Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Learner]

Good to see support and encouragement for each other.

( I should be doing more of it myself )

 

[Learner]

Sorry for delay but genuinly cheers for the reminder.

Learner, just a polite reminder that there is a question pending related to one of your posts. You made certain claims regarding the resurrection story, and I am trying to figure out what you were trying to say.

How do you know that a new body was provided, and that the old body wasn't reanimated? Where did this new body come from? Was it made in some kind of a celestial factory, or did a human have to give birth to a soulless baby that grew into a soulless full size body that was stored somewhere, and later used as a container for Jesus's soul?

I simpy thought, merely in opinion: when the body dies, cells and all, then anything "living" appearing after death, is therefore "new" or I could say "re-newed". I was differentiating from how you mention reanimation in regards to zombies,... describing the "walking dead" by this particular reanimation concept. The creatures were "stil" dead e.g. non living flesh, body parts dropping off, still rotting etc..etc.

And more importantly, do you agree that stories involving reanimated, flying corpses should be treated with skepticism, as remez did?

Of course, I agree with both of your skepticisms in view of .. flying "corpses" or flying "dead" bodies.

Where did Jesus's soul go after it left the old body and before it could be inserted into the new body? What is a soul and how does it move around between bodies? Your statements lead to even more questions that need to be answered.

Jesus goes down to Hades according to several passages for a time before returning to HIS body. I don't know the spiritual mechanics so to speak. New bodies is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:

For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. 2 We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. 3 For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies.

Interstingly but valid point brought up in Keiths post which he highlighted Jesus having the scars of the wounds inflicted on Him before His physical death. I could accept the reanimation in terms, as a substitute for "regeneration" of bodies i.e. living as new, (which may sound convenient here but it IS a point like your questions that invites the exploration in my case) .

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

New bodies is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5

And in 1 Corinthians, but the problem is, both are (allegedly) written by Paul. Those are Paul's guesses about what happens. But he has no authority to say anything at all definitively. His only claim to any kind of authority is that he allegedly had a "vision." Aka, "hallucination," if, in fact, it ever happened and he wasn't simply lying about it and/or it wasn't the evidently common result of some form of epilepsy or other brain disorder, that we know today to cause all manner of religiously themed hallucinations in the similarly afflicted.

But with Paul we have additional evidence that he was not speaking with any kind of authority in the facts that, (1), he was never trusted by any of the actual disciples and was in fact relegated to only tending to the far less important gentile and "hellenized" Jews while the OG disciples ministered to the real Jews (that we curiously know almost nothing about, no less); (2) not even his own congregates believed his opinions (hence the letters in the first place and their repeated insistence that followers had to believe his version or else there was no religion and no salvation and no prize off the top shelf).

Far from being an authority, Paul was a pariah and his opinions on Jesus' death not believed or adhered to by the fringe followers most likely to believe such pagan nonsense to begin with.

Regardless, there is still the problem with Thomas insisting that he would not believe it was actually Jesus unless and until he could physically stick his fingers into the actual wounds.

But why would that be the requirement? Think about it for two seconds. A friend of yours dies in, say, a car accident. You go to the funeral. You see him buried. You walk away and start to mourn. A few days later, your buddies come to you and say, "Dude! Bob resurrected from the dead! Come see him!"

Aside from being astounded, why would your first thought be: I won't believe it's Bob unless I can stick my hands in his wounds! . Are your friends capable of somehow finding a body double for Bob and then pretending that he resurrected to play some sort of elaborate and horrific practical joke on you or something? Is it a common occurrence for you to be tricked by people you thought were dead only to find out, nope! All a ruse!

And why in the world wouldn't just seeing Bob alive and talking to you be more than sufficient for you to believe he's no longer dead? Why would you need to physically stick your hands into his wounds in order to believe it really was Bob?

As I pointed out, the only reason to make up this sequence and add it into this latter account is because--as with Paul's letters evidencing disbelief in Corinthia--clearly the followers some forty-fifty years after Paul's letters still did not buy the notion of Jesus resurrecting. So embellishments were evidently called for, either by the author (whoever he was) or by the then "church elders" (whoever they were).

Iow, Doubting Thomas was intended as apologetics; to cover up a hole in the mythology that clearly had persisted in spite of Paul's earlier attempts to dissuade it and were big enough of a concern to warrant this patch.

But, like all patches, it doesn't hold water under pressure. The whole point of sticking the fingers in (which he does, no less, so it's not just an idle requirement) is to physically confirm that this is, in fact, that same flesh and blood Jesus that was crucified by the Romans (for no explicable reason) and died and was entombed and then was brought back to life by Jehovah, no question about it.

But that's in direct contradiction to Paul's (incoherent) ramblings about resurrection NOT being flesh and blood and that there are two distinctly different "bodies" (one made of flesh and blood and the other barely described as "spiritual" and further that they will look different).

So, did the rules change from the time Thomas supposedly doubted circa 33 CE to when Paul wrote Corinthians circa 55 CE? Or, was "John" (writing in 100 CE) and making up the Doubting Thomas nonsense just trying to patch a problematic bit of dogma that no one was buying back when Paul tried it either and it had gotten worse with the apparent questions about breaking the legs and the like?

No one else among the OG disciples seemed to be pushing much nonsense about a resurrection. It's just Paul and then the decades later "gospel" accounts that seem to likewise be geared to Gentiles over Jews (i.e., extensions of Paul's version of the mythology).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is it a common occurrence for you to be tricked by people you thought were dead only to find out, nope! All a ruse!

I do like that one meme, imagining my wife giving my eulogy as: Keith will probably be best remembered for all the times he faked his death, only to show up at the funeral and- Oh. There he is. In the back, wearing the big goofy hat. I'd like to thank everyone for coming, and also apologize. Again.


But, no, I cannot imagine ANY part of the process being to demand to see the bodily effects of however my fake death worked, in order to verify I didn't die...

 

[Learner]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JMF6hkOnmY[/YOUTUBE]

(I'm a bit lazy tonight (tired), pardon me. )

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

That was one weird video. Christian apologists really need to take a course in logic. If you think that this video was convincing then I could equally argue (and 'prove') to you that I was abducted by aliens last weekend and spent a couple days orbiting Saturn in their flying saucer by challenging anyone who didn't believe me to prove that I wasn't.

 

[Torin]

That was one weird video. Christian apologists really need to take a course in logic. If you think that this video was convincing then I could equally argue (and 'prove') to you that I was abducted by aliens last weekend and spent a couple days orbiting Saturn in their flying saucer by challenging anyone who didn't believe me to prove that I wasn't.

