> You just have to look at all of the Apocrypha that Christians generally agree was fabricated.

For one, the Apocrypha was written before Jesus, so that doesn't qualify as an example of Christians fabricating stuff. Secondly, since the Gnostics Gospels are Gnostic, their authors were not Christians, so they don't qualify either. Thirdly, I'm pretty sure the authors of these gnostic works are unknown, so we can't conclude they were Christians fabricating information.

> So why do you think it is more likely that these events actually happened as opposed to being a fabrication?

I'll refer you back to my initial post where I explained it in a lot of detail.

> it's also true that many people became Christians as adults based on an intellectual examination of their beliefs and the claims of Christianity

Yes, that is true. But these people are a small minority compared to those who are indoctrinated from childhood. The vast majority of all people who have ever been Christians were indoctrinated as a child. Modern Christians acknowledge that it is far easier to get the religious belief to "take" if they can evangelize to a child in the 4/14 window.

> The text of Mt. 27.52-53 is, in my opinion, not at all a conclusive proof of Jesus's divinity.

Well at a minimum it would be the most widely witnessed proof that God exists and that he is somehow linked to Jesus.

> Hmm. Evidence?

You just have to look at all of the Apocrypha that Christians generally agree was fabricated. Gospel of Peter, Acts of Andrew, Gospel of Mary, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, etc.

>Me too. You and I are in agreement here.

So why do you think it is more likely that these events actually happened as opposed to being a fabrication?

> many people who were convinced as children and later become convinced it is false would cite a more intellectual examination of their beliefs as the reason for changing their view.

This is true, but it's also true that many people became Christians as adults based on an intellectual examination of their beliefs and the claims of Christianity.

> Do you mean to say that you were not a Christian until after you started studying the evidence for the gospels?

I was raised to be a Christian, but accepted the faith myself on the basis of study of the evidence.

> but the point is that they left out the most amazing and conclusive proof of Jesus' divinity

I guess I disagree. The text of Mt. 27.52-53 is, in my opinion, not at all a conclusive proof of Jesus's divinity. There are many other events that are more conclusive, in my mind.

> On the other hand early Christians fabricating stories about Jesus was pretty common.

Hmm. Evidence? And then, of course, we have to be able to separate between people who were fabricating stories about Jesus and early Christians writings. I'd like to see what you're talking about, and then we can discuss it.

> So I am compelled to believe what seems most likely to be true.

Me too. You and I are in agreement here.

> Christianity is just as suited for a thinking person as for a child, for the intellect as well as the emotions, for philosophy as well as for mystics.

Well, to a point I agree. But I think it isn't especially well suited for the intellect since it is very easy to convince a child that Christianity is true, but many people who were convinced as children and later become convinced it is false would cite a more intellectual examination of their beliefs as the reason for changing their view.

> I believe the Gospels because of first examining the evidence, not because I started with the conclusion that the Bible can't be wrong.

Do you mean to say that you were not a Christian until after you started studying the evidence for the gospels?

> They didn't twist the story. They were selective historiographers, as are all historiographers and journalists. No one tries to tell everything.

No, but the point is that they left out the most amazing and conclusive proof of Jesus' divinity, which is highly unlikely if they thought this actually happened. On the other hand early Christians fabricating stories about Jesus was pretty common. So I am compelled to believe what seems most likely to be true.

> The Catholic church has volumes dedicated to telling people what the correct official position

One of the many reasons I'm not a Catholic. Christianity is just as suited for a thinking person as for a child, for the intellect as well as the emotions, for philosophy as well as for mystics.

> Same goes for the early church where heretical beliefs were stamped out

Truth has a responsibility to renounce falseness. That's often the point. It's an acceptable strategy in science and history as with theology and Christianity.

> they don't happen very often and not on the scale being alleged here.

I agree. Even the Bible regards the era of Jesus as a different "normal". There are possibly 7 healings in the entire 1300 years of the OT, and maybe another handful after Jesus left the scene. But the eras of the Exodus and of Jesus are ones of overflowing signs.

