Resolved: There is sufficent evidence to believe in Jesus' resurrection

First, I did not concede the apparent contradictions. Upon closer examination, I realized his claim isn't so much a red herring as it is a non sequitur. If there are "contradictions," at most all that would tell us is we cannot trust the text with regards to who buried Jesus. My focus isn't on who buried Jesus, and my opponent continues to highlight this issue and use it to argue against my point that my opponent conceded by saying he does "contend that Joseph provided the tomb. " I'm glad that he clarifies his point and says that "the reason why [Joseph] gave his tomb to Jesus was to show respect to Him. " Great! I'm glad Joseph did that. How does this undermine my point Joseph was a well known public figure? As I argued previously, I use this later to tie in the fact that the location of the tomb was well known since Joseph was the one who provided it. I was not making an argument as to who buried Jesus. Whether Joseph gave Jesus the tomb because he disliked Jesus or because he loved Him does nothing to affect my contention. My opponent calls into question the validity of the 500 witnesses. He writes, "we have one person stating that 500 people saw Jesus post-resurrection. Sounds very compelling doesn't it? " What's important to note is the 500 witnesses were a large portion of the early church. Furthermore, these witnesses were most likely alive at the time of Paul's writing. Dr. Edwin M. Yamuchi writes, "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them. ' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago. " [1] My opponent also argues Jesus' corpse decomposed and thus the leaders could not produce the body . He writes, "Why didn't the Jewish leaders produce Jesus' corpse? According to the new testament, it fixes the public announcement of the resurrection 50 days after the events! By that day, Jesus' corpse would have been sufficiently decomposed. " Of course that would be true, assuming a naturalistic hypothesis. This also assumes that the Jewish leaders had access to the body, i. e. the body (or remains) would have to be in the tomb. But we know the tomb was empty. Well, according to my opponent Joseph (or someone else) stole the body! Remember my argument in response to this conspiracy from the second round: if Joseph stole the body with the guards in place, then the resurrection appearances would have to necessarily be explained by natural means (hallucinations, dreams, etc. ) The resurrection appearances cannot be sufficiently explained by natural means Therefore, the idea that Joseph stole the body is false. The hallucination theories would have to necessarily explain away the resurrection; however my opponent has failed to prove the theories to be an adequate explanation of the sightings. Note that Joseph's name in the syllogism can be replaced by the name of anyone else. For the purposes of refuting guy opponent, I chose to focus on Joseph of A. In order for my opponent's theory to work, he must refute my argument, otherwise they fail. My opponent brings up the guards at the empty tomb and argues that since only one gospel mentions it and the others don't, therefore there were probably no guards. I've already responded to this in my previous round, yet Con decidedly repeats his claim. I said, "Con shoulders the burden in explaining why he thinks the tomb was left completely unguarded and why there was no guard afterwards. Secondly, Con invalidates the guard story because it appears in only one Gospel. However, it's been noted that the guard story also appeared in the independent work of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. [2][3]" I also responded to the 12 hour period in my previous round. This went unrefuted. Regarding the hallucinations, my opponent provides a quotation that basically argues people who don't see a hallucination in the presence of others seeing it, feel left out of the group. Eventually they are "influenced by the accounts of others" and they "begin to believe that they saw the vision too. " Did this happen? This goes right back to the fact that Jesus appeared to the disciple's in groups. Recall that the women saw Jesus first and they ran back to tell the disciples. The disciple's themselves ignored the women and called them crazy. "10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. 11 But these words appeared [a]to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. "[2] Remember women's testimony were considered illegitimate during those times. This doesn't sound to me like a case where the disciple's are "influenced by the accounts of others. " Each of these claims were met with skepticism from even the disciples themselves! Thomas himself said he would not believe unless he saw and touched Jesus himself. Furthermore, when Jesus is claimed to have appeared to them, it was in a group. All the disciples saw the very same thing, at the very same time. They even touched him and gave him food to eat. As for his conclusions 1) is hardly an argument 2) I've responded to this claim 3) As noted in the comments by a member, I don't need to show that the resurrection is th only possible explanation. Recall my overall argument: Either the evidence is best explained by a natural account or it is best explained by a supernatural account The evidence is not best explained by a natural account C:Therefore, it's best explained by a super natural account If there are facts that are best explained by an actual resurrection, then there is in fact sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus' resurrection. 4. This is hardly a conclusion or argument. Being convinced is entirely subjective, and one can be unconvinced of something that is true. My arguments went entirely unrefuted. Essentially, my opponent simply restated his arguments and ignored any of the arguments I made in my previous round. I turn it back over to Con. [1]McDowell, Josh. "Evidence for the Resurrection. " Leadership University. N. p. , n. d. Web. 3 Aug. 2011. <. http://www.leaderu.com...; [2] Luke 24:10-11 NASB