> The thing about the Bible is that I could write a book, with many different authors helping and with loosely based real-life events, and stick in a few supposed miracles and wait 2,000 years and have people still call me the Son of God.

See, I don't think ya could. As you study the Bible deeper and deeper—especially given that it was 40 different authors from all walks of life on 3 separate continents over a period of 1300 years—it is an AMAAAAAZING book. And Jesus, even after 2000 years, is unassailable as a person: kind, wise, forgiving, firm, moral. It's why other religions want a piece of him. In Islam he is a prophet; Hinduism sees him as enlightened. My opinion? You couldn't fabricate someone like him—that would stand the test of time and the most intense scrutiny of the greatest minds of humanity.

> his teachings are still very lovely

His parables are incredible. Ones like the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son— brilliant stuff. I've tried to write parables. They get verbose; they miss the point; they get glommed up with...oh, I just can't do it. Jesus tells them with such economy and precision. I don't believe some pseudonymous author peeled them off. There's too much quality there.

But then you add his teachings about love, forgiveness, compassion for the poor ... I find it impossible to believe somebody made it up. The quality's too high. The amount of content is too great.

> The Buddha was a man who had those same characteristics, does this make him the Son of God?

Of course not. Jesus's goodness doesn't make Him the Son of God. It's everything put together: prophecy, miracles, teachings, personality, knowledge, power, and resurrection, and then the continuing realities of people's lives changed. Buddha has some of the package, but he doesn't hold a candle to Jesus.

> I’ve felt the same kind of experience through literature, music and art. This doesn’t make any of them divine.

Me, too, but no, inspiring experiences don't mean it's divine experiences. It's the whole package. Buddha had this piece, music has this piece, others here and there, but putting it all together is why I consider Jesus divine. For instance, the prophetic. Jesus fulfilled hundreds of ancient prophecies. There's no way that could be orchestrated (a la "The Passover Plot"). And prophecy is something virtually absent from other religions, but is prominent in the Bible. It's the sum total of the evidences that motivate me to regard Jesus as divine, not just one of them.

> In the Bible, God almost always uses miracles to confirm that what He is saying is true.

Yes, back to miracles :shock: . However, let’s not go back down that rabbit hole and end up back where we are right now in a weeks time, as you and I already know each other’s views on the credibility of miracles.

> The evidences for the resurrection confirm Jesus's self-identification.

The Resurrection is an ‘iffy’ topic, as there are many arguments on it being physical or spiritual (the same with how we will supposedly be resurrected). The thing about the Bible is that I could write a book, with many different authors helping and with loosely based real-life events, and stick in a few supposed miracles and wait 2,000 years and have people still call me the Son of God. The Bibles authority is loose “in my opinion”, and is simply just a story (either a timeline of sorts or a fantasy novel). That’s my view, however.

> Jesus's teaching is sublime.

With all of the ideas and beliefs in Christianity that I don’t believe / agree with, this is the one statement that I do agree with. Even if it was just a collection of authors and not actually Jesus Christ himself, or if Jesus was just a lunatic, his teachings are still very lovely. I honestly believe that if every person on Earth just followed “Love thy neighbour” itself, then there would be world peace.

> Jesus's personality (love, forgiveness, compassion, wisdom, etc.) all speak to someone who is not a normal human.

The Buddha was a man who had those same characteristics, does this make him the Son of God?

> The experiences of billions of people of Jesus's infilling of them and changing them.

I’ve felt the same kind of experience through literature, music and art. This doesn’t make any of them divine.

But yes, let’s keep talking :)

> I have pointed out, many times, that for an extraordinary claim like this one, we require more than we do for a mundane claim. Its a question you can't even bring yourself to answer, you just dodge it all day.

I haven't dodged it at all, but answered it several times. For the 3rd time, evidence is grounded in the reliability of the source, not in the mundanity or extraordinariness of the claim. Extraordinary claims don't need extraordinary evidence, they just need a reliable source like mundane claims.

> Because he wrote it first. But also, the issues you're bringing up are not strong enough to hold up a resurrection claim. But that's a subject you simply do not want to talk about.