> Only someone who starts with the conclusion that the bible can't be wrong would even bother with such an exercise.

This is subjective. I believe the Gospels because of first examining the evidence, not because I started with the conclusion that the Bible can't be wrong.

> To say that they were twisting the story so much to fit a theme they had chosen doesn't accord with them copying large portions of the story from previous texts.

They didn't twist the story. They were selective historiographers, as are all historiographers and journalists. No one tries to tell everything.

> Oh my. This is derogatory and untrue.

I don't think so. The Catholic church has volumes dedicated to telling people what the correct official position is on a wide variety of things. Same goes for the early church where heretical beliefs were stamped out, or at least they attempted to stamp them out. So if I look up something in a Catholic catechism and say "this is not disputed by any Catholics" I doubt that would convince you that it was true (unless you already believed it or were a Catholic yourself).

> Actually many people affirm the reality of miracles.

That's why I went on to discuss other possibilities. So even you think miracles happen, they don't happen very often and not on the scale being alleged here. Whereas we know fabrications happen very often. So it makes sense to believe that the most likely thing is what probably happened.

> The others didn't because it didn't fit with theirs.

I think that speculating about the motivations of the gospel authors as reasons why they might not have included the most widely witnessed miracle in the whole story is sort of missing the point. Only someone who starts with the conclusion that the bible can't be wrong would even bother with such an exercise. Because the more obvious assumption is that the other authors didn't this happened. To say that they were twisting the story so much to fit a theme they had chosen doesn't accord with them copying large portions of the story from previous texts. It also suggests that if you believe this they must have been omitting a lot of other highly relevant details in order fit their chosen theme. But if you start from the assumption that the bible can't be wrong I know there will be some way to rationalize this. But such rationalizations are not convincing to someone who doesn't start with this assumption.

> But as far we know, they only think this because Papias said so, and in minimal material that is preserved on the subject he doesn't appear to be talking about the same gospel of Matthew that we have now.

Actually there's far more than just Papias, but this discussion is peripheral to the subject at hand. We can have it; it's just a different conversation.

> Christians are told to believe whatever the correct belief is on any subject.

Oh my. This is derogatory and untrue.

> No, it's a problem because we observe in our lives that miracles never happen.

Actually many people affirm the reality of miracles. Some scientists and scholars have ventured to verify such things. Craig Keener recently published a two-volume set on that very pursuit (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522787663&sr=8-1&keywords=craig+keener+miracles&dpID=51gV3m4jxEL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch).

> Yet not even the followers of Jesus write about it. People who you think were there witnessing it for themselves decided to leave it out. Better to write about the time that Jesus cursed a fig tree then to mention how his death was accompanied by supernatural signs from God that were witnessed by all? Did they run out of ink?

Matthew did. It fit with his theme. The others didn't because it didn't fit with theirs. Mark emphasizes the doltish and dense nature of the disciples. He ends his Gospel on that kind of note. Luke ties in his resurrection story with the beginning of his Gospel, creating bookends, and the resurrected saints walking around isn't part of the story he's telling. John is interested in the specific faith of specific people; this generalized event doesn't fit the case he is making.

> So you don't really have a point except that you a priori reject the supernatural narratives of the Bible

I don't reject such claims a priori. It's just that the evidence comes nowhere near what would be required in order to provide a reasonable basis for thinking such events happened. Of course I wouldn't believe just because one more ancient anonymous text claims they happened. That would be evidence in their favor, but it wouldn't be enough to provide a reasonable basis for belief.

> Actually, speaking of the resurrection, it holds the most possibility for the confirmation you desire

I don't think there is any reasonable basis for believing that a resurrection occurred. All of the Christian arguments I have seen in favor of this have been severely and obviously flawed in my opinion.

> They were unanimously regarded by the early writers as having been written by Mt., Mk., Lk., and Jn,

But as far we know, they only think this because Papias said so, and in minimal material that is preserved on the subject he doesn't appear to be talking about the same gospel of Matthew that we have now. I think it is very likely that if those people actually wrote them, they would say so in the text, and the texts wouldn't be copied from previous gospels, and the texts would tell the story from their point of view as opposed to that of an omniscient narrator. And I also think it is likely that if they were written anonymously by some "Joe blow" of the time, that later Christians would assign authorship to important figures in early Christianity once they had settled upon them as favored texts.

