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

There are great problems with his hallucinations theory as already stated above. However my opponent makes a false accusation. Even if I said that mass hallucinations occurred here and now, what is the evidence that it happened repeatedly to different groups, individuals with different states of mind over a 40 day period following THAT Easter morning? I am sorry that my opponent is frustrated, but just making claims without proof will not do, it is irresponsible research to do so. It is also is a fallacy of composition. Paul and the empty tomb. As stated earlier in the debate, 1 Cor 15 has a well known, early creed. That creed is about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. He also states in his letter to the Galatians that he personally met with the apostles. He also states in 1 Cor 15 that what he was preaching is the same that they were. And as 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. 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. Even my opponent's explanation is insufficient. Just because the women were the underlings that "understood Jesus the best", it doesn't follow that they didn't discover the empty tomb. It also goes against what he has accepted as fact. My opponent agrees that they really believed that they experienced the risen Jesus. But if they 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. And it doesn't take into account or refute the other historical evidences for the empty tomb that I had given above. Also, the literary device theory itself gives rise to more questions than it answers. If the empty tomb was just a "literary device, " then the tomb must have been full. So how does one account for that? Yet another theory has to be brought in. >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. >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. >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. And that is what makes the discovery of the tomb more likely than not, not to mention the other factors I had already mentioned. So, just taking verses out of context isn't enough to validate it as a literary device. And which literary device is it? None that I am aware of. 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. "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb." [2] "All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of the empty tomb, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history." [3] Again I am asking for evidence that a hallucination occurred in THIS instance. You yourself said that you have none. Just predicting that a hallucination will lead someone to believe in the risen Jesus runs into problems. For example, so would an actual resurrection! Not to mention the mountain of problems the theory has right out of the starting gate, and there is not a shred of historical evidence that they actually hallucinated. 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, Paul certainly didn't want to see Jesus alive (he was quite content arresting the blaspheming Christians) James was a skeptic (as Mark and John both report). About postulating mental illnesses, that is because there is no evidence for it. >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. Mark and John both state that the family of Jesus was skeptical of Jesus. That is two independent, first century documents. We also have Hegesippus, who reports he strictly followed Jewish Law. Then, in the book of Acts, James is head of the Jerusalem council. Something happened. My opponent says that James was a power monger, the disciples exaggerated his skepticism. However he offers no evidence for such speculations. All I am saying is that James was skeptical during Jesus' life and then shortly after, he became a believer. What happened that made him change?[4] 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. And that is IF all sub-theories are true! And in order for the combination theory to succeed every one of the sub-theories has to be correct. >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. And again according historical method the theory that explains the greatest amount of data is the best explanation, therefore more probable. When I ask for evidence for a speculation I mean exactly that. If they hallucinated, where is the historical evidence (ie. Ancient polemic that stated that they hallucinated). If James were hungry for power, where is the historical evidence for that assertion. THAT is what I mean. So, what do we have so far? We agree that Jesus died and was buried. The disciples had hallucinations (but no evidence is provided, and the many problems it faces). So it is safe to conclude that they didn't hallucinate. James was a skeptic then became a believer (no evidence is given to his power mongering etc.). So it is safe to conclude that James wasn't on a power trip from what we know of him. Paul was an epileptic (no evidence is given in support of this as you admit). So again it is safe to believe that he wasn't an epileptic. The empty tomb is a literary device (but since there is no evidence of this) it is safe to conclude that the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea was found empty.[5] It is also noteworthy that historians realize that naturalistic theories have failed to account for the data, [6] and be open-minded[7][8]. So, if Jesus died and was buried, the disciples did really believe that they experienced the resurrected Jesus, James suddenly converted, Paul suddenly converted and the tomb was found empty, and no naturalistic theory explains the facts, then what happened? According to historiography, the simplest explanation that explains all the data is the best. According to historical method, therefore, it is reasonable to believe what they said happened, he has risen.