The main issue with this part of the conversation was not to uphold a resurrection claim but to uphold that that Gospel authors are reliable sources.

> It makes more sense that they picked this author for some reason that we don't understand, than that a resurrection actually happened.

You're jumping too far. There are many steps between reliable authors and the evidences for the resurrection. I don't assume, "Oh, it was Mark, therefore the resurrection must be true!" That's nonsense. But you keep asserting that we can't trust the Gospel authors, and I am repeatedly showing you step #1: The Gospel authors were most likely Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn. The discussion has to go from there, then, through numerous steps before we get to the credibility of the resurrection accounts.

> then do you see why saying "well the evidence is really good compared to evidence for other claims that we believe" makes no sense?

Then thank God I didn't say that! That comment was about identifying the Gospel authors and the very beginning of examining their credibility. I didn't even begin to jump from "Mark wrote Mark, and the Gospels stand up well compared to other ancient documents, therefore the resurrection happened." I didn't even get close to that. There are many steps between "Mark wrote Mark" to "the Gospels stand up well" to "evidences for the resurrection."

But it certainly makes sense to compare the Gospel accounts with each other and with other ancient documents. That's how we determine accuracy, reliability, and eventually credibility. Is this clear to you?

> All you have is the evidence I presented.

"Given what you presented" is skewing the case. That's why you're pushing so hard for me to answer your set-up question, but I won't fall into your trap. I won't answer it as is.

> The problem is, its still more likely that they assigned it to this guy for some reason that we don't know, than that a guy was resurrected from the dead. That's the problem. You don't weigh your explanations against the claim we're talking about.

See above. There are many steps between "Mark wrote Mark" and "Jesus rose from the dead.

> And yet science would reject the claim in the scenario I proposed.

As I've said several times, there are many truths outside of science's field. Because science rejects a claim doesn't necessarily say anything about its untruth. Now, if it's a claim of natural phenomena, then possibility science rejecting the claim has weight (though through the centuries science has rejected many claims that turned out later to be true). But if it's a supernatural phenomenon, the best science can say is "No comment."

> Most scholars disagree with you, we do not have that. No.

"Most" is pretty tricky. How many? What percentage? You don't know. There is a large contingent of scholars who agree with me. We have to weigh the evidence, not the number of scholars. Most scholars used to think the Earth was flat, the Earth was the center of the universe, and that washing hands from patient to patient was unnecessary. Your appeal to the alleged majority may be a fallacy of authority.

> Did Tacitus say a resurrection occurred? Was he an eye witness? What is the value of what he said?

Tacitus was not an eyewitness of anything he wrote about, yet the value of what he said is rated very highly. And, no, he didn't say a resurrection occurred. He mentioned Jesus's death. It's just one piece of many. I'm not trying to jump from "Tacitus mentioned Jesus's crucifixion" to "Therefore Jesus rose from the dead." There are many steps of evidence and logic along this road.

> it makes no sense to compare the resurrection claim to the claim of a thing we know happens. You keep making this error.

I'm not making this error. We have barely begun this discussion. You seem to think that because I mentioned the first step that I'm claiming it verifies the last step. It doesn't. There are many steps, many evidences, much history, and logical considerations to get from Point 1 to the conclusion of resurrection.

> I don't know how you know that.

The records of history.

> So false religions grow.

Yes, agreed: False religions grow, sometimes to very large populations. That doesn't mean they're true. We have to use appropriate measures, not just growth, to determine truth. My explanation about the growth of the church was one step of many that speak to us of the truth of the resurrection. Its growth was sudden, unexpected, in an unexpected and hostile environment, without military force or cultural acceptance. It warrants looking at.

> I don't think most people who heard the stories were even literate, they weren't able to read the text themselves.