> and there is no indication they were ever contested until the modern era.

The fact that the existing record demonstrates agreement among Christians isn't very persuasive to me because Christians are told to believe whatever the correct belief is on any subject. And who would be able to argue? Certainly the "Joe blow" who wrote them anonymously is not going to come forward. Nobody else knows, and all would be happy to hear that they are from reliable sources. So I think there is a strong likelihood that these were not attributed correctly, and biblical scholars (including Christians) generally agree and there is widespread consensus on this.

> This is only a problem if you a priori reject the possibility.

No, it's a problem because we observe in our lives that miracles never happen. Or if they do they are never confirmed. Or if they are confirmed they happen very rarely and never on the same scale as what is being alleged here. What we observe today gives us reason to think that miracles of this sort are uncommon. And what we observe today gives us reason to think that fabricated stories are common. So it makes sense to believe whatever is most likely to be true.

> though not necessarily one anyone would have bothered to write about except the followers of Jesus

Yet not even the followers of Jesus write about it. People who you think were there witnessing it for themselves decided to leave it out. Better to write about the time that Jesus cursed a fig tree then to mention how his death was accompanied by supernatural signs from God that were witnessed by all? Did they run out of ink?

> Yes, but conveniently not any of the things that would be remarkable if true

As I mentioned, there is no way to prove Jesus walked on the water or multiplied bread. And even if there were other corroborations of it, you already admitted you wouldn't believe them. So you don't really have a point except that you a priori reject the supernatural narratives of the Bible, and even if someone came back from the dead you wouldn't believe.

Actually, speaking of the resurrection, it holds the most possibility for the confirmation you desire. As you know, massive books have been written on the event. You and I previously have had brief conversations on the subject ("Do Christians believe in ghosts?") back in 2014, but I've had this conversation with dozens of other people.

> Written anonymously well after the supposed events

They were unanimously regarded by the early writers as having been written by Mt., Mk., Lk., and Jn, and there is no indication they were ever contested until the modern era. They were written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses (contrary to the only biographies we have of Alexander the Great, which I assume you accept), and possibly 3 of them BY eyewitnesses.

> containing stories of miracles and God intervening on earth

This is only a problem if you a priori reject the possibility.

> not corroborated by neutral sources

Finding neutral sources about Jesus may have been as difficult as finding neutral source about Donald Trump. Besides, as we've discussed, most ancient histories cannot be corroborated because most ancient evidence is forever lost.

> Do you think any Jewish theologians would have noticed the veil of the temple magically tearing in half at the same time as an earthquake and the death of Jesus?

It may not have been "magical" at all. Earthquakes destroy material goods. Earthquakes were comparatively common in Jerusalem; it lies on a fault line similar to the San Andreas fault. Whether or not Jewish theologians made anything of it, it could easily have been a common, public, and noticeable event, though not necessarily one anyone would have bothered to write about except the followers of Jesus, who noticed some theological significance.

> We an confirm hundreds of things in the Gospels.

Yes, but conveniently not any of the things that would be remarkable if true. That is my point. Of all the things that can be confirmed, none of them are anything that would give anyone a reasonable basis for thinking that Jesus is God, that he had supernatural powers, that a god exists, etc.

> We do have a lot of goofy stories from that era, but there's reason to evaluate them as goofy.

And many of those reasons are the same reasons people not raised as Christians normally evaluate the gospels as "goofy." Written anonymously well after the supposed events, containing stories of miracles and God intervening on earth, not corroborated by neutral sources, no explanation of how the author could know the things he is writing about, contradicting with other sources, and generally looking like every other made up story about gods and goddesses that have been created throughout history.

> Of course they would have all noticed the cloud cover and the earthquake.

Do you think any Jewish theologians would have noticed the veil of the temple magically tearing in half at the same time as an earthquake and the death of Jesus?