The Ressurection of Jesus

My thanks go out to Kohai for initiating this debate. Hopefully I won't contradict myself.My strategy in this debate will simply be both defensive and offensive. Consequently, I will argue both that my opponent's criticisms are mistaken and that the resurrection of Jesus did likely happen. First, I will lay out a general case for the resurrection of Jesus. I will use the minimal facts method as advanced by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona. [1] These facts are accepted by a majority of historical Jesus scholars. Due to space constraints, I will give each point a cursory treatment. So much more can be said on this issue. Finally, I wlll not give formal citations for all of my sources, as it would take up too much space.Before Con responds to the coming argument, I would advise him to first look at my responses to his counter-arguments and shape his response around those, lest he repeat something that I already addressed.Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion Jesus' death by crucifixion is attested to by all four gospels. Moreover, various non-Christian sources also report on this fact. Josephus, for instance, writes "When Pilate, upon hearing them accused by men of the highst standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified...". [2] Tacitus writes, "Christus... suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontious Pilate." [3]Fact 2: Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to themThis was affirmed by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-7, considered by historical scholars to be an early Christian creedal statement. Sermon summaries, such as those found in Acts 2, also attest to this fact. The oral tradition which predates these creeds can be traced back to a date shortly after the resurrection was said to have happened. Moreover, all four gospels attest to this fact, and the writings of the church fathers Clement and Polycarp also confirm this.Also important is the fact that the disciples were willing to suffer for their belief. Now, why would someone die for what they knew was a falsehood? The fact that they were willing to be put to death for this means that they couldn't have concocted the story. Attestation for the willingness of the disicples to suffer can be found in the writings of Polycarp, Ingatius, Tertullian, Origen, and Clement.Fact 3: The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changedPaul of Tarsus was an early persecutor of Christianity. However, history indicates that he suddenly experienced a transformation which turned him into one of the leading advocates for Christianity. This is documented in Paul's own writings, and in that of Clment, Polycarp, Tertullian, Origen, and the Gospel of Luke. Now, why would Paul have converted? People usually convert to a religion because they affirm the message to be true. Considering the fact that Paul was a dogmatic opponent of Christianity, something miraculous must have happened which transformed his thinking. This is best explained by the resurrection of Jesus.Fact 4: The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changedLike Paul, James was an early skeptic of Christianity whose mindset was suddenly transformed. This is attested to in the creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7,, in Acts 15:12-21, Galations 1:19, and in the writings of Josephus. The church historian Eusebius also provides quotations from Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria who also echo this sentiment.Fact 5: The tomb was emptyIn the gospel narratives, we see that the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women. That is rather strange, considering that in the first century, the testimony of women were regarded as worthless. Why would someone who invented the story use women as the first witnesess? This lends credibility to the fact that the resurrection narratives were genuine. Moreover, the empty tomb is presupposed by the Jewish response to the early Christians. All that the Jewish leaders would have to do is present the body of Jesus, and Christianity would have collapsed.At this point, let me respond to a criticism from Con. He argues that at this point, the body would have been badly decomposed and unrecognizable, and thus worthless in any polemic against Christianity. There are two problems with this view.1) "In the arid climate of Jerusalem, a corpse's hair, stature, and distinctive wounds would have been identifiable, even after fifty days." [4]2) "Regardless of the condition of the body, the enemies of Jesus would still haev found benefit in producing the corpse. Even a barely recognizable corpse could have dissuaded some believers, possible weaking and ultimately toppling the entire movement. Since that was the goal, Jesus' enemies had every reason to produce his body, regardless of its condition. [5]Responding to CriticismsArgument 1: The Gosels were written long after the resurrection happened.Response: Long by what standards? By historical standards, a time frame of 50 years is considered top-notch. Many works were written hundreds of years after the events in question happened, yet we do not question their historicity. For example, the works of Livy, Josephus, and Tacitus were written long after the events in question happened, but historians usually trust their reliability.The reason for such a gap is that in the first century, information was passed on primarily by means of oral tradition. In our predominantly written culture, our information is passed on by written means. It's tempting to dismiss ancient historical works if we forget about this fact. C. S. Lewis refers to this as chronological snobbery.Argument 2: The Gospels contradict one anotherResponse: My argument does not assume infallibility to be true. Many reliable works of history have contradictions in them, yet that is no reason to toss out their information outright. The fact that they provide similar information gives us enough reason to think that something happened which was miraculous. Moreover, it's a stretch to say that the gospels contradict one another. A better explanation is that they were providing complementary explanations (Ie: ones from a different point of view). For example, suppose that after interviewing eyewitnesses to a car accident, the police receive seemingly contradictory testimonies. May we throw all of them out simply because of that? No, not at all. The more likely explanation is that they each tell the same story, except from different perspectives. Thus, they are complementary, not contradictory.Moreover, the historical method does not operate on the presumption of skepticism. Documents are assumed to be reliable until proven otherwise. If we viewed all seeming contradictions with as harsh a skepticism as Con's, then we'd barely know any history at all.Argument 3: The gospels were not written by their authors.Response: Papias and Irenaus report that Matthew wrote the gospel first, and that it was originally written in Aramaic. Matthew, moreover, likely possessed writing skills because he was a tax collector. Tax collectors were known for carrying around wooden tablets known as pinakes, on which they wrote notes. Luke, being an educated physician, also likely possesed the ability to write.Both Papias and Polycarp also attest to the traditional authorship of the gospels [6]But, more to the point, this is completely irrelevant to the truth of the information found within the gospels. So what if they were written by somebody else?_________[1]. Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel. 2004)[2]. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.64[3]. Tacitus, Annals 15.44 [4]. Habermas and Licona, TCFTROJ, pg. 70. They cite expert testimony from the Medical Examiner's Office for the Commonwealth of Virginia. [5]. Ibid, pg. 70 [6]. See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:39 and Ireneaus, Against Heresies 3:1:1