Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Not Clever Enough]

The 4 gospels are too weak to justify the claim that a resurrection occurred.

[jimwalton]

OK, that's your affirmative. The affirmative then presents evidence to support the assertion. Let's hear it. Presumably, though it's up to you (it's your position), you're going to...

1. Give evidence showing the weaknesses of the historicity of the Gospels (their unreliability)
2. The ignorance, incompetence, or bias of the authors
3. Their accounts of the resurrection can be faulted for their weakness.

I know, these are just my suppositions of the direction you'll go and the evidence you must present to support your assertion, so you're obviously free to deviate from my list in pursuit of your own line of thought. So, let me see your case and I'll be glad to respond.

[Not Clever Enough]

> The affirmative then presents evidence to support the assertion.

so, I would assume that we agree that first hand accounts are stronger evidence than second hand accounts, right? Well we can't be sure who wrote these documents, so we don't know if they're first hand accounts. So they're weakened by this.

They were written decades after the event. They are weakened by this.

They conflict, they are weakened by this.

They also seem to plagiarize from each other and possibly some mystery document named document Q I believe is the name? This weakens them. It means we don't even know if we have 4 independent accounts. If they colluded, then they aren't independent accounts.

The earliest tiny little scrap that we have of these documents are from over a hundred years after the event even occurred and its tinier than a cocktail napkin. This weakens them.

We only have 4 of them. That's not very many.

We don't know who wrote them. That weakens them.
​
So to summarize them again: We've got 4 accounts, written decades after the event, they seem to plagiarize each other so its not even really 4 independent accounts, they conflict, we're not even sure who wrote them so we don't know if they're eye witness accounts anyway, the smallest scrap we have is from hundreds of years after they were written.

Each of these points is a stain on the quality of the evidence we have.
​
But, please note one thing: when we talk about reliability, its a contextual question. The real question is "are they reliable enough for what?". This level of evidence might be okay if someone wanted to show that Ceasar liked jogging in the mornings or something. It is quite a different matter if they want to show that Ceasar levitated up to the heavens, touched the sun with his bare hands, and came back down.
​
So the idea here is that this evidence is weak with respect to what the claim is. Its not enough to justify a resurrection. This evidence wouldn't even be enough to convict someone of a crime.
​
Imagine if this is the evidence that we had, but the claim was that bigfoot is real. Would you believe in bigfoot?

[jimwalton]

> I would assume that we agree that first hand accounts are stronger evidence than second hand accounts, right?

Yes, agreed. No problem here.

> Well we can't be sure who wrote these documents, so we don't know if they're first hand accounts. So they're weakened by this.

On examination (true examination), the evidence is quite strong that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Matthew and John would have been eyewitnesses (first-hand accounts), and possibly Mark to some of what he wrote. So we can be somewhat certain at least 3 of the Gospels were written as first-hand accounts, and so their accounts are not as suspect as you claim.

The reasons to suspect that a Jerusalem Levite wrote Matthew are convincing. Matthew's Gospel also includes 5 large teaching sections not part of the other Gospels. And the unanimous attribution of the early Church (hard, external evidence) is that Matthew was the author.

The reasons to conclude that a Jerusalem native but now in a Gentile environment (Mark's situation) are convincing. Mark's family were Jerusalemite believers. There are suspicions that Mark was a some-time follower of Jesus. Mark's level of Greek fits the situation. No one in their right mind would have attributed the first Gospel to Mark if they were making up an author. And the unanimous attribution of the early church is that Mark was the author. This is far stronger than you claim, and not a "weakness" to reliability.

That John is an eyewitness account is the strongest of the 4. His Gospel is riddled with eyewitness touches. He claims himself to be the author. The unanimous attribution of the early church was for John. The style and content of the writing fits all we know about John. The case is weighty for his authorship. This is not so weak as you imagine it to be.

> They were written decades after the event. They are weakened by this.

Possibly. Though the far majority of scholarship puts Mark in the 60s, Mt & Lk. in the 70s-80s, and John in the 90s, this is not necessarily so. A strong case can be made for Mk in the 50s and the other 3 in the 60s. Some scholars even put Mark in the 40s (which I think is rash). Bottom line: we don't really know when they were written, so it's a weak case to claim their date of writing weakens their reliability. If Mark were written in the late 50s or even early 60s, that's only 30 years after the events. That's like us writing about President George Bush: not a problem. Secondly, most ancient records we have were written far more than decades after their subjects (even Tacitus and Suetonius). To have ancient writings within decades of their subjects is spectacular in the perspective of historians. It doesn't weaken the case, it strengthens it.

