Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[marco]

The central point of your argument is that the Evangelists were worthy historians.

Wrong

What you mean is you disagree. To be fair to you haven't advanced anything in support of the thread theme. You have concentrated on the detail of how we can accept someone is the author of a document. For argument's sake I conceded that it could have been anyone who wrote Pliny's letter - I don't for a second believe this - but I was simply humouring you, the point being thunderingly irrelevant unless we're taking as a parallel the authenticity of the gospel writers. We're not. The important question - one you've declined to address - is whether an event took place. With the Eruption it is patently true. All your arguing over Pliny's credentials gets you nowhere at this point - but I'm sure you realised this.

I have to accept some of the blame for taking this debate into absurd irrelevance since I indulged you with your demands for methodology in establishing truth about historical figures. Let me drag the debate back to where it should be - and leave Pliny alone.
We are asked: "Is the Resurrection historical fact?" Never mind whether it is historical -it is not a fact. There have been various non-miraculous explanations put forward and so it becomes a matter of opinion. It is not mentioned by people we regard as historians. The tiny references we have are to Christ or his death, not to any resurrection. If Christ successfully raised himself but didn't have the good sense to prove his resurrection to anyone but a few close pals, we can safely deduce that Christ, if he died, didn't return.

If you have no answer to this - the point of the thread - then may I take your silence as acceptance that the Resurrection is not a historical fact?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 228 by WinePusher]

You may disagree, but then that puts you at odds with every single historian who accepts the biographies of Alexander the Great which were written centuries after the events.

Fine then, I'm at odds with them. Besides, if I were to guess, they'd probably think the same as I do - they accept the biographies of Alexander on a provisional level, and are probably willing to discard them if ever there was a reason to.

The fact that the resurrection of Jesus is the most important event in history for Christians has NO relevance to whether or not it actually happened.

Let's assume for a moment that I agree there was a resurrection. This then means that it's very likely that the importance of such an event, as told by Christians, is true as well. This would mean that I'd have been wrong about a great many things. So, in order to stop me from changing my beliefs in too great of a hurry, I demand evidence of the resurrection beyond the Gospel accounts.

That depends on several things. Are you writing based off of memories from what you saw on the news? Are you writing as a first hand eye witness who was actually present as JFK drove down the street? What is the purpose of your article? To convince JFK truthers that JFK was actually assassinated? You will have to be more specific.

No I don't have to be more specific. All I'm going to do is write an account of that day in Dallas Texas. Like the Gospels, I won't say who I am, or where I got my sources from. I won't say whether I saw the event in question first hand or am using other people's accounts.
Oh, and I'll also say at the end that JFK got up and did a break-dance, despite having multiple gunshot wounds in him.
According to what you do with the Gospels, this should be convincing to you. You should be convinced of whatever it is I write about JFK up to and including the break-dance.

So if 2000 years from now someone finds your article about the assassination of JFK and your article is the ONLY piece of evidence to have survived then they would have to take it seriously.

Even if I write that JFK did a break-dance despite being pumped full of bullets and having lost pretty much all of his blood?
There are biographies and histories of Egyptian pharaohs. Historians provisionally believe the histories, but they don't believe the outlandish fantastical claims like that the pharaohs were gods on Earth.
Your attitude seems to be 'take it or leave it', as in, believe ALL of the account, or believe none of it.

However, the identity of the Gospel writers is not a relevant factor when determining which events described in the Gospels actually happened.

Technically, you're right, but since the claim is so fantastical, having the identity of the author would help a great deal. We don't really need an identity for the author of a blog post for Obama's second swearing in as president...but we kinda do if the blog's author writes that Obama revealed himself to be a lizard man.

The baptism of Jesus has been established with a high degree of certainty,

What exactly do you mean here? Do you mean the sprinkling of water on the head of a man called Jesus by another man called John? Do you include the claim of a voice from the heavens saying "This is my son" (or whatever the exact quote is), as having been established?
If it's the former, so what? Lots of people, yours truly included, had water sprinkled on their heads. There's nothing strange or fantastical about that.
If the latter...well, I await more evidence before I'll believe such a claim.