1st-century Palestine was more a non-literate culture than an illiterate one. Actually Palestine was probably one of the most literate environments on the planet at the time because of the emphasis of Jews to teach their sons how to read the Torah. They learned to read, to memorize, to think critically, and to teach. Now, that doesn't mean they could read Greek, but they could most likely read. There are many evidences to support this perspective:

[list][*] The letter from Babatha, and many common documents of normal business
[*] Minted coins with messages on them
[*] Many personal inscriptions on various and sundry articles
[*] Ossuary inscriptions
[*] Potsherds with school exercises on them
[*] Luke sought out reliable sources for his Gospel, so they must have existed.
[*] Letters of Paul prove writing was current in the early decades of the church
[*] Zechariah wrote on a wax tablet (Lk. 1)
[*] The Pharisees, chief priests, and scribes were literate (Mt. 12.3, 5)
[*] Recent studies of graffiti in locations like Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Smyrna establish the literacy of the poorly-educated lower classes.
[*] Brian J. Wright’s historical research (Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus) shows that communal reading was widely practiced in the first century. Communal reading events were widespread socially and geographically. They happened in both formal and informal venues. All sorts of people were reading and reciting literary works. Public reading was a trend of the day as smartphones are now. There are accounts of teachers in the 1st century complaining about students trying to fast track their schooling so they could participate in the reading culture. People were even quick to correct a speaker who was making a mistake (Jn. 12.32-34). There are other 1st-c. accounts where someone in the audience would stand up and object to some detail being shared in a communal reading event because it differed from what they had been hearing elsewhere. There are countless examples after the 1st century of somebody standing up to read, and there’s an uproar in the congregation over one word that had changed because of a new translation. But this is also true in the 2nd and 1st centuries.
[*] Martial, 1st-c. writer, speaks of how annoying it was when people were reading everywhere to everyone, even while he was in a public bathroom.[/list]

> I'm saying we don't have enough to conclude this is true. I am NOT, I repeat, again, NOT, saying that this shows its false.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

> it's far stronger than what we have for most ancient documents.

I have pointed out, many times, that for an extraordinary claim like this one, we require more than we do for a mundane claim. Its a question you can't even bring yourself to answer, you just dodge it all day.
​
> And if Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, as many claim, why would they copy from a nobody? None of it makes sense. And this is just a few brief things.

Because he wrote it first. But also, [b]the issues you're bringing up are not strong enough to hold up a resurrection claim[/b]. But that's a subject you simply do not want to talk about.

It makes more sense that they picked this author for some reason that we don't understand, than that a resurrection actually happened.
​
> Of course it takes more to believe it, but it doesn't take extraordinary evidence. What evidence is all about is the same in both cases.

okay, then do you see why saying "well the evidence is really good compared to evidence for other claims that we believe" makes no sense? Those other claims are not extraordinary. That's why it doesn't make sense to compare them.
Is this clear to you?
​
> Yes, as long as the evidence was reliable and from a reliable source.

[b]Given what I presented, would you conclude the evidence is reliable and from a reliable source? That's what you have. Is that reliable enough for you?[/b]

By saying "as long as the evidence was reliable and from a reliable source", you are changing what I'm asking. You don't know if its reliable or not. All you have is the evidence I presented. Given that evidence, its up to you to decide if its reliable and from a reliable source. But that's all you have.

Don't change the question, answer it as is.
​
The other issue is that we need to determine if this stuff is reliable and from a reliable source, enough to justify a resurrection claim. We can't even be super duper sure who wrote these things. But you say something like "well why would they assign authorship to that guy? that makes no sense". Lets say you're right.

[b]The problem is, its still more likely that they assigned it to this guy for some reason that we don't know, than that a guy was resurrected from the dead. That's the problem. You don't weigh your explanations against the claim we're talking about.[/b]

It'd be like if I said "of course bigfoot is real, it would be insane for a person to put on a suit and walk around! That makes no sense at all, I can't think of a reason why that would happen. Clearly, its not a guy in a suit". Okay, but maybe it is. Even if we can't explain why the heck he'd do that. Maybe the better explanation, better than that bigfoot is real, is that its a guy in a suit, even if we can't explain it.
​
> One of the greatest things about science is that it continues to learn more, upending previous theories and creating new paradigms.

And yet science would reject the claim in the scenario I proposed.
​
> We have the original eyewitness testimony as recorded by the Gospel writers, John in particular.

