The Resurrection of Jesus is a historically valid event.

As this is our last round, I wish to once again thank Conductor for attempting to debate this with me. I will not present any new arguments. There is no need. He has not responded to a single one of my arguments, so I extend them all.I will respond to some of Con's remaining points.I would first like to point out that Con's entire arguments have been based on plagiarism. It is obvious he has copied and pasted his arguments from other sources and are not arguing on his own. The link he provided last round was broken, but it seems evident that he also copied and pasted his evidence from the website.Secondly, Con has said this: "...I am also an extremely benevolent teacher of Truth...", and he has said this: "Off ya go and no BS excuses like your entire predecessors for their abject failures, LOL!" Your own words betray you, Con. I sincerely hope the readers of this debate are much more intellectually honest than Con is.Con's assertions that the Bible is a made up story book are baseless.Additionally, yes I admit that there is legitimate evidence for Alexander the Great, as does Con, apparently. This works against him. Con must either state that Alexander the Great was not a historical person or that Jesus was. Otherwise, Con's assertion that Alexander the Great was a real person but not Jesus is special pleading.Jesus, His life and ministry are likewise well-documented, as I have already shown. Con's "quick google search" does nothing to counter the scholarly research I cited in the last two rounds.Again, Con asserts there is no reason to suppose these events were recorded by actual eyewitnesses. Again, this is simply false.First, there is more evidence fo the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ than for any other event from the ancient world. I have already shown the evidence for Jesus in round two.Second, their authentic authorship is not in doubt. To prove this would be take up too much space, but suffice it to say there is overwhelming evidence that they were written by eyewitnesses, and written by whom they say they were. [1] I have already shown that even if they weren't written by the eyewitnesses, there is still overwhelming evidence that Jesus was historical (from round two), and even if they were written later Jesus would still be historically accepted as a real person, for the same reason that Alexander the Great is considered a real person historically. Con's arguments do nothing to challenge this.Con has no idea what a disciple of Jesus is. A disciple is one who follows the teachings of another. I am a disciple in that I believe in the Truth that Jesus taught, and I am following His wishes by sharing that Truth with others. I believe that Jesus worked miracles. I believe what Jesus claimed about Himself. A disciple is not required to work miracles, nor do I believe are we supposed to now. Miracles were rare events that were meant as a sign in Old and New Testament times. For example, in Old Testament times, only prophets performed miracles. In the New Testament, only the Apostles and Jesus worked miracles, with only one or two exceptions.Con's claim that I must "prove myself worthy" is a red herring and simply ridiculous.I believe I have effectively proven my case in spades. Please vote Pro.[1] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, pp. 528-530.