Ultimately we have to ask: If the documents weren't written contemporaneously with the events, does that tell us whether it's true? I say it does not. I read "Lincoln" by David Herbert Donald (https://www.amazon.com/s?k=biography+of+abraham+lincoln&crid=1HS17DDGII6SI&sprefix=biography+of+Abr%2Caps%2C160&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_16), who lived from 1920-2009. Should I throw the biography away? It was written more than a century after Lincoln's life.

> They conflict, they are weakened by this.
> They also seem to plagiarize from each other

Now wait a minute. Are the conflicting accounts (very different), or identical (or very similar) accounts? You can't argue it both ways. Make up your mind, and we can talk.

Regardless, we have other conflicting accounts from ancient historians, but no one doubts the historicity of the events themselves. This doesn't weaken the historicity, only leaves us wondering about some minor details about it.

> possibly some mystery document named document Q I believe is the name

Yeah, "Q" is the name, but there is no evidence for it. Totally speculated, possibly fictional. You can't really make a case here. No one in the ancient world mentions such a document, there is no copy of it, and no evidence for it. This is not a strong part of your argument.

> If they colluded, then they aren't independent accounts.

There's no evidence of collusion. Should we appoint a special counsel?

> The earliest tiny little scrap that we have of these documents are from over a hundred years after the event even occurred and its tinier than a cocktail napkin. This weakens them.

Why does this weaken them? We have none of the originals of Alexander the Great's 4 biographies. We have none of the originals of Suetonius's or Tacitus's writings. We have none of the originals of Josephus's writings. We have, in actuality, very few originals. That we have a parchment copy of John from AD 125 is amazing, and that we have literally thousands in the first several centuries is unparalleled. Actually, our documentary evidence for the New Testament is way WAY stronger than ANY other ancient document, yet none of those are "weakened."

> We only have 4 of them. That's not very many.

By ancient standards, 4 is SPECTACULAR. We wish we had four sources for anything ancient. The truth is, we have fewer than 4 for almost everything in the ancient world.

So to summarize:

• 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.

The bottom line: all of these features and qualities give strength to the reliability of the record we have. They are nothing like a "stain" on the accounts.

> But, please note one thing: when we talk about reliability, its a contextual question. The real question is "are they reliable enough for what?". This level of evidence might be okay if someone wanted to show that Ceasar liked jogging in the mornings or something. It is quite a different matter if they want to show that Ceasar levitated up to the heavens, touched the sun with his bare hands, and came back down.

Evidence is the same for simple as for more extreme claims. The case comes down to: (1) Is our source telling the truth? (2) Can he be trusted? What reasons do we have to believe? What reasons to do we have to doubt? (3) Is there corroborating evidence from other witnesses or from material artifacts? (4) Can anything be verified? (5) What reason might we have to suspect dishonesty or bias?

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?

Looking very briefly at the evidence for the resurrection:

• We have four independent accounts. The resurrection accounts are very different, so there was certainly no copying or no collusion. Colluding eyewitnesses work out their story; so also conspirators. But the Gospels accounts of Jesus's life have many similarities, so we know the authors were giving their own take on the resurrection. This is exactly what a detective wants: similar touchpoints but different perspectives. discrepancies can be very valuable. Witnesses never agree totally about reports in every detail. This gives credibility to the resurrection account.
• 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.
• 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.
• We know the accounts were not modified over time because we have a chain of custody.
• Other than people's a priori rejection of the possibility of miracles, i.e., bias, there is no reason to doubt the Gospel accounts of the resurrection. It squares with the material evidence, the eyewitness testimony, and the religious and cultural results immediately following (the birth of the Church).
• There's no rational reason to consider the authors to have been biased. They had nothing to gain (money, sex, power, fame) and everything to lose. There was no expectation of a physical resurrection. Their theology didn't demand a resurrection (before it happened). Such a claim only had potential to garner mockery and scorn.

> Imagine if this is the evidence that we had, but the claim was that bigfoot is real. Would you believe in bigfoot?

No. Bigfoot has nothing near the quality of evidence or the quality of testimony. It's a false comparison designed to denigrate but without substance. It's just not the same at all, and not even in the same league.

[Scape211]

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.

[jimwalton]

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.

[Not Clever Enough]

> 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 compared to the claim.
​
Again, if this was a mundane claim, then fine. But this is a resurrection claim. 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?

Oh and its even worse since we can't be sure who the authors even are.
​
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. Imagine if this is the evidence that we had, but the claim was that bigfoot is real. Would you believe in bigfoot?

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.

[jimwalton]

> 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.

[Not Clever Enough]

> 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.

[jimwalton]

> 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?

• 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.

> 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:

• 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.

> 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."