Jesus was Raised From the Dead

In his final comment, Pro states further evidence of that makes the resurrection of Jesus the most probable explanation as to why "Jesus disappeared from the tomb" is in the Gospels, the sincerity of the disciples belief, the epistles of Paul and that Josephus's Testimonium Flavium should still act as a credible source. I wish to address these points briefly.1. The GospelsI have already provided sources attesting that the earliest copies of Mark lack the ending section in which Jesus is resurrected. More than this, we know the Gospels are both written decades after the fact [1][2] and are not independent sources [3], meaning they do not provide any strong evidence. I also wish to point out to Pro that Mark stating multiple witnesses does not mean we count Mark as more than one source. For example, if I wrote down that a thousand people saw me perform a miracle, you do not have a thousand and one sources for that claim, you only have one (mine). As to the Pauline Epistles, they are again not considered strong evidence, as there is contention on if Paul ever physically met Jesus [4]. Thus I would defend the statement that the Gospels and Epistles are insufficient evidence for the miraculous event of resurrection.2. Sincerity of beliefSomeone dying for their belief gives us only one piece of information: their sincerity - not that their belief was correct. After all, people have died for [other] people they thought were their messiah, or for their religion. Modern examples are easy to find to, just take cult suicide. We have cases where scores [5], or even hundreds [6] of people have died for their belief, and yet we know this does not mean they were correct.3. Testimonium FlaviumPro states here that there is probably an original Christian reference to Josephus's writings, however he has provided no reason nor source for his claim. In fact, this is true, and Josephus does mention a crucification. However, Jospehus does not mention anything about resurrection, which is what this debate is about (I do not dispute at all that Jesus was crucified). Many early Christian leaders and church fathers prior to the 4th century commented on Josephus's work (Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Methodius, Melito of Sardis, Minuscius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Adricanus, Pseudo-Justin, Irenaeus, Minucius Felix, Sextus Julius Africanus, Terulian, Hippolytus, Anatolius, Methodius, and Origen) and in the vast majority of cases they make absolutely no comment (in their very detailed commentaries) on Testimonium Flavium. Those that are not silent on the original works very brief mention actually explicitly criticise Josephus for not mentioning Jesus or his resurrection- see Origen's Contra Celsum (Book 1, Chapter 47 [7]). In addition to this, early Arabic translations of Jospehus's works also lack any reference to resurrection [8][9]. This is makes it clear that we cannot use Josephus's works as historical evidence of resurrection, given its absolute silence on the issue.4. On probabilityI admit that I am not sure how one can calculate how probable a supernatural explanation is - miracles seem hard to quantify. However, Pro argues that the resurrection is the best explanation of [at least] the empty tomb. For the sake of argument, I can present a hypothetical alternate scenario. The Romans crucify Jesus, but fearing that his tomb and remains will become a gathering or rallying point for his followers, they move his body at night and dispose of it in a common grave. This also explains an empty tomb, and given that is a scenario we know is physically possible and has plausible motives, I would wonder on what grounds Pro could claim that resurrection - a miraculous event which no one alive has ever seen occur, is deemed a more likely explanation. I should note that I do not actually support the prior explanation (I personally am skeptical that the tomb was even found empty given I do not view the Gospels are historically reliable), however I believe it is far more likely than the scenario presented by pro.To further illustrate this point, let us realise that Pro has claimed that it can be proven historically that Jesus was raised from the dead. In making that claim, Pro has assumed the large burden of proof and set about presenting the strongest evidence he can for this extraordinary phenomenon. So far, the evidence Pro has presented to the readers are the Gospels and Epistles, both of which I have shown we have at least some reason to be cautious of as using as accurate historical sources (emphasis on historical, as I am considering them from a historical perspective only and not a religious one). Pro also presented several historians, however did not realise that none of them actually referred to the resurrection itself and are thus not relevant to if resurrection can be historically proven. I feel I can show that this small amount of historically uncertain evidence is insufficient to fulfill the burden of proof through use of two simple examples, where I can quickly provide stronger historical evidence for other extraordinary claims which most likely will be rejected by readers as being true.a) Sathya Sai Baba - An Indian Guru and miracle worker, with first hand accounts of miracle healing, resurrections, clairvoyance and bilocation [10] from people thousands of people that are still alive today. He had over six million followers [11], many claiming to witness his miracles. Most readers will be unconvinced Sai Baba did in fact perform miracle healing or resurrections, and yet the evidence for this is far stronger than that presented by Prob) UFO's - Historical records of people observing UFOs number in their thousands. To give just one example, the Westfall UFO incident in Australia had "more than 200 students and teachers" at a school witness a UFO descent into a field for twenty minutes [12]. I would state this alone is stronger evidence than Pro has supplied, let alone when you combine it with the thousands of other UFO sightings [13]. And yet most people do not consider this compelling enough evidence to satisfy the BoP.ConclusionIn this debate, pro has failed to meet his burden of proof. Pro made an extraordinary claim of resurrection to start this debate, and has only managed to support it via a few historical documents around which academic historians are still arguing about their credibility and accuracy. Pro has not managed to provide any accounts by external historians vindicating the resurrection, and instead presented accounts about the spread of Christianity or the crucifiction of Jesus, neither of which I dispute and neither of which are relevant to the thesis in question. To leave our bias "at the door" as Pro asks, I believe if this debate was the only exposure to Jesus and resurrection a reader had, Pro's lack of solid argument and evidence would definitely not convince said reader. It has been a good debate, and I learnt several new things in my research for this debate, so I thank Pro for the opportunity to discuss this topic.[1] http://carm.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://gracethrufaith.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Gate_(religious_group)[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://www.ccel.org...[8] Page 95 http://www.amazon.com...[9] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...[11] http://rationalwiki.org...[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...[13] http://en.wikipedia.org...;