed Jesus produced a body, which again would have destroyed their preaching. 3. The testimony of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul mentions the crucifixion, burial and resurrection. Since, according to ancient Jews who believed in a resurrection, it is a physical, bodily event. Therefore, since Paul, an enemy of the early church, clearly believes in a resurrection, it implies an empty tomb. Therefore we have a first century historical witness, even before the gospels! . Why is that? Paul himself states that what he is passing on he received, from the apostles. It is universally accepted that the apostles preached the resurrection. Since that is so, it again implies an empty tomb. 4. The testimony of the women. Female testimony in the first century was not considered entirely trustworthy. Especially in matters of great importance. Again most scholars who comment on this state that if they were making it up, they would not have used women as the first witnesses. This is called the principle of embarrassment. 5. As my opponent already admitted, the apostles really did believe in the resurrection. But, to proclaim a resurrection is to admit an empty tomb. And they were in a position to know (right place, right time) if indeed the tomb were empty or not. If not, then they would have been found liars, but, as my opponent admits they were sincere, therefore not conscious liars. This leads to my next clue. 6. The earliest polemics against the Christians from their opponents admit and empty tomb. From Matthew (Matthew 28: 12-13) to Justyn Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho) to Tertullian (De Spectaculis 30), we know that the Jewish opponents were, for over two centuries, trying to explain the empty tomb. Which means that they too believed it to be empty. Therefore, since there are reasons leading to the fact of the empty tomb, and no historical evidence against it, it is reasonable to believe that it was indeed empty, as the majority of critical scholars admit. However I do believe my opponent made an error. He said: "but it is another thing to claim that this point lends credence to Jesus' divinity. " I am not making that claim. I am not saying that the empty tomb alone gives credence to Jesus' divinity. However, if there was a resurrection, THEN that (the fact of the resurrection) would lead to Jesus' divinity, since he himself said that would be the proof of His divinity. However, we are not discussing Jesus' divinity. We are trying to see if it is reasonable, on historical grounds, to believe that the resurrection did in fact happen. Like I said, there is nothing extraordinary of the empty tomb in and of itself. So what do we have so far? Well, Mr Skeptic admits that Jesus did die by crucifixion and was buried. He admits that the disciples really believe in what they preached. Question is, why did they come to believe? He admits that Paul suddenly converted. But why did he convert? He admits that James, the skeptical brother of Jesus while alive, suddenly converted. Again why? What happened that can account for those facts? And if the tomb is admitted to be reasonably a historic fact, then what accounts for that? As for the tomb, we have early testimony from those in a position to know if there was an empty tomb. We have early enemy attestation from Paul, who himself preaches a physical resurrection, thereby implying an empty tomb. Paul also states that the apostles also preach the same thing, who were indeed in the right place and right time to know. We have the testimony of the women, whose testimony if anything, would only weaken the cause of the earliest Christians, therefore would not have been included if they had been lying (principle of embarrassment). We have the fact that everything started in Jerusalem, including the empty tomb, which if false would have been easy to prove, just go to the tomb and drag out a body. This coupled with the fact that there is no actual historical evidence to the contrary makes it reasonable to believe that the tomb was indeed found empty. So, if you would, provide actual historical evidence that the tomb was not empty. If not then we can go on and see which explanations best accounts for the given facts.