The weird thing is... if the resurrection would violate physics, why isn't Christianity already disproven?

We can deduce from the laws of physics that there was no resurrection. That's what "violate physics" means. Deducing from the laws of physics that something did not happen is considered a disproof in every other area of life. You bet your life on the laws of physics being reliable when you drive your car on the highway.

The response will be that God can violate physics, which reveals how disingenuous the entire request to disprove the resurrection is. No evidence can prove that God didn't cause the world to act contrary to all of our evidence. You could get around any evidence based argument by appealing to God.

And of course, they don't allow for the possibility that God could have suspended any other regularity. The idea of a mass hallucination - no, that's beyond the pale! The only miracles we're allowed to consider are the ones that they need to have happened for their theology.

 

[remez]

No, I placed it down near alchemy because, just like alchemy, it describes events that contradict physical law. People do not come back from the dead, in the same way that lead does not transmute into gold.

Great, that was not clearly stated originally. BUT all the same, I clearly should have reasoned that from what you wrote. I withdraw that contention.

It's a question if whether or not it's a plausible event. Plausibility is determined by the frequency with which an event is observed in the real world. Crucifixions were a common event in the Roman period. Resurrections were not.

That was important.
Parsed here sentence by sentence by sentence.....

It's got nothing to do with absurdity; It's a question if whether or not it's a plausible event.

YES

Crucifixions were a common event in the Roman period. Resurrections were not.

YES and YES
However.............

Plausibility is determined by the frequency with which an event is observed in the real world.

Not even close. Frequency is but one of the criterion for plausibility. Your reasoning reminds of Hume's failed argument against miracles. If Hume were alive today he would most plausibly believe that life began to exist. That the big bang theory is plausible. The genesis of a new life form. That his own birth was plausible. All countering his third premise.
No......
The plausibility of and event depends upon a preponderance of the evidence not just it's frequency in reality.
I provided four simple facts for debate as well as the best explanation. Your challenge was to provide a better explanation and defend it or to show me where my facts and/or reasoning was wrong.

I think your attempt there was to fault my reasoning with.....because the resurrection was possibly a one time it is therefore implausible. Well that does not fly. First I'm fully aware it was a one time event. And two, the frequency of an event is not at all the only or even the best way to judge plausibility.

Would you deny that life began to exist?

Now finally let’s get down to the facts. Seriously you were the first to challenge the facts….

I’m asking you if you can provide a natural explanation that better explanations those four facts

They are not facts. ……… You need to show your 'facts' to be true, before I will start believing you. You can't just say that they are facts, and expect them to pass unchallenged.

Others have just been trashing straw men.
So Just to be clear…………..you are saying
1- Jesus was NOT crucified and NOT placed in a tomb.
2- the tomb was NOT empty and someone could have produced a body
3- the disciples DID NOT believe they saw the risen Jesus
4- the disciples were NOT transformed following their alleged Resurrection observations

That’s pretty bold.
Shall start with number one?

If you blindly accept the premise that claims from the Bible are facts, you can reach your desired conclusions; But reaching false conclusions from false premises is trivial and unimpressive.

I’m not blindly accepting them because they are in the Bible. There are many facts in the Bible that don’t require the Bible to be true. I thought the ones I provided were quite minimal and readily accepted as fact by most scholars. Including leading atheists.

So again shall we begin with Jesus was not crucified?

You need to demonstrate with evidence that what you claim is factual. You haven't done that; So nobody needs to accept your claims nor any conclusions you derive from them.

Absolutely. I fully understand my burden. I presented an argument. You are finally challenging that none of those facts are true. So it is now it is incumbent upon me to show you that each one is far more plausible than its alternative. Again shall we begin with if Jesus was crucified or not?

The Bible is very weak evidence indeed. It's not even close to being sufficient to support important and implausible claims - such as that someone came back from the dead.

At some point you, as well, will need to demonstrate that that alleged fact with evidence. Something other than because it contains miracles it therefore contains no true testimony.
For now……………
I’m arguing that explanation (not claim) of the resurrection is the best explanation given that it best explains the four facts. NOT because we find it in the Bible. That needs to be understood, I’m not saying the resurrection is true because it is in the Bible. Clear?
So……….
Doesn’t seem reasonable that we first need to establish our issues with the facts before we discuss the best explanation of those facts?

So again shall we start with if Jesus was crucified or not? And by crucified we mean crucified to death.

You are asserting that he was not crucified and did not die. Correct?

That's an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.

That extraordinary claim sounds good but it is not the case. In reality any claim only needs sufficient evidence for belief
Think about it.
Your assertion itself is an extraordinary claim? You are claiming it is a universal principal. So where is your extraordinary evidence for that universal principal?

Try this example.….. Imagine I claimed I had a pet horse. What kind of evidence would it require to prove to you I had a horse? Maybe you would want to see a picture, a video, or possibly visit me to see? Now imagine I told you I had a flying horse. Quite extraordinary…Yes? What kind of evidence would you require to believe my claim? Logically, wouldn’t the same evidence be sufficient?

Again your extraordinary claim sounds great but does not stand up to reason.

 

[remez]

So provide the evidence and shut us all up. But you are not going to do that, are you?

Court has begun. I have repeatedly given you 4 pieces of evidence and an explanation. Together they formed the argument of my opening statement. I have re-quoted it to you several times. You have quoted it several times.
and here again............

You have not yet made an argument for your case, other than to state that you find the stories plausible.

You don't even see it.
I have given no story.
I really want to discuss the argument.......which is the best explanation for these four historical facts...............

1- Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb.
2- the tomb was empty and no one ever produced a body
3- the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus
4- the disciples were transformed following their alleged Resurrection observations

I contend that these four pieces of evidence can best be explained by the miraculous occurrence of the resurrection.

That is the argument.

I have provided it again and again and again.

You are perfectly free to challenge those facts and that explanation and/or present a better explanation. All you keep doing is rejecting a story of flying zombies that you made up. I agree with you that flying zombies do not exist. But that in no way addresses my argument other than you can attempt to disparage it with mockery.

So please this time address the argument I presented.

A naturalistic explanation has been provided multiple times. You don't like the explanation, but that is not my problem. Repeating the same absurd nonsense over and over is not going to get you a different answer.

I have repeatedly presented a precise argument for discussion. You have provided a vague alternative and believe all discussion is over and concluded. It's not by along shot.