Most scholars disagree with you, we do not have that. No.
​
> You need to let go of the idea that because the earliest scrap we have is from 125 that it discredits the account. You know that the earliest copy of Tacitus we have is from the 11th century, but we regard his writings as of impeccable credibility. The earliest copy of Homer's Iliad (written in c. 750 BC) is AD 150, but we don't throw it out. The earliest copy of "Gallic Wars," about Julius Caesar (52 BC), is AD 850. Your "100 years!" mantra is meaningless.

Did Tacitus say a resurrection occurred? Was he an eye witness? What is the value of what he said?

again, again, again,[b] it makes no sense to compare the resurrection claim to the claim of a thing we know happens. You keep making this error.[/b]
​
> The birth of the Church and its rapid growth in Jerusalem, the center of Judaism, within a month and a half of the resurrection. Christianity was not spread by military violence, as was Islam, but by the credibility of the evidence.

I don't know how you know that. We see other religions grow, you don't believe those. So false religions grow. Momonism didn't grow through war, right? Why did they believe that guy? How about scientology? That one seems to grow and its nonsense.

I don't think most people who heard the stories were even literate, they weren't able to read the text themselves. I doubt they had time to actually pack their stuff up, go to the original town, and investigate the claim themselves.

And we see false religions all over the place. That a religion grows doesn't really mean anything.
​
> Of course it's dodging the question. You're asking me a question like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If I answer yes, that means I was; if I answer no, it means I haven't stopped. I'm not going to step into your question designed to take us to a misleading place.

Its not misleading. That's the problem. If it is, explain exactly what's misleading about it. I'm simply asking you if you'd require more evidence for one claim than another. That's all. Explain how that's misleading.
​
> I've already answered. Here is exactly what I wrote to you:

yeah, it doesn't answer the question. The question is if some claims require more evidence than others. You fail to answer that.
​
> Nor does it imply, as you did, that it's automatically incorrect

[b]that's not what I'm saying. It hasn't been what I'm saying.[/b]

I'm saying we don't have enough to conclude this is true. I am NOT, I repeat, again, NOT, saying that this shows its false.

Please stop doing this.
​
> It's a fallacy to lump them all together under "religion," as if, "If some religious people are wackos, then all religious people are wackos."

phew, thank god I didn't do that.

> but even you said that we don't know who wrote all 4 of them.

What I said was the evidence is fairly strong and substantial for the traditional authors, and it's far stronger than what we have for most ancient documents. They can't legitimately just be easily brushed away.

> My mind is not made up, you're welcome to challenge these points and talk about them.

Each of the Gospels is worthy of a separate conversation, but I'm glad to have it if you want to go in that direction.

> Lets look at authorship: "Early Christian tradition attributes it to the John Mark mentioned in Acts, but scholars generally reject this as an attempt to link the gospel to an authoritative figure[4]"

Just briefly (because there's much more): John Mark was not an authoritative figure. There is NO reason anyone would ever say, "Hey, let's give our book credibility. Let's say Mark wrote it!" There were 12 disciples, and some of those were more prominent than others. No one in their right mind would pick Mark, especially not if it was the first Gospel (which many believe). There's no sense to it.

Secondly (and still briefly), this John Mark had been tossed out on his ear by Paul (they reconciled later). So this is the guy we'd use for a fake author to bring credibility? Not a chance.

Third, if a truly anonymous Gospel were to circulate throughout that region of the empire, we would expect various attributions to be attached to it from different areas to bring it credibility and authority. But that's not at all what happened. The testimony of the early Church is unanimous: It was Mark.

And if Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, as many claim, why would they copy from a nobody? None of it makes sense. And this is just a few brief things.

> Luke

The authorship for Luke is probably the strongest of the 4 Gospels. There is no competing theory. You try to discredit Luke by mentioning discrepancies between Luke and Paul. I'd have to see those, so until I do, I say you're barking up a non-existent tree. Show me what you have.

> You simply refuse to answer the question: does it take more to believe that a person did some extraordinary claim, than to believe that a person has a dog? You just don't want to address the question.

Of course it takes more to believe it, but it doesn't take extraordinary evidence. What evidence is all about is the same in both cases.

> Would you believe that something moved faster than the speed of light given what I presented? That's a yes or no, you're welcome to explain your answer, but at least give one.

