Jesus Was Probably Resurrected By God

Introduction My opponent has essentially wasted an entire round. Even if those 4 facts are true, the resolution being true doesn't follow. He says he is going to wait until the last round to argue in favor of the resolution, but the whole point of the entire debate is to argue specifically about the resolution (Pro hasn't even attempted to show the resolution true yet, and he has the burden of proof in the debate). I could just leave this round blank; but I have some things to say. The Burial Of Jesus "[M]y claim is that Jesus was buried in a tomb by J of A. Whether or not this tomb belonged to Joseph is irrelevant to my claim." -Pro Fair enough (as I said, this is the first debate I have had on the issue). The specific details I mentioned do seem irrelevant, but all these facts are irrelevant without the explanation for the facts leading to the resolution being true. Pro is wasting precious debate rounds here. He also says that I am straw-manning him by saying this fact alone doesn't prove the resolution, but I also specifically said "perhaps it does in the cumulative case" to avoid such a charge of straw-manning, which Pro ironically points out. I'll accept the burial of Jesus. The Empty Tomb My opponent is correct that majority doesn't determine truth. My only point was that Pro presented this as a "fact" without support, and expected us to take it on faith. I was just pointing out that not all historians believe it is a fact. Either way, as I said, I don't care about these facts. I only care about the resolution; Pro hasn't tied the two together yet. I'll accept the empty tomb. Why not? Apparent Witnesses Of Jesus After Death "The challenge fails immediately because these claims simply have no bearing on whether or not Jesus appeared to people after his death."- Pro If we have countless examples of people claiming to see people after they died, even though they couldn't have actually seem those people because those people were really dead, then this would seem to be a reasonable explanation for why people claimed to saw Jesus after he died. It certainly undermines the notion that a miracle took place, because we don't even have any evidence that miracles are possible; we have evidence of people claiming to see people people after they died even though they didn't. This certainly hurts a probability case. "[B]eing true does not preclude people from falsely or mistakenly claiming that someone else was seen alive after their death." - Pro I never said that was the case. This seems to be a straw-man from Pro, as I never implied that if people mistakenly or falsely claim to see someone alive after death, that it cannot be true. I only implied that that alone can explain it without appealing to the notion that some supernatural wizard violated the laws of physics to magically raise people from the dead. That's a clear violation of Occam's Razor. "[H]e will have to provide an adequate psychoanalysis of each individual who witnessed Jesus' post-mortem appearances, and then demonstrate why we should take these as accurate." -Pro Pro forgets who has the burden of proof in the debate. Pro has to show that they really most likely saw Jesus, and that all other explanations are implausible. Dr. Craig's Arguments In Favor Of People Really Seeing Jesus "The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James." -WLC Just because people claimed to have seen Jesus, that doesn't mean they did. They could have either been mistaken or lying. " The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of these appearances" - WLC This assumes the Gospel's are completely reliable. Why believe such a thing? Either way, multiple independent sources attest to seeing Elvis and 2 Pac even though they were dead and not resurrected. Why should we treat Jesus any differently? Who cares if people claimed to have seen him? That doesn't mean they actually did (or even probably did). "For example, we have good evidence from the gospels that neither James nor any of Jesus' younger brothers believed in him during his lifetime. There is no reason to think that the early church would generate fictitious stories concerning the unbelief of Jesus' family had they been faithful followers all along."- WLC Once more, who said the Gospels are completely reliable? Pro has to prove this. Even if I agree with certain facts, that doesn't mean I agree with them all (remember that Pro has the burden of proof). Why should we believe any of these "facts" specifically? "In my view, there is certainly historically reliable information in the Gospels; of course.But there are also pieces of historically unreliable information"- Bart Ehrman (American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.)[1] Pro just expects us to takeallthe Gospels on faith, I see no reason to let him get away with it. Also, Pro didn't respond to the possibility of Jesus having a twin and people being mistaken due to this. Additionally, why would a sudden change in the view of James mean anything? How does any of this tie into the resolution? Pro has made absolutely no real case for the resolution. "What would it take to convince you that your brother is the Lord, such that you would be ready to die for that belief? Can there be any doubt that this remarkable transformation in Jesus' younger brother took place because, in Paul's words, 'then he appeared to James'?"- Pro People are willing to die to false beliefs all the time. I am sincerely confused as to how these facts are supposed to prove the resolution. Conclusion Pro has literally given us no reason to think the resolution is true. Even if I grant that Jesus was buried, there was an empty tomb, people claimed to have seen him, and people were willing to die for the belief; that doesn't mean the resolution is true. Pro is wasting his time instead of actually arguing for the resolution. Since Pro has not even tried to defend the resolution; the resolution has not been established. Sources [1] You-Tube[watch?v=CTPk9dp_uxk]