Your naturalistic argument is the people make things up. I and the jury got that. I did not ignore your argument. I challenged it. You have been challenged on your explanation and have failed to reply.
But again.....
What are you saying they made up and why?
See?
The conversation isn't over its has only begun. Your case is not better by default. You need to clarify and support it if challenged and I'm challenging it.

Which of those four facts are made up? Did they make up his death? Did they make up the empty tomb? Why? I can't address your explanation as stated, because it does not specifically point to what they made up. My argument has nothing to do with flying zombies. You seem to be the one unwilling to get into the details, you're obsessed with flying zombies.

Example if you say they made up is death (presented fact number 1)......then I could present to you evidence that would support the fact that he died. And we would no doubt discuss that point further. Same with fact number two and so on. Eventually we would begin discussing the best explanation of the facts on the table.

Now in the end we would very likely not reach the same conclusion. But we would each have our evidence and reasoning on the table for the jury to decide. Do you really wish to rest your case on what you have presented thus far....that people make things up like flying zombies?

continuing here to include post 311.....

You haven't given me any historical facts.

Even though you quoted them again.

You have simply presupposed that the stories should be considered credible.

I gave no stories. I provided four facts and an explanation. You are free to specifically challenge any or all of them. Calling them stories doesn't make your case.

And demanded that I explain what the motivations of the people involved in the story are. Stories, and the characters in them, say and do whatever the author wants them to say and do, which is the point you are missing.

I"M Missing the point? Not at all.......It very well may be my point.
look again...........
Are you actually denying that motivation is a mitigating factor of great concern in this case?
Really?
Don't you realized that motivation it is the foundation of your alternative explanation that people make things up?
You're undermining your own explanation.

The jury is awaiting your reply.

 

[remez]

Deism. It's not there in the "logically exhaustive" list.

Yes it is. Deism is a subset of theism. Some are mono some are poly, for all purposes here it matters not.

I just wanted to more directly address the "if God exists then miracles are reasonable" proposition. People keep saying "God" as if which God is just obvious. In a christocentric culture, Jehovah will seem obvious. So, aside from how the miracles themselves need better evidence, the God ... even when granted only for the sake of argument that a deity exists... needs greater specificity than just "exists" and "makes universes".

You're relying on assumptions based on cultural tradition maybe more than you know.

NO. But I note your concern. The original request that I responded to was how can a Christian reasonably believe that miracles are possible. Thus God's existence was a given. Therefore, I was providing the reason that if God exists then miracles are possible. That simple. However, I clearly stated ....thus the bigger question is.....Is it reasonable that God exists? So the presumption you are decrying was actually assumed in the context.

Again why is that abstract?

Jehovah's less abstract than monotheism. Jesus is the son of the father Jehovah -- that is less abstract still. Jesus died because scapegoatism does something to 'sin"... that's less abstract still. This is what I call "putting the clothes back onto the mythology" (after they got stripped off in order to help things seem more "reasonable").

Let's not avoid details. Let's look at how sensible mythology is. Want to make sense of that blood sacrifice stuff? "God exists" doesn't help much, it doesn't make just any crazy thing possible. What sense does a blood sacrifice of a human, or man-god, make? I'm not looking at this with moral outrage but just seeking "the logic" in it...................

Your response doesn't follow from my question. Because as you properly understood and addressed above, the context of my question was regarding the formation of an exhaustive list of world religious. One God, many gods or no god. Simple not abstract.
Thus ........
Directing your contention to an abstract doctrine within a religion was not in view of the question.
Your concerns regarding those internal doctrines are of no concern to me here at this time.
Sorry.

 

[Treedbear]

It doesn’t matter how you took it. What matters is what was there and what wasn’t.

Notice when he presented his well thought out spectrum and provided reasons as to why he placed events where they belonged. But with the resurrection he first greatly understated its historical support and only mocked the resurrection into his spectrum. He doesn’t like it so he arbitrarily placed it down near alchemy.


So does that give you some special privilege of not having to support your position?

I get it all the time. I very rarely get the reasons that should go with that statement of absurdity. You don’t like it so it is all absurd.

The consequences to one's own life by way of one's world view and one's system of beliefs that come from accepting the resurrection of Jesus and all it entails demands far more corroborating evidence than what was written so long ago in the NT. That's the basis for bilby's argument as well as the point atrib was trying to make.

No that is not an argument.
That is only the basis of his preference. No argument was given. He simply mocked that which he didn’t like.

The entire story is in doubt up to the resurrection for the reasons stated,

Well then…..it should be easy for you quote the reasons stated. Good luck because all he gave was mockery.
Further…………..

The point taken from bilby's argument should be that the need for doubt increases in proportion to the consequences of what is implied by the presented evidence.

Again he gave no argument. He was addressing my contention with atrib’s reasoning regarding history. And he did a great job in developing that historical spectrum. But it was not an argument. He mocked the resurrection into his well-developed historical spectrum. With the other events he placed in the spectrum he provided reasons for their placement. Your take on his preferences have nothing to do with that fact. I’m well aware of his preference that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don’t agree with it because I found it philosophically unsound and arbitrary. But regardless his preference and my contentions with them have nothing to do with my request for his reasoning as to where he places the resurrection into his historical spectrum.

You seem to be suggesting that if you think some event has great consequences then you can toss it into the alchemy side of the spectrum because…… it would require an extraordinary amount of evidence……. that you have arbitrarily predetermined could not be met. A kind of get out of reason pass.

Subsequently you posted the following:

No, I placed it down near alchemy because, just like alchemy, it describes events that contradict physical law. People do not come back from the dead, in the same way that lead does not transmute into gold.

Great, that was not clearly stated originally. BUT all the same, I clearly should have reasoned that from what you wrote. I withdraw that contention.
...

So I take it you've been able to accept the argument after all.

I'm sure you'd agree that it implies a major commitment is required in one's world view.

That has nothing to do with my request.
Now….
You (not bilby) may be trying to counter my original argument for the resurrection with …..You need more evidence to match to consequences. To that I say fine. I’m not asking you to believe me. I’m asking you if you can provide a natural explanation that better explanations those four facts than a miracle occurred. Even if you can’t it does not mean you have to determine the argument to be compelling. So just be honest.

I provided one way back here:

Let's got to the tape, shall we? Mark:

43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.

So, at least according to the author who first wrote the story, it was just one guy doing it all. A "prominent member of the Council" no less, so really not someone who had too much first hand experience with dead bodies would be my guess.
...

