The Ressurection of Jesus

I have a lot to say, so I'll order my responses in the form of general points. My thanks go out to kohai for his gracious reply. Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion Both myself and my opponent agree on fact 1, so no further mention of this will be required.Fact 2: Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to themCon's first response is that believing something doesn't make it the truth. This, in fact, seems to be a common theme of his replies to be. I agree wholeheartedly with him, but notice that I never advanced such a claim. Rather, the point to be inferred from the disciples believing is that they regarded their beliefs as true, meaning that it couldn't have been something concoted by them a falsehood that they willingly believed. Licona writes,"This does not prove their beliefs were true, since people of other faiths are likewise willing to die for their convictions. However, being willing to die for their convictions does indicate that they believed they knew the truth. Something happened to make them believe they had seen the risen Jesus -- and to believe it so strongly that they were willing to endure great suffering and even death for proclaming it. Liars make poor martyrs." [1] Con then tries to draw a parallel between the disciples' experiences and of, say, Jehovah's witnesses. This too is a disnanology. "There is an important difference between the apostle martyrs and those who die for their beliefs today. Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them. The apostles died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The disciples of Jesus died for what they knew to be true." [2] Fact 3: The Church persecutor Paul was suddenly changedPart of my previous Response carries over, in regard to Con's first paragraph.He also claims that on the basis of Corinthians. 9:19-25, Paul cannot be considered a good witness. However, the exegesis here is just downright confused. Paul was no chameleon, rather, his presentation of the Gospel message changed depending on his audience. The overall message, however, stayed the same. Imagine you're giving a lecture on physics to a crowd of professional academics. Such a setting allows you to use precise and technical language. However, if you're presenting the same lecture to students or layman, you have to taylor your presentation of the message to the specific audience. This is what Paul is doing here. He is presenting the same message using different techniques depending on the audience.His exegesis of Romans 3:7 is likewise faulty. Read in context, what Paul is in fact doing is building a hypothetical argument for the purposes of refuting it. Note that the whole passage reads:But if by my lie God's truth is amplified to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, just as some people slanderously claim we say, "Let us do evil so that good may come"? Their condemnation is deserved!His exegesis of 2 Corinthians 11:8 is also problematic. "Robbed" is a figure of speech, referring to the fact that "[i]n Paul's day, professional philosophers and teachers in Greek society charged for teaching. Paul did not. He labored and received support from other churches, although he had the right to take money from the Corinhians, he chose not to do so in order to demonstrate his integrity."Paul, therefore, was a credible witness. His conversion from skeptic to apostle thus needs to be explained.Fact 4: The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.Not much here to respond to. The argument is virtually the same as that of fact 2, so I refer readers to my respons there.Fact 5: The tomb was emptyOf course the empty tomb alone doesn't mean that the resurrection happened, but that was never the stated goal. Remember that fact 5 cannot be considered in isolation, it must be grouped together with the four previous facts. Together, they make the case that a resurrection is the best explanation for these facts.He then advances a number of hypothetical scenarios to explain the empty tomb. Perhaps Joseph of Aramathia removed the body. Perhaps, and perhaps Jesus was also an alien. What's missing from this analysis is a plausible reason to suppose that he would do it. It's no use speculating if the speculations don't have an ounce of historical support behind them.Remember that the Roman authorites stationed guards at the tomb -- how was Joseph of Aramathia to remove the body of Jesus without arousing their attention? This, moreover, does not explain facts (2), (3), and (4), thus making for an ad hoc explanation.He also writes, "After all, he was one of the people who voted for execution. Why provide his family tomb? That is sac-religious." On what historical basis is this claim made? I can find no support for this in any historical document, Christian or non-Christian.He then levels two more arguments: "Another argument, why on Earth would the Phairasees be so concerned over a small little gentile cult? Christianity didn't catch on long after Jesus' death. Also, we don't know what tomb Jesus was buried in? How can one say it was/is empty if we have no clue where it is at!"1) Throughout the Gospel and in the letters of the Paul, the Pharisees showed significant concern over Jesus, his teachings, and his follows. This is because Jesus was highly critical of both the Pharisees and the Saducees, which threatened their power over the people. They thus had every reason to be concerned -- why else did they have him killed? (A fact that Con concedes)2) We might not know, but surely the authorities at the time did. After all, in order to have stationed guards at his tomb, the authorities would first have to know where the tomb is. In order for the women to have visited the tomb, they must know where it is. In order for the disciples to know the tomb was empty, they would have to know where it is. So this is rather contrived.Now, I'm running out of characters, so this will unfortunately be brief.Criticisms1. This shows an utter misunderstanding of the historical method. If you applied that to first century events, then we wouldn't know anything at all. The reason that contemporary historians demand contemporary sources is that contemporary culture is based on written tradition. First century culture, however, was predominantly oral. Oral tradition would be passed down from generation to generation and then recorded on written works. By historical standards, a 50 year time gap in the first century between the first written work and the events in question is grade-A material.The telephone analogy is completely off-point. Unfortunately I must touch on this in my next response, as I do not have enough characters to make my point.2. Con has not shown that Gospel differences are not discrepancies. Because they were written by four different people, it is likely that each were giving an account for their own perspective. Absent any external reason to think that they are contradictory, the historical method tells us that we must presume them as reliable until proven otherwise.3. Con has not addressed the historical support that I offered for the traditional authorship of the gospel. Moreover, even if it were not written by the traditional authors, it could still have been written by eyewitnesses, as the time frame certainly permits. But more to the point, the gospels were likely written by their traditional authors, as attested by Ireneaus and Papias.Regarding the discripency in the Corinthian creed, an apostle was defined as someone who had been with Jesus during his entire time in ministry. The eleven there thus likely not alone when Jesus appeared to them, others were present as well. It was from these group of people whom the successor to Judas was chosen. [4]I will respond to his last point in my next response, as space does not permit an adequate response here. Sources:See comments