Yes, as long as the evidence was reliable and from a reliable source. Science is changing and finding out new things all the time. Einstein's relativity theory shook the scientific community, speculating things that were thought to be impossible but were later proved to be true. Even though current science says nothing can move faster than light, quantum mechanics is opening up all sorts of quandaries and possibilities. About 10 years ago some experiments were done that challenge the idea that the quantity of energy is constant. One of the greatest things about science is that it continues to learn more, upending previous theories and creating new paradigms.

> original in what sense? We don't have the originals. The earliest scrap we have is from over a hundred years after.

We have the original eyewitness testimony as recorded by the Gospel writers, John in particular. You need to let go of the idea that because the earliest scrap we have is from 125 that it discredits the account. You know that the earliest copy of Tacitus we have is from the 11th century, but we regard his writings as of impeccable credibility. The earliest copy of Homer's Iliad (written in c. 750 BC) is AD 150, but we don't throw it out. The earliest copy of "*Gallic Wars*," about Julius Caesar (52 BC), is AD 850. Your "100 years!" mantra is meaningless.

> continuing evidence [of the resurrection]? What are you talking about?

[list][*] The birth of the Church and its rapid growth in Jerusalem, the center of Judaism, within a month and a half of the resurrection. Christianity was not spread by military violence, as was Islam, but by the credibility of the evidence.
[*] The preaching of the apostles in Jerusalem, always focusing on the resurrection.
[*] The writings of Paul about resurrection
[*] The early-attested creed of 1 Cor. 15.3-5, coming from a historical point of having been already formed and solidified by 3-5 after the resurrection event.[/list]

> sweet, so you completely dodge the question. That's really great man.

Of course it's dodging the question. You're asking me a question like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If I answer yes, that means I was; if I answer no, it means I haven't stopped. I'm not going to step into your question designed to take us to a misleading place.

> Or do you require different amount of evidence for different claims? Let me guess, you wont' answer, because I'm being manipulative apparently or something.

I've already answered. Here is exactly what I wrote to you:

[list][*] Evidence is based on credibility and reliability, not on the size or quality of the subject at hand. Whether the ownership of a pet dog or that my dog drove me to the moon, the credibility of the evidence is based on being able to substantiate it from reliable, authoritative sources. The claim doesn't change the nature of what supports the claim.
[*] No matter what the subject matter ( a pet dog or an astronaut dog), evidence has to be evaluated for its strength or weakness. Even outrageous claims, if supported by strong evidence from reliable, authoritative sources can be supported as true or shown to be true.
[*] There are numerous types of evidence: material (physical), direct, circumstantial, testimonial, documentary, scientific, digital, and personal. Each type of evidence should be brought to bear regardless of the banality or rarity of the claim on the table. It's the weight of evidence that wins the case, not the mundanity or rareness of matter at hand.
[*] Both quantity and quality of evidence are important, regardless of the mundanity or rarity of the subject at hand.
[*] Regardless of the subject at hand, there are degrees of strength in a case: stronger than the opposition, beyond a reasonable doubt (plausibility), probability, and proof.[/list]

> did you know that you can find research through google? Try it.

I've googled many things many times. Some of it's quite good. Some of it's quite poor. Some of it is downright lies. Because it's on Google doesn't mean it's true.

> Its not a cop out, nor a diversion. If it can happen in other religions, and those religions are wrong, then clearly it doesn't imply that a religion is correct.

Nor does it imply, as you did, that it's automatically incorrect. Just because some sources are unreliable doesn't mean all sources are unreliable. It's a fallacy to lump them all together under "religion," as if, "If some religious people are wackos, then all religious people are wackos."

> I know each of these bullet points is a conversation in itself, but I'm disappointed that you're not interacting with the argument and the case at all. You're sticking to your mantra of "not sure of the authors, decades after the claim," etc., as if I haven't said a word to you. That doesn't make for good discussion or working through the case. It's almost as if you're saying, "My mind is made up. Don't bother me with the facts."

but even you said that we don't know who wrote all 4 of them. And you mention how the person fits some description. Doesn't mean he wrote it. My mind is not made up, you're welcome to challenge these points and talk about them. But we also need to establish something: most scholars agree that we're not sure who wrote all 4 of these documents, as an example.