Fascinating. So much I didn't know about the story, and making it much more credible. But my intuition says it all stemmed from this one simple act of compassion by this Joseph of Arimathea, who nursed Jesus' wounds and later set him free from the cave. And then kept the secret to himself to protect all concerned. One altruistic lie from which an entire world religion unfolds. That just fits so well.

You suggested that atrib discounted the reliability of the NT based soley on his disbelief in miracles.

No. Go back and read it carefully. I addressed the topic as IF that was what he was inferring, because it seemed that way. It is a very common objection. Probably the most common.

It really seems to me you're basing your reliance on the NT soley on the stories of miracles. The resurrection in and of itself wouldn't be sufficient. The loaves and fishes, the raising of Lazarus from the dead, walking on water, smiting the fig tree, water to wine, etc, etc, are made to seem conventional but essential in supporting the idea that God is a necessary being.

Nope. I was not trying to prove the NT by using miracles. I was addressing the reasonableness of rejecting of the NT because it contained miracles.

In practical terms you need to believe in the Bible first (or going through Jesus) in order to be convinced there is a God.

Only in the same practical terms you have to understand the Bible first in order to be convinced he does not exist.

Think about it.

While you are at it look up Natural Theology.

It might help if you answered this simple question from my previous post:

...

If you want to make the case that Jesus existed

Wait.
If you are going to deny that Jesus was a real historical figure, then we really have nothing to talk about. You stand outside of collective reasoning. Your skepticism is too severe and likely inconsistent and thus arbitrary.

Did Jesus Exist?

Even if a rabbi with that name did exist at that time,

Here are the four minimal facts regarding the Resurrection.....

1- Jesus was crucified and buried
2- the tomb was empty and no one ever produced a body
3- the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus
4- the disciples were transformed following their alleged Resurrection observations

why should these be considered facts?

Then we'd have something to talk about. I freely admit that I don't know and will never know for sure whether those four points of your's are true. But if you're not basing it on the Bible as the evidence for miracles then they are trivial matters and hardly worth being considered as facts. And it seems that you're simply trying to be provocative by claiming they are facts without making the case.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I have given no story.
I really want to discuss the argument.......which is the best explanation for these four historical facts...............

1- Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb.
2- the tomb was empty and no one ever produced a body
3- the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus
4- the disciples were transformed following their alleged Resurrection observations

I contend that these four pieces of evidence can best be explained by the miraculous occurrence of the resurrection.

That is the argument.

I have provided it again and again and again.

And it has been refuted again and again and again.

And now I'll do it again. First, your "four historical facts" are not facts. They are assertions from mythological stories, the origin of which we do not know and the original authorship we do not know.

So right out of the gate, you are wrong. Objectively, conclusively, irretrievably wrong. Those are NOT "facts."

Second, they are not even accurate. Once again, I will correct you:

1. It is claimed by an anonymous Roman author allegedly writing circa 70 CE that a man named Jesus was crucified forty or so years prior and placed in a cave-like tomb with a rock rolled into place to cover the opening.
2. The cave was allegedly found to be open and NOT empty; a young man was allegedly found sitting inside of it who told the visitors that Jesus (aka, "the body") had gone ahead of them to Galilee and that they should tell the disciples and go see him (which sure as shit implies that they "produced a body" and that it was the same Jesus/body that was placed into the cave in the first place).
3. We are then told by other later anonymous third parties that the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus
4. No one knows what the disciples actually thought, of course, since we do not have a single piece of papyrus that can be definitively tied to any particular OG disciple.

IN SHORT: We have nothing but unverified claims from unreliable sources and an abundance of contradictory evidence (from "Paul" and at least one later gospel author--John--whoever he may be and fully accepting it may be hundreds if not thousands adding and subtracting over the past two thousand years following) demonstrating that even back then and as recent as circa 55 CE to the alleged event in 33 CE, a significant number of gentile* followers of the nascent cult did not believe the claim that Jesus resurrected from the dead and had to be vehemently convinced by Paul, with additional evidence the same was still an issue over half a century later with John and the embellishment of the nonsensical and contradictory nonsense of "doubting Thomas."

Setting ALL of that aside, your contention that "resurrection is the best explanation" for anything, let alone the facts that are not actual facts is disproven conclusively by all of the alternative explanations I and others have provided.

Again, every single element of the mythology can be "best" explained (or, certainly better explained) by any of the following that do not rely upon magic being real:

1. It's all just a made-up cult based on a popular martyr like any other such cult that has ever or since existed;
2. A real man named Jesus was crucified and excessively tortured, which led to a condition that eventually resulted in the appearance of death, but not actual death, from which he soon recovered and this gave rise to the honest (but wrong) belief that he had resurrected from the dead and a cult was made up around him accordingly like any other such cult that has ever or since existed;
3. It was a simple conspiracy by the disciples who stole the body and then claimed Jesus had resurrected from the dead and they made up a cult around him accordingly like any other such cult that has ever or since existed.

All anyone need do is look to Mormonism or Scientology for incontrovertible evidence that very large and very powerful cults can be created literally out of nothing but a story and that no amount of counter argument or lack of verifiable evidence can shake its adherents from honestly and sincerely believing that it is the absolute unvarnished truth of all existence.

You have no explanation. You have no facts. You have no counter-argument.

Yet you--exactly like a Scientologist--simply obstinately refuse to accept these actual facts, which renders your intellectual judgement and (lack of) analysis in regard to anything we are discussing, at best, void.



* I note gentiles in particular, since they would be the group most likely to believe in resurrection in the first place, since they would have been raised pagan and there are dozens of references to resurrection in pagan theologies, yet not even they believed Paul's claims about Jesus' resurrection.

 

[steve_bank]

1. You assume for some reason that the gospel tales are true and not an embellishment or outright fiction.

2. There is no contemporary corporation of the gospels. A letter from Tuberous to his friend, 'Hey man you won't believe it I saw this guy walk on water.

3. The gospels do not all agree.

4. I read that from a literary view the gospels were in the form of an action adventure fiction of the day. In the story the main character says 'I'll be back'. And later in the story he does. A fictional story meant to attract new believers.

 

[remez]

And it has been refuted again and again and again.

Not by a long shot. Your confidence is as misplaced as your aim. Your bird shot presentation of wild possibilities are one thing. What is reasonable is yet another.
For example............

And now I'll do it again. First, your "four historical facts" are not facts. They are assertions from mythological stories, the origin of which we do not know and the original authorship we do not know.

