It’s important to first consider what the historical facts regarding Jesus are, that also surround His crucifixion and Resurrection. Scholars do not all agree on the historical facts surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, or what the Gospels have recorded, but Gary Habermas (historian and Jesus scholar) has done the hard work for us and collected minimal facts that over 90% of all historical and Bible scholars agree with. Two of those minimal facts being that Jesus existed and was crucified. Starting with this foundation, the following data points strongly backed by the historical data regarding Paul of Tarsus’ vision and conversion, as well as the conversion of James (Jesus’ brother), testimony and eyewitness accounts of a Resurrected Christ, and the empty tomb are all best explained by the Resurrection Hypothesis. My opponent may have several rebuttals to each of these individual facts, but what remains to be seen is a cohesive, naturalistic theory that can explain all of these facts better than the Resurrection Hypothesis. For example, the hallucination theory (if granted) would still fail to explain a physically empty tomb, and certainly not the conversion of the murderous adversary Paul of Tarsus since hallucinations are not (usually) of something you do not wish to take place. Even if my opponent would like to argue this is the case for hallucinations, this does not explain the two other men with Paul of Tarsus on the Damascus road that had a multi-sensory event alongside Paul. Further argument could be made against the hallucination theory specifically, but this is just one of the many failed examples of a purely naturalistic hypothesis approach to the Resurrection, and crucifixion of Jesus.

I think this rebuttal makes quite a few assumptions. 1. That simply because something is not mentioned in the Bible or by a biblical author, it is therefore not promoted or condemned by that said author. 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 makes this abundantly clear when Paul is explicitly stating that if Christ has not been raised, “then our PROCLEMATION is in vain…” well, what exactly is Paul talking about? It seems reasonable to conclude these are the early (probably oral) church creeds, going around the Roman Empire as spoken about in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, which are conveying the exact same historical accounts we have from the Gospels today. 2. The events recorded in the Gospels being decades later is actually a stronger point for the historical reliability of the Gospels. When you look at similar literature from that time period, having even partial manuscripts, possibly even within the life of the Apostles who wrote them, this is basically unheard of historically. So, I would like to see justifications for these positions rather than just claims. Further, even if I grant you the empty tomb fact is false, you still have minimal facts that need to be explained, as well as a cohesive hypothesis that is better than the Resurrection hypothesis.

Thank you for being willing to grant those two facts. Considering that the Resurrection is the only hypothesis recorded by firsthand witnesses, but is also the only hypothesis that explains the full spectrum of minimal data, then it must at least be considered. Paul’s conversion may have been from a psychological break, but I want you to show the evidence for this. This still does not explain the multisensory aspect of the men on the Damascus road with Paul. Further, if Paul genuinely had a “spiritual experience,” then wouldn’t that be my exact point? What we’re debating is whether or not that experience is validated or not by the facts at hand. Again, you make assertions without specific evidence or examples. “Late” is a relative term; when considering, as I said earlier, the Gospels to similar literature at that time, they are actually very early accounts. I would agree the Gospels vary on the different accounts regarding the empty tomb, but this, again, is a stronger point towards the Gospels’ validity. The early church canonized the Gospels purposely with these (apparent) contradictions because they simply are not contradictory. The Gospels still tell the same details (ie the tomb is a tomb, the angels are angels, the women are women). Changes in peripheral details are expected in a legitimate testimony that is being genuinely noted as it was seen; such as in a court case when two witnesses give similar but differing testimonies. So, again, I would like to reiterate the prompt; The Resurrection Hypothesis is the best hypothesis amongst the competing theories, and my opponent has yet to give another hypothesis that can explain all of the minimal facts data.

The “best explanation” doesn’t have to be supernatural, and I am open to that, but you have to at least offer a naturalistic model; which you have yet to do. Changing the debate to miracles being possible or not still doesn’t explain the fact that we do not have a cohesive naturalistic theory that can explain the minimal facts I put forward. Again, I am open to a consistent naturalistic hypothesis; show me a model that explains the minimal facts data. You are picking away at particular points without one specific model or theory, as I predicted in the opening. I already addressed this issue with Paul when writing in 1 Corinthians 15:2-4, 12-19 where he actually DOES affirm that “Christ died, according to the SCRIPTURES…” You are simply restating what you said before and not addressing the evidence I have offered.

I thought we agreed in the beginning that 90% of scholars agree with these minimal facts, so I think your critique of them “barely holding water” is at least going to require that you give solid evidence against these minimal facts. And you’re right, the burden is on me to explain everything, and prove a miracle happened. So far, that is the ONLY cohesive hypothesis that has been offered in this debate. Again, you are picking away at specifics, but a “lighting storm” or “seizure” doesn’t have enough explanatory power for the rest of the minimal facts that the Resurrection Hypothesis does. Asserting that the Gospels give “wildly” different accounts is subjective. Again, differing in details but telling the same story is expect, even in court, if the witnesses are non-corroborated. I’m not saying my “supernatural” theory wins by default, mainly because the Resurrection hypothesis is the historical record of what has happened. Regardless of who you thought Jesus was, our earliest records of Him associate miracles with Him. The early church up until today has been consistent on the Resurrection of Jesus. You have still yet to offer a naturalistic hypothesis, so would that be a nature-of-the-gaps argument? I presuppose disbelief in the supernatural therefore it has to be natural?