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

Hi thanks for your wonderful rebuttal. I will get right to the meat of the matter People don't rise naturalistically. I absolutely agree. People stay dead, naturalistically and generally. But that is not what we are trying to discover is it? Nope, we are trying to discover what happened in THIS case? And if it happened, then it was a supernatural event. Now on to James. "I also believe that the bible verses used to support James' Skepticism (Mark 3:31-35), do not necessarily imply that James was always skeptical of Jesus, but simply that there was some animosity early in Jesus' life." Here are some things to consider. Historians use what is called "principle of embarrassment". The fact that the bible records James' skepticism (as well as his mother's and other members of his family) is an embarrassment and counterproductive. Why should I believe in you when your own family didn't? All we do know from James is that during his life he was skeptical, then the next time he shows up is at the Jerusalem council. Question is what happened during that time? WHY did he convert? However, what you suggest is nothing more than speculation, evidence please. Just seeing the gruesome death of someone isn't going to make you believe in experiencing a resurrected person, exactly the opposite, it would confirm your skepticism. The disciples were schizophrenics? Please provide historical evidence that they were. That is nothing more than a claim. And saying that people today join cults for weird reasons, so that is what happened in this case is a logical fallacy. Did they hallucinate? There were too many witnesses. Hallucinations are private, individual, subjective. Not only did the disciples not expect this, they didn't even believe it at first -- neither Peter, nor the women, nor Thomas, nor the eleven. They thought he was a ghost; he had to eat something to prove he was not (Lk 24:36-43). Here are more things to consider concerning hallucinations. [1] Then what about the empty tomb? If all they did was hallucinate, then how did the tomb get empty? If the tomb wasn't empty, then the opponents of the "cult" would have certainly examined the resurrection claim (since it is physical) and simply produced the body. Which brings me to the empty tomb. You say that there is not enough evidence. But simply stating that there is not enough evidence is not an argument. How much evidence do you need? And not only that, but where is the historical evidence that it wasn't empty? In order to show that something else happened at the tomb you have to provide evidence for that.[2] Not just saying there isn't enough evidence. Here is why I believe in the empty tomb. 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. 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. Now to Paul conversion. "As for Paul's conversion, I think that we can hypothesize some plausible factors which would have been sufficient to cause Paul's conversion experience (and subsequently his actual conversion): exhaustion (Paul's conversion occurred on a travel to Damascus)" Evidence please, not just speculation. I didn't read anywhere he was exhausted. "disgust at the hypocrisy and corruption of the Pharisees," Evidence please. At the time he didn't see anything wrong with the Pharisees. "guilt over persecuting the Christians" Evidence please. "temporal lobe epilepsy[8], and/or schizotypal personality, as mentioned above." Evidence please. In order to diagnose someone with temporal lobe epilepsy, you need to do an actual physical examination.[3] Also your reference to TLE, the conclusion was challenged in the same journal (J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1988;51;886-887) by J.R. Brorson and K. Brewer who stated that this hypothesis failed to explain why Paul's companions heard a voice (Acts 9:7), saw a light (Acts 22:9), or fell to the ground (Acts 26:14). Furthermore, no seizure, depressed mental state, nor lack of awareness of blindness (a characteristic of cortical blindness) were reported in Acts. Additionally, Paul's blindness remitted in sudden fashion, rather than the gradual resolution as is typical of post-ictal states. So, what do we have so far? Jesus died, the believers were schizophrenics, Paul was an epileptic that hallucinated and the tomb wasn't empty, and James was a skeptic until he saw Jesus' brutal death. All this with no historical evidence what-so-ever. So, in order to account for the data, my opponent has to pile on four theories that try to explain the data. However, that doesn't make it more probable, but less probable. For example lets say that each theory has 50% chance of being right. .5x.5x.5x.5=.0625. In other words when compiled, the probability of all four being right on is 6.25%. Not good. Here is why my opponents' argument fails. He claims that the disciples were schizo's. But it fails to account for the tomb either way. It fails to account for James and Paul. His theory for Paul, doesn't take into account the disciples, nor James, nor the tomb. So, he has to combine improbable theory upon improbable theory. I only have one and it explains all of the data. "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."[5] So, according to historical methodology, the resurrection is still the best explanation, therefore reasonable.