The simple undefended assumption behind your assertion infers that the authorship of the NT is somehow crucial to determining them to be credible historical sources for the life of Jesus. That is an assumption without merit in today's historical criticism regarding the ancient documents. Your smoke screen of authorship has little to no effect on NT reliability.

Real historical criticism works out like this............. One way in which scholars identify historical facts in the Gospel is to apply the "criteria of authenticity." These criteria (what I was seeking from atrib) really are statements about the effect of certain kinds of evidence upon the probability of various events/sayings in the life of Jesus.

meaning.............this is just a baseline not all of the calculus.............

For some event V, evidence of specific type E (historical congruence, embarrassment, excruciating, dissimilarity, coherence, multiple attestation, independent-early attestation, semitisms), and our background info B. So basically all things being equal the probability of event/saying is greater given, for ex. multiple attestation than it would have been without it.........................P(V/E&B) > P(V/B).

Here is the real point.....none of the criteria presupposes the general reliability of the NT or the authorship. They focus on a particular event/saying and then provide evidence for reasoning that particular element in the life of Jesus to be historical regardless of the general reliability of the document in which the particular event/saying is found. Thus this approach is even applicable to rabbinical, apocrypha, gnostic writings etc. It goes without saying, that is so much the better....if the NT can be shown be generally reliable documents and to source from their received authors. But again the criteria does not depend on that presupposition. Therefore the criteria critically assists in the panning for historical nuggets of gold in stream of historical deposits.

So right out of the gate, you are wrong. Objectively, conclusively, irretrievably wrong. Those are NOT "facts."

Second, they are not even accurate. Once again, I will correct you:

1. It is claimed by an anonymous Roman author allegedly writing circa 70 CE that a man named Jesus was crucified forty or so years prior and placed in a cave-like tomb with a rock rolled into place to cover the opening.
2. The cave was allegedly found to be open and NOT empty; a young man was allegedly found sitting inside of it who told the visitors that Jesus (aka, "the body") had gone ahead of them to Galilee and that they should tell the disciples and go see him (which sure as shit implies that they "produced a body" and that it was the same Jesus/body that was placed into the cave in the first place).
3. We are then told by other later anonymous third parties that the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus
4. No one knows what the disciples actually thought, of course, since we do not have a single piece of papyrus that can be definitively tied to any particular OG disciple.

...1. ok I see no real issues.
...2. based on your uncommon interpretation/speculation and it reasons from only one source.
...3. an assertion not only without evidence but in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
...4. faulty reasoning. Assumes authorship is the only means to your conclusion.

Also..... Do you understand the criterion of dissimilarity when it comes to multiple sources? Seriously do you? It's common sense really. Your wild and weak speculations about the dissimilarities are actually highlighting a strength of my evidence and you don't even understand. But Dan Brown would be proud.

So to counter your four points I offer............this pre-Gospel source..... Perhaps the most intriguing developments in NT scholarship is the recognition of the historical sources that form the foundation of the NT. For example the 4 line traditional creed about the core events of Jesus' death and resurrection recorded by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:

. . . that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
and that he was buried,
and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve (I Cor. 15.3-5).

Examine that carefully with the mind of a historian. Try! That is full of Semitisms and characteristics (use of Cephas) that are not Paul like. Paul employs paredoka and parelabon, the equivalent Greek terms for delivering and receiving rabbinic tradition 1 Cor. 11:23. Examine his use of sentence structure and verbal parallelism, diction, and the triple sequence of kai hoti. And it is those characteristics and details (and many more) that convince scholars that Paul reciting tradition that he himself received long ago. Look it up, many prominent scholars place this tradition within years of the cross. Your wild possibilities do not reflect any scholarship. You seem to think if you can make something possible, it is therefore reasonable. I was looking for a serious discussion, not bird shot fantasies and insulting characterizations. Once again even prominent atheist Gerd Ludemann maintains that "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus. . . . not later than three years. . . . the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE. . . ." ....from his book The Resurrection of Jesus. Further note.......the authorship and date of Corinthians are undisputed and greatly enhance the reasonableness of my position but that is still secondary to what is the crucial...... we have an extraordinary early source outlining the core events of Jesus' death and resurrection. Thus these traditions (my minimal facts) even precede Mark and certainly circa 70 CE.
now...........Please note that was an examination of the diction not a series of wild speculation and interpretation.

IN SHORT: We have nothing but unverified claims from unreliable sources...

All you have actually demonstrated is.....That's your undefended opinion is based on wild speculation only. You simply choose what you like and don't like based on only what you choose to wildly spectate against. Give me some evidence to back that up. Again simply quoting something and wildly speculating about it won't fly. Make the case that dissimilarity is a weakness and not a strength.

and an abundance of contradictory evidence.....

You have not made this case. But I think that this..................ONE............

I (from "Paul" and at least one later gospel author--John--whoever he may be and fully accepting it may be hundreds if not thousands adding and subtracting over the past two thousand years following) demonstrating that even back then and as recent as circa 55 CE to the alleged event in 33 CE, a significant number of gentile* followers of the nascent cult did not believe the claim that Jesus resurrected from the dead and had to be vehemently convinced by Paul, with additional evidence the same was still an issue over half a century later with John and the embellishment of the nonsensical and contradictory nonsense of "doubting Thomas."

............(which is hardly an abundance)..... was meant to evidence a contradiction.

Simple mention is not an abundance of evidence. In regards to Paul providing evidence to those who questioned the resurrection.... it means what? A contradiction? Why is that a contradiction?

I just see a group of believers that needed instruction. That still exists today. A difference of thought does not infer that the resurrection was not taught early. I gave evidence that it was. See the difference?

Also you consistently keep alluding to this erroneous meme of reasoning...... that a greater detailed account from a different source, perspective and experience automatically infers embellishment. Embellishment can certainly be detected, but it is not (as you infer) based solely on the age of the diction. To be consistent you would need to infer that Mark is an embellishment of Paul's creed in Corinthians and that really does not make sense at all. Thus your embellishment reasoning really needs a refinement and defense if you are going to continue to use it as actual reasoning.

So to this point you have indeed attempted to discredit the facts of my case. Your attempt has been challenged right back. Your counter position needs further clarification and a defense of its own before you can throw out my facts as fiction.
Stage 2……………
Now we move on to the best explanation.........first your staging for the discussion….