Lets look at authorship: "Early Christian tradition attributes it to the John Mark mentioned in Acts, but scholars generally reject this as an attempt to link the gospel to an authoritative figure[4]"

That's mark. Okay, Luke? "Luke–Acts does not name its author.[11] According to Church tradition this was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of Paul, but while this view is still occasionally put forward the scholarly consensus emphasises the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.[12][13] "
​
> And I gave you a paragraph (twice) about the nature of evidence, and how it's the same whether you're proving that you went jogging or that pigs could fly, and you ignored that, too. It doesn't exactly motivate me to continue to dialogue with you.

you did this while completely avoiding what we were actually talking about, which you do again in this comment as well. You simply refuse to answer the question: does it take more to believe that a person did some extraordinary claim, than to believe that a person has a dog? You just don't want to address the question.
​
> This is only analogical if we notice after the experiment that things are indeed moving faster than light.

I'd love an answer. Would you believe that something moved faster than the speed of light given what I presented? That's a yes or no, you're welcome to explain your answer, but at least give one.
​
> Then even if we don't have the original notes (which in the case of the resurrection we do have),

original in what sense? We don't have the originals. The earliest scrap we have is from over a hundred years after.
​
> or know who the authors are (which, in the case of the resurrection we do have),

That's not what I'm seeing, no. You even said last time, 2 authors, not 4. and even those I'm not sure we know super well.
​
> since we have continuing evidence of the truth of the event, it has more credence.

continuing evidence? What are you talking about?
​
> You've asked the question to manipulate the answer. Why should I answer that? Evidence is evidence. I was clear. Whether it's a walking dog or a flying pig, evidence is grounded in the reliability of the source. I just won't be so easily manipulated by you, that's all.

sweet, so you completely dodge the question. That's really great man.
​
So let me just be clear, you cannot say that you'd require more evidence for a claim that a pen levitated for 20 minutes than that a person had a pet dog. You can't agree to that, that's me being manipulative or something. Is this correct?

So how does this work? you accept the same amount of evidence for both? So does that mean you simply do not believe people when they say they have a pet dog, until they prove it super super conclusively? Or does it mean you accept that pens levitate just on someone's word?

Or do you require different amount of evidence for different claims?

Let me guess, you wont' answer, because I'm being manipulative apparently or something.
​
> Google? You must be joking. We need real research, not a google search. If you want to talk about the similarities and uniquenesses Matthew and Mark, we can have that conversation.

did you know that you can find research through google? Try it.
​
The majority of modern scholars believe that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and that Matthew (who includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses) and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works.[20][21]
​
If you think you know more than the scholars, okay I guess.
​
> You need to read more carefully, please, and actually engage with the points I am making. I said that Thallus, Tacitus, Lucian and Josephus wrote about Jesus's death, so you slam that I haven't justified the resurrection at all. Um, I wasn't justifying the resurrection by the death claims. Please read what I wrote. What I said was their corroboration affirms the content of the writings of the Gospels.

I did read it. Its a bullet point in a list entitled "Looking very briefly at the evidence for the resurrection". So its a bullet point that's supposed to be about evidence for the resurrection, and it talks about people mentioning his death. If you weren't trying to use this as evidence for the resurrection, which is what you're saying now, then its really weird to put it in a list under "evidence for the resurrection". This isn't a problem of me not reading, the problem is on your end.
​
> That's a cop out and a diversion. Please engage with this case. The life and writings of Paul are confirmed.

Its not a cop out, nor a diversion. If it can happen in other religions, and those religions are wrong, then clearly it doesn't imply that a religion is correct.

> This is really bad compared to the thing we're trying to prove. You've got 2 eyewitnesses, maybe. For a resurrection claim. We're not very sure of the authors. Decades after the event. And the earliest one we have is 100 years after the fact.

I know each of these bullet points is a conversation in itself, but I'm disappointed that you're not interacting with the argument and the case at all. You're sticking to your mantra of "not sure of the authors, decades after the claim," etc., as if I haven't said a word to you. That doesn't make for good discussion or working through the case. It's almost as if you're saying, "My mind is made up. Don't bother me with the facts."

