The Resurrection of Jesus meets the criteria of historicity

>The default position is to suspend judgment. < Not so. If that were true, there would be very little left of ancient history to know about. Conversely, that reference is written by a historian. So, for my opponent to just snibly shrug it off doesn't help. Even in science, and criminal investigation, that quote applies. Something can be accepted as fact when the reasons for accepting it outweigh the reasons for not accepting it. Sorry, but that is how it is done. My opponent then points to McCullagh and I say AMEN to that! However, I do not appreciate the implication that I am being intellectually dishonest. That is why I also supplied the other quotation from his other works. He is absolutely right. There are indeed 6 steps to test competing hypothesis! However, this only helps my case. I believe that it passes all those tests. My opponent then tries to simply say that it fails certain steps in his tests. However, I noticed that my opponent failed to provide an alternative theory that passes those steps (by passing those steps, the theory accounts for the data). The statement "The resurrection is false" is not a theory. For example, the five facts I provided in my opening, for the resurrection to be challenged, he would have to posit that something else happened (ie someone stole the body). And then we would see which theory passes those steps, my opponents theory or the resurrection. Straw men. My opponent has committed a number of them. I am not arguing that I believe the resurrection because Josephus says so. I agree Josephus didn't witness the resurrection. However, no one doubts that he reports the death of Jesus. He was a historian in the first century. I agree he was certainly NOT a Christian. Are there interpolations in his accounts? Sure are. Does that mean the entire quotation is thrown out? Absolutely not. All a historian does is discount the portions that are questionable and take what is remaining. For example: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, . .. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. . .. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; . .. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. " Notice that the interpolations were taken out. So, what do we have? Yes still have Jesus condemned to die on the cross. Which is my first fact. Also, there is another version that surfaced in 1972, which is shorter, with no interpolations, which no scholars has trouble with. However there are arguments for the entire passage being authentic, but they are unnecessary. In fact his own reference to Louis Feldman holds to a partial authenticity of Josephus! Another Straw man. Next he tries to disparage the gospels. I never said that I believe in the resurrection because the gospels says so. However I do hold that Jesus was crucified. Why? Well you have independent, early documentation of the fact, not just from friends, but enemies as well, which would be Paul, and Josephus. So, unless my opponent has superior historical evidence that points to the fact that Jesus wasn't crucified, my first point still holds. Contradictions, yet another straw man. I am not basing my debate on the general reliability of the New Testament. Just on what is well evidenced historically. But again, it has nothing to do with my five facts. >The gospels themselves were not written by anyone who had ever known Jesus,< Historical evidence of this claim is? ?? ? >First of all, none of the reports of the resurrection are from first hand sources. < And that automatically makes it unreliable? Evidence for this claim? . And it can be easily shown historically that if they weren't they did have as their sources primary sources. For example, Paul himself writes that he interviewed the apostles. Paul is using primary sources. Paul's own letters where he describes his conversion is a primary source. So, in the end, what do we have so far? 1. Jesus was died by crucifixion and was buried. 2. Jesus' disciples' had experiences that they believed was the risen Jesus 3. Paul, an enemy of Christians suddenly converted 4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly converted. 5. The tomb was found empty. So far none of these has been refuted, and none of them are even supernatural! So, back to the test of historiography. Does it pass the tests laid out by historians? My theory is that Jesus rose from the dead. To paraphrase William Craig: 1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw Jesus alive etc. 2. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people saw Jesus alive etc. 3. It is plausible: given the context of Jesus' own life an claims, the resurrection serves as confirmation of those claims 4. It is not ad hoc or contrived. it requires only one additional hypothesis, that God exists. And even then that needn't be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exist. 5 It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" doesn't in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don't rise from the dead naturally. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the theory that God raised Jesus from the dead. 6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypothesis in meeting conditions 1-5. [Especially since no other theory has been given. ] So again to quote McCullagh: "If the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true. " Also: "But if the evidence is support of an explanatory hypothesis is strong, and there is no alternative hypothesis supported nearly as well, it is reasonable to believe it is probably true" McCullah, "The Truth of History. "p.23 So far, I think I am on solid ground.