Setting ALL of that aside, your contention that "resurrection is the best explanation" for anything, let alone the facts that are not actual facts is disproven conclusively by all of the alternative explanations I and others have provided.

Again your confidence is amusing. Reread what you wrote there. I'm sure it was clear to you. So I'm assuming this is what you meant.................

Setting ALL of that aside (granting the facts for sake of discussion) , your contention that "resurrection is the best explanation" has been disproven conclusively by all of the alternative explanations I and others have provided.

Given that let’s proceed.............

Again, every single element of the mythology can be "best" explained

Does that mean you just took back the four historical facts that you just granted for sake of discussion? I'll guess no and simply label that childish name calling? You have made no case for legend. The alternative of “it was a legend” does not reasonably match the time restraints here. These facts were pre-Gospel.

Again, every single element of the mythology can be "best" explained (or, certainly better explained) by any of the following that do not rely upon magic being real:

With an opening like that you want me to consider you serious?
Fallacy of poisoning the well, because case has nothing to do with magic. Your counter is also straw man of the supernatural. Magic is natural not supernatural.

I need to interject this small intermission for purposes of clarity……..I hope………..

So before we move on from the level of facts (premises) to the level of explanations (conclusion) I want to clarify the manner of my reasoning for you. Not in a way that means this is the way it must be, but just so you understand where I’m coming from. I’m not asserting with absolute certainty that I have the best explanation. That would be reasonably unsound. I’m abductively reasoning that with all the direct and indirect evidence and reasoning I have, that I’m convinced that the most plausible explanation is the best of all the explanations I have researched.
But………
That needs this further understanding…..I’m addressing the event of the resurrection from a previously investigated position that I have already concluded (not with absolute certainty) that miracles are possible because I have good reason (cosmology) to believe that a supernatural God exists. Thus the most plausible explanation for those four facts is a supernatural explanation.
Further…………
None of that is to be so simply characterized as “it’s true because the bible says it’s true.” My trust in these issues stems from a carefully compiled and voluminous collection of research, evidence and reason. Therefore any attempt to straw man my reasoning as a blind faith will be ferociously challenged for evidence and reason. Clear?

Ultimately that is the purpose of an argument/case…..to leverage the economy of reason to your case while depreciating the economy of your opposition. And then let the investors decide. I’m fully aware I’m presenting my sales pitch to an atheistic market. It likely won’t work here but it will hone my skills some.

I have researched many alternatives. Of the three attempts listed below only number three is actually an explanation as offered in the context of accepting those four facts. It is commonly known as the conspiracy theory. But first…………

1. It's all just a made-up cult based on a popular martyr like any other such cult that has ever or since existed;

First off that is an equation not an explanation. It is an equation you have not defended only asserted. So you MUST transform that into an actually explanation and be prepared to defend it. I'm ready. Until you do so that non-explanation equation is not a more plausible explanation.

2. A real man named Jesus was crucified and excessively tortured, which led to a condition that eventually resulted in the appearance of death, but not actual death, from which he soon recovered and this gave rise to the honest (but wrong) belief that he had resurrected from the dead and a cult was made up around him accordingly like any other such cult that has ever or since existed;

Again this is slightly confusing. Because it seems that earlier for sake of conversation you allowed those four points and had a better naturalistic explanation. But here you are not doing that. Here you are denying that Jesus died. Thus your explanation is the disciples were fooled by his death. Well I have heard that one before and I’m ready to bankrupt it. But I’ll table it for now because of the confusing nature of the context here. It’s like changing the plea in the middle of a trial. If you still wish to present that alternative then clearly restate it with the clear understanding that you are challenging the fact of death and therefore presenting the common swoon theory. Common to Muslims.

3. It was a simple conspiracy by the disciples who stole the body and then claimed Jesus had resurrected from the dead and they made up a cult around him accordingly like any other such cult that has ever or since existed.

At least this one is an explanation of sorts. So let’s reason through your conspiracy theory.

First, here is a very brief anatomy of a good conspiracy……….

A good conspiracy needs a small number of conspirators, because lies are more difficult to maintain. We are talking three of fewer with preferably familial relationships. A very short duration of time (days) with thorough and immediate communication to keep the story straight. Plus little to no pressure upon the conspirators to fold. These characteristics I believe are quite reasonable to understand. Yes?
So…..?
We have reasonably two dozen or more conspirators, who didn’t always get along with one another. Spread out over thousands of miles without phones. How long did the conspiracy last?….well we actually don’t know yet because it began over 2000 years ago and it’s still strongly entrenched today. Were they under pressure?…..um YES…..to their tortured deaths. And NONE of them ever recanted. With regards to communication….think about all the reasonable details that would need to be kept straight. Seriously think about it. For if you ask me this post would grow even longer. All of that just regarding a GOOD CONSPIRACY…was brief and could be much much more detailed if I need to. But for now I think it is sufficient to sway the markets our two economies of reason. If I need to I’ll will present far more.

Besides just looking at what makes a good conspiracy let’s consider motivation….

What reason would they have to conspire to all this. The reasons to conspire are the same three reasons to lie…..financial greed, sexual/relational desire and/or pursuit of power. Clearly our conspirators gained nothing in those areas. From what we can determine the absolute opposite occurred in their lives. They had no motive to conspire. Need more on this or can you think it through on your own?

Is that enough? I can reason much wider and deeper on this conspiracy theory. But for now have I presented enough reason to sufficiently render my explanation more plausible than a conspiracy? Do you have any particular challenges to my reasoning of what makes a good conspiracy and/or their lack of motivation to do so?

All anyone need do is look to Mormonism or Scientology for incontrovertible evidence that very large and very powerful cults can be created literally out of nothing but a story…….

I agree that does happen. But disagree with your assumption that my theism is such. That is your belief created out of ignoring the evidence and reasoning I presented to you. See it IS a matter of reasoning and evidence. Your simple reasoning by blunt equation is insufficient to make your case that my theism lacks evidence and reasoning. We all have reasons for what we believe.

You simply reason by equation, because in your reasoning if it is not purely natural (your blind assumption) then it is not trustworthy for belief. Yet you completely miss the fact that your reasoning is self-refuting, because you can’t reasonably have a plausible natural explanation for nature’s contingent existence. That is why I stated way back in the beginning, the greater question is ….. “Is it reasonable that a supernatural God exists?”