And I gave you a paragraph (twice) about the nature of evidence, and how it's the same whether you're proving that you went jogging or that pigs could fly, and you ignored that, too. It doesn't exactly motivate me to continue to dialogue with you.

> This is convincing to you? After that, you would believe that a thing moved faster than the speed of light. Yes?

This is only analogical if we notice after the experiment that things are indeed moving faster than light. Then even if we don't have the original notes (which in the case of the resurrection we do have), or know who the authors are (which, in the case of the resurrection we do have), since we have continuing evidence of the truth of the event, it has more credence.

> Please answer this question directly: would you accept the claim that a person has a pet dog more easily than a claim that a person flew to the sun, touched it with their hands, and flew back? Please note this is a yes or no question. Don't change the question, answer it.

You've asked the question to manipulate the answer. Why should I answer that? Evidence is evidence. I was clear. Whether it's a walking dog or a flying pig, evidence is grounded in the reliability of the source. I just won't be so easily manipulated by you, that's all.

> no, we don't know that they're independent. From googling it it seems you're wrong here, just google Matthew copying Mark and see what comes up.

Google? You must be joking. We need real research, not a google search. If you want to talk about the similarities and uniquenesses Matthew and Mark, we can have that conversation.

> Google it. It seems some authors may have copied Mark.

Again, we have to do far better than "Google." Matthew and Mark's accounts are closer than Luke and Matthews (Matthew and Luke share only 12 words in their entire accounts. Even so, out of the 136 Greek words in Matthew's account of the resurrection, on 35 are shared by Mark. Only 35. Matthew obviously told the account in his own way and in his own words. At almost every point Matthew seems persistently independent of Mark in the resurrection story. It also evidences Matthew's style as unique from Mark, even though it's still emphatically the same story. Matthew felt free to tell the story in his own way, but he didn't feel free to invent a new one. We can talk about this more if you wish, even going into the Greek if you want.

> They mention that a person died. That's great. We're trying to justify a resurrection claim, not a death claim.

You need to read more carefully, please, and actually engage with the points I am making. I said that Thallus, Tacitus, Lucian and Josephus wrote about Jesus's *death*, so you slam that I haven't justified the resurrection at all. Um, I wasn't justifying the resurrection by the death claims. Please read what I wrote. What I said was their corroboration affirms the content of the writings of the Gospels.

> Yeah, other religions have this too.

That's a cop out and a diversion. Please engage with *this* case. The life and writings of Paul are confirmed.

> our earliest copy is from over 100 years after they were written. We don't "know" this.

I wasn't talking about manuscripts but about chain of custody of the material. Three of John's students were Ignatius, Papias, and Polykarp. Ignatius writers letters to churches mentioning what John taught, as well as quoting from the other Gospels. Polykarp quoted from the Gospels and Paul's letters.

Polykarp had a student named Irenaeus. He wrote so much he provides a list of 24 of the NT books. Irenaeus had a student Hippolytus.

Paul’s writings were recognized as Scripture. It’s a chain not of tutelage but of recognition. Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, (and here is a chain of actual tutelage) to Origen, Pamphilus, and then Eusebius.

Peter taught Mark, who taught the first 5 African bishops (Aninanus, Avilius, Kedron, Primus, and Justus), all the way to Eusebius.

We have chains of custody where we can examine possible changes over time—and they didn't change. We know the accounts were not modified over time.

> We can be fairly sure we know the authors, so that case is reasonably strong
> We can be fairly sure at least 2 of the 4 authors were eyewitnesses, and possibly a third, so that case is reasonably strong. And the > 4th author is known as a diligent and reliable historian. We have quite a strong case for reliability across the board.
> To have 4 accounts is quite good.
> To have 4 accounts written within a few decades is quite good.
> To have 4 accounts that corroborate as much as they do is quite good.
> To have the abundance of manuscript evidence we do, including 1 as close as 100 years, is quite good.