I can argue it is reasonable. You can only ASSERT that is not reasonable by begging the question for nature. You thus conclude that any reference to the supernatural lacks evidence or reason and simply equate the supernatural with fantasy, fictional stories and characters. Fantasy is not governed by reason the supernatural is. It is your blind faith in naturalism that is in need of reasoning. It’s a cult unto itself. You can’t give any plausible defense why it is correct. Hence why I can so easily challenge your blind faith in it?

…….. and that no amount of counter argument or lack of verifiable evidence can shake its adherents from honestly and sincerely believing that it is the absolute unvarnished truth of all existence.

I disagree. I have witnessed people change their worldviews based upon evidence and reasoning. Many atheists here claim that is personally their case. I profess that my doubts in theism have reversed because of science and philosophy.

No your bald assertion throws me into your group. I can defend my supernaturalism with reasoning supported by science. You cannot defend your naturalism with either.

Thus your consistent reasoning by equation….that all supernaturalists are non-reasoning fools….isn’t reasoning at all. It’s just your blind faith. And it’s blinded you to the point of this………….

You have no explanation. You have no facts. You have no counter-argument.

………… conclusion. Where anyone reading this post can clearly see (not agree but clearly see) that I have put before the prosecution, the judge and the jury a case supported by evidence and reason.

I’m not saying it isn’t challengeable, but it is obviously THERE and you fail to see it.

 

[remez]

So I take it you've been able to accept the argument after all.

Not at all. I interpreted his placement of the resurrection (into his historical spectrum) in the wrong context. I was missing his argument for the context that he was bailing out atrib with regards to the faulty notion that since people make things up then all history is rejected as unreasonable. I like his history construct up to the point his naturalism trips him up. But I'll let that play out in my conversation with him.

Then we'd have something to talk about. I freely admit that I don't know and will never know for sure whether those four points of your's are true.

That's your choice.

But if you're not basing it on the Bible as the evidence for miracles then they are trivial matters and hardly worth being considered as facts.

That misses my position several ways.

The key to this "talk past another situation" is your use of the pronoun ...."it"... as in basing it........
does your "it" refer to......
miracles
or
my reasoning/argument

To me the "it" refers to my reasoning/argument. SO my assertion about "I'm not arguing that the bible proves miracles,"was because I was only trying to dispel the circular reasoning that was being inferred against my reasoning/argument. No my argument is that those four facts are best explained by a supernatural resurrection, not simply because the bible says so. See?

However I do consider the NT to be historically reliable. An issue I'm sure we will have to workout. Therefore yes the bible would be part of my support of those four facts and the fact that a supernatural resurrection was alleged to have occurred. But the reasoning is not that its true because the bible says its true.

So as I perceive your resistance, through your objections and provided link.....that you seem to be inferring that the bible is completely unreliable, in all facts concerning history. If that is your position then it is a skepticism so severe that you would effectively eliminate all of history. If that is not the case then how do you determine what is a reliable fact and what is not? Look at the four facts I'm claiming......none of them are miraculous. That was what atrib, bilby and I were discussing.

Keep in mind. I'm not asserting that the resurrection is fact. I'm arguing to that end. I'm asserting the the four facts are historically reliable, dependent upon normal historical scholarship, and that the best explanation of those four facts is the supernatural resurrection.

And it seems that you're simply trying to be provocative by claiming they are facts without making the case.

Your terminology strangles the conversation here.
I have absolutely made a "case". We are long past that.
What you are bemoaning is that I have not "defended" part of my case.
Well........
I'm not clairvoyant.
Which part do you want me to defend? and why? That is your part.

Again are you denying that Jesus was crucified to death? Why?....just because it is in the bible?
Are you denying that The tomb was empty? Why?....just because it is in the bible?
Are you denying that the disciples CLAIMED to see a resurrected Jesus? Why?....just because it is in the bible?
Are you claiming that the disciples lives were not transformed? Why?....just because it is in the bible?

How am I to reasonably make a defense until you specifically challenge something and provide your reasoning for that challenge?

 

[remez]

1. You assume for some reason that the gospel tales are true and not an embellishment or outright fiction.

No.

2. There is no contemporary corporation of the gospels. A letter from Tuberous to his friend, 'Hey man you won't believe it I saw this guy walk on water.

So?

3. The gospels do not all agree.

If all of your witnesses were in perfect agreement, wouldn’t you suspect the fix was in? The historical concept is called dissimilarity. Look it up, it’s a good read. It is a strength not a detriment.

4. I read that from a literary view the gospels were in the form of an action adventure fiction of the day. In the story the main character says 'I'll be back'. And later in the story he does. A fictional story meant to attract new believers.

I recommend everyone should read more and not jump to conclusions.

 

[skepticalbip]

3. The gospels do not all agree.

If all of your witnesses were in perfect agreement, wouldn’t you suspect the fix was in? The historical concept is called dissimilarity. Look it up, it’s a good read. It is a strength not a detriment.

There are NO witnesses that attested to seeing Jesus' miracles, only a few much later writers offering hearsay at best. That is my understanding... if I am misinformed then name two witnesses.

OTOH there are a hell of a lot of people who have attested to have been abducted by anal probing space aliens so, if testimony alone is sufficient to determine truth, then the existence of anal probing space aliens if far, far ahead of being certain than the existence of Jesus and his miracles. There are also many witnesses who have attested to seeing bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, etc.

 

[steve_bank]

No.

So?

3. The gospels do not all agree.

If all of your witnesses were in perfect agreement, wouldn’t you suspect the fix was in? The historical concept is called dissimilarity. Look it up, it’s a good read. It is a strength not a detriment.

4. I read that from a literary view the gospels were in the form of an action adventure fiction of the day. In the story the main character says 'I'll be back'. And later in the story he does. A fictional story meant to attract new believers.

I recommend everyone should read more and not jump to conclusions.

Reading more on history and drawing conclusions...that is our point with theists. They base it all on the gospels for which there is no corporation and takes the form of Greek and Roman mythology.

You are prolific today. However verbosity still does not get around the fact there is no contemoraaneous accounts of Jesus any anything supernatural.

There are records of other Jews who today we would call activists and militants. Masada.

If Jesus existed in the flesh he did not make a big enough impression to be recorded in history, other than gospels written well after the alleged events.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Your confidence is as misplaced as your aim. Your bird shot presentation of wild possibilities are one thing. What is reasonable is yet another.

*sigh* . You're hanging your hat on the presumption that magic is "reasonable." That's simply unsupportable all on its own, so you've already self-defeated long before the gish gallop.

For example............

The simple undefended assumption behind your assertion infers that the authorship of the NT is somehow crucial to determining them to be credible historical sources for the life of Jesus.