This is really bad compared to the thing we're trying to prove. You've got 2 eyewitnesses, maybe. For a resurrection claim. We're not very sure of the authors. Decades after the event. And the earliest one we have is 100 years after the fact.

> This is awful evidence [b]compared to the claim[/b].
​
Again, if this was a mundane claim, then fine. But [b]this is a resurrection claim[/b]. Its not enough.
​
Lets say the claim was that an object can move faster than the speed of light. Would you believe that?

"we proved it! We proved that an object can go faster than the speed of light. We forgot to take notes on the experiment until decades after but trust us, there are only a couple discrepancies between what I wrote and what the 3 other people who were there wrote. Oh also we talked to make sure we got our stories straight, I used some other guy's notes when I wrote mine. I lost my copy of the notes but we have a scrap from 100 years later, it looks right? It only happened once".

Would you be convinced?

[b]Oh and its even worse since we can't be sure who the authors even are.[/b]
​
This is convincing to you? After that, you would believe that a thing moved faster than the speed of light. Yes?
​
> It doesn't matter whether it's a morning jog or a flying Caesar, the task of evidence and the burden of evidence are the same: Is the source ultimately reliable?

Please answer this question directly: would you accept the claim that a person has a pet dog more easily than a claim that a person flew to the sun, touched it with their hands, and flew back? Please note this is a yes or no question. Don't change the question, answer it.
​
> We have four independent accounts.

no, we don't know that they're independent. From googling it it seems you're wrong here, just google Matthew copying Mark and see what comes up.
​
> The resurrection accounts are very different, so there was certainly no copying or no collusion.

Google it. It seems some authors may have copied Mark.
​
> Thallus, Tacitus, Lucian, and Josephus mention details of Jesus's death recorded in the Gospels. There is at least some corroborating evidence surrounding his death, affirming the accounts of the Gospel writers.

They mention that a person died. That's great. We're trying to justify a resurrection claim, not a death claim.
​
> The Apostle Paul, a one-time hostile to Christianity who was later convinced and became a strong advocate, missionary and theologian, gives evidence of the crucifixion and resurrection. He was not just a believer with bias.

Yeah, other religions have this too.
​
> We know the accounts were not modified over time because we have a chain of custody.

our earliest copy is from over 100 years after they were written. We don't "know" this.
​
> No. Bigfoot has nothing near the quality of evidence or the quality of testimony.

You didn't answer the question. [b]Imagine if this is the evidence that we had, but the claim was that bigfoot is real. Would you believe in bigfoot?[/b]

I'm asking if the same level of evidence would convince you that bigfoot is real, and your response? We don't have this kind of evidence for bigfoot. Yeah, I know. I'm asking if we did, would you believe?
​
> It's a false comparison designed to denigrate but without substance.

No, its not. You didn't understand what I asked.

I agree with your comment, Scape211. I have heard this from other defenders, and I think it's legitimate. Just so you know, the minimalists and critics jump in and say, "The Church suppressed anyone who cried foul and destroyed the evidence of it, and that's why we have no such documentation." There is, obviously, no evidence of any such power play or destruction.

If there were no substance to it, we would expect some comment from the 1st century that it was a hoax. Christianity was making waves around the Empire, thanks to Paul, in Jerusalem itself, through major cities of the Empire, and even as far as Rome. Since at least part of why Jesus was crucified was for the false accusation of treason, to continue to preach in His Name would be possibly tantamount to some complicity with treasonous words. But we have no such thing.

We must temper such expectations, however, for neither do we have any extrabiblical writings about Jesus Himself: his teaching, travels, or miracles. Yet we have no such documentation of that, either. We have some manuscript evidence of his being a real person, and documents referring to his crucifixion, but little else.

Documentation about Jesus's life, teachings, miracles, and resurrection are simply missing from the historical record, except for the Gospels.

I would also add that when the testimonies of the resurrection where made public and the gospels published, others who knew of the event or where alive during it would have cried foul. They would have rallied against their claims and it would have been a short lived blip in our past history of cults or weird religious practice in the ancient day. Yet here we are still talking about this ancient book and the claims made in it thousands of years later. You would think that if these accounts held no weight at all they would have been thrown out by theologians, science, historians, etc ages ago.