No, it does not so we can skip all of that pointless straw to....

Second, they are not even accurate. Once again, I will correct you:

1. It is claimed by an anonymous Roman author allegedly writing circa 70 CE that a man named Jesus was crucified forty or so years prior and placed in a cave-like tomb with a rock rolled into place to cover the opening.
2. The cave was allegedly found to be open and NOT empty; a young man was allegedly found sitting inside of it who told the visitors that Jesus (aka, "the body") had gone ahead of them to Galilee and that they should tell the disciples and go see him (which sure as shit implies that they "produced a body" and that it was the same Jesus/body that was placed into the cave in the first place).
3. We are then told by other later anonymous third parties that the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus
4. No one knows what the disciples actually thought, of course, since we do not have a single piece of papyrus that can be definitively tied to any particular OG disciple.

...1. ok I see no real issues.
...2. based on your uncommon interpretation/speculation and it reasons from only one source.

"Uncommon" is not a thing and the fact that it comes from "one source" is not a counter-argument. If you're going to make an appeal to authority, then it is "common" among biblical scholars to note that Mark is the original source of the story and that later authors have simply taken his story, repeated it but then made their own embellishments. Iow, they made shit up, but even if they did not--and we had any evidence at all that could possibly confirm such an assertion--it STILL is not a counter-argument. Mark's version was the first one and it contradicts later versions.

You don't get to pick and choose which one you're going to go with, nor is it allowable to conflate all of them into one, where you simply dismiss the fact that the cave is not empty and there is a young man sitting in it. Those are either facts or fictions. Which is it? Fact that the cave was open and a young man was sitting inside or fiction?

...3. an assertion not only without evidence but in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

How is anything I wrote in 3 an "assertion" let alone "without evidence"? Mark is typically dated to around 70 CE; Matthew and Luke to around 85–90 respectively, and John to around 100. Even if we assume it took between forty and eighty years for each respective "disciple" to finally write down their eyewitness accounts, we have no evidence confirming who any of those authors actually were, reliable evidence proving that their stories have not only been altered by subsequent copyists, but also by official decrees (i.e., in the random elimination of other versions/gospels from the canon) as well as the stories themselves depicting at once word-for-word elements but also contradicting elements (not empty, young man; not empty, two angels; etc) and events (like the "temptation" in the desert by the devil) that no eyewitness could have possibly eyewitnessed.

If I start our saying that I witnessed a car crash and then include in my account the private thoughts of the victims as they were going through the crash you can immediately discount my claim that I was an eyewitness as I would have zero way to know anyone's private thoughts.

Since you made an appeal to authority, Ehrman notes:

The term Synoptic Problem is a technical term for a specific issue, namely why Matthew, Mark, and Luke have so many similarities – in which stories they tell, the sequence in which they tell them, and the words with which they tell them (verbatim, word-for-word agreements in places!) – and yet also have so many differences. If there were not extensive similarities, there would be no “problem.” But how does one explain these similarities (and these differences)? The answer that has been around for a very long time indeed is that the similarities are there because these books utilize some of the same sources (they, or two of them, are copying) and the differences are there because the authors have altered the sources they have used.

I sometimes have difficulty convincing my students that if two documents have word-for-word agreements(whether a newspaper article, an ancient narrative, or a plagiarized term paper), then someone is copying someone. And so I do a little experiment with them. I did it this last week. I walk into class, and start fussing around in front of the room (of 240 students). I put down my bag; I take out my books; I take off my coat; I put my books back in the bag; I fiddle with the powerpoint; I walk around; I put my coat back on – I do things. Students are puzzled. And then I tell them each to take out a piece of paper and a pen and to write down everything they’ve seen me do since I came into the room.

I then collect four papers, at random, and tell everyone that we are going to do a synoptic comparison. And I read, one by one, each paper, asking everyone else if anyone has a *single sentence* that is just like one of the four. The four are always completely different. And no one – ever, in my 30 years of teaching – has a sentence (or even four or five words in sequence) the same as any of the four.

Then I ask them what they would think if I picked up four papers from the class, and two of them had an entire paragraph, word for word the same. What would they think then? And of course they say “Someone was cheating.” Yes, of course! Someone was copying someone else. But then I ask, what if I didn’t do this exercise today, but I waited forty, fifty, or sixty years, and I didn’t ask you, but I asked four people each of whom knew someone who had a cousin whose wife was next door neighbors with someone whose brother once knew someone in the class to write what happened that day – and they had entire sentences that were exactly alike, word for word?

Inevitably someone cries out from the back row: It’s a miracle!!!

Yup, it’s a miracle. Or someone’s copying someone. Or both. But if someone’s copying someone, it’s important to know who’s copying whom, and once that problem is solved, and if it turns out that one of the Gospels was a source for the other two, then you can see how the other two changed that one, and by doing so, you can figure out what was of utmost importance to them in their retelling of the stories.

So you need to tell us which it is; facts that contradict each other and therefore only ONE is the correct or most accurate one, or fiction and someone made shit up.

Which is it? Which version is the historically accurate version of verifiable facts? You don't get to claim they are ALL factual. You can't both have a young man and no young man. Or two angels at the same time as there are no angels.

...4. faulty reasoning. Assumes authorship is the only means to your conclusion.

So, you are seriously arguing that there is another means to find out what someone thought from two thousand years ago aside from verifiable first person authorship? I'd ask you to present such an idiotic argument, but I'm tired of addressing idiotic arguments.

Also..... Do you understand the criterion of dissimilarity when it comes to multiple sources? Seriously do you?

Enough with the pathetic attempts at condescension. You are demonstrably at fault repeatedly. To whit:

So to counter your four points I offer............this pre-Gospel source.....

You mean, Paul? The same source I "offered"? What is the basis of his information? You gave the clue yourself:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received

I'll spoil it for you. He claims he had a vision.

This is pointless. You're done and you know it. It you want me to decimate any of your other points, by all means, post it on its own and not in this obvious gish gallop. Going through any more of your desperate nonsense is just tiring.

 

[Keith&Co.]

*sigh* . You're hanging your hat on the presumption that magic is "reasonable." That's simply unsupportable all on its own, so you've already self-defeated long before the gish gallop.

Silly Koy. You assess possibilities to determine the conclusions.
Remez knows to start with the conclusions. That way, possibilities that do not lead to the right conclusions can be eliminated, or even mocked as implausible. Much more efficient.