The fact that the Gospels were written decades after the events they describe is NOT a strike against their authenticity. To believe such a demonstrably false idea puts you at odds with historians.

The fact that the Gospels (and other NT books) are the sole source of the magical claims about Jesus (him healing, conjuring up food, walking on water, him being God or one with God or however it is you think about it), yet these books are for the most part anonymous, with no originals known to exist today, and to our best determination they were written decades after the events they describe (thus meaning there's plenty of time for fantastical details to get mixed in)...and yet you think they're still believable, shows only that you lack an understanding of how to work with history.

So in other words, what you believe about history depends on how your life is impacted. You can believe whatever you want, but just know that this isn't how history works. Whether or not your life or my life is impacted by a historical event as no relevance to whether the event actually happened.

That isn't my sole determinator.
As it stands now, yes, the only biographies we have for Alex are centuries after the fact. However, I believe them now, on a provisional level, but not all of their claims. I believe that Alex became king at a relatively young age, that he was very skilled at tactics and strategies and that he conquered a vast empire, precisely because those are ordinary claims. It's not like conquering an empire violates the known laws of physics.
If they say that Alexander was a god (if I'm remembering what I learned about him from childhood correctly, Alex was called a god at one point during his conquests), I won't believe that, precisely because it's just a claim with no supporting evidence.
However, let's imagine for now that ALL the biographies for Alex are false. There never was an Alexander the Great. Let's say evidence is dug up tomorrow that passes any and all tests. Well then, what changes for the average person?

[Inigo Montoya]

WinePusher wrote: The exact identity of the Gospel writers is disputable.

''Disputable'' is generous. More accurately, it is simply unknown. Disputable makes it sound as though there's a fringe group wailing that the authorship doesn't match the books' namesakes. The reality is far worse than that.

However, the identity of the Gospel writers is not a relevant factor when determining which events described in the Gospels actually happened.

Right. Anyone could have written these stories and it makes no difference to whether the story is true. A blind, deaf, and mute 4 year old could have written them and it would make ZERO difference. Really?

The baptism of Jesus has been established with a high degree of certainty, even though the authors of the synoptic Gospels haven't been established.

In what way has the baptism been established to a high degree of certainty?

The fact that the Gospels were written decades after the events they describe is NOT a strike against their authenticity. To believe such a demonstrably false idea puts you at odds with historians.

It's a matter of degree. It's not a strike-OUT, per se, but it is a minor annoyance when a contemporary account might be more useful. Surely you'd agree a contemporary account would be more useful than what we have, yes? Your point stands, but it's relative, and doesn't dismiss the time lapse.

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is indisputable

This is exceedingly sloppy. Of course it's disputable. It's BEEN disputed. There are entire mythicist movements and literature on this exact dispute. Because your opinion is that the mythicist movement has no traction is of no relevance to the point that you're simply wrong here. Do you have evidence that is wholly indisputable about the man existing? No, you do not.


Yourself and Goose are quiet on the posts I've asked you to address. I suppose add this one to the commentary if you can get around to it.

[Goose]

For argument's sake I conceded that it could have been anyone who wrote Pliny's letter - I don't for a second believe this - but I was simply humouring you, the point being thunderingly irrelevant unless we're taking as a parallel the authenticity of the gospel writers. We're not.

Well yes we are. That’s part of the argument. You see, on the one hand you wish to assert Pliny’s account of Vesuvius was an eyewitness account. But on the other hand you want to argue the resurrection doesn’t receive even a whisper in the historical record. You want to do this without telling us how you know Pliny’s letter was really written by Pliny.

At any rate, since you’ve clarified that your position is that Pliny wrote an eyewitness account of the eruption we now have a baseline to establish what constitutes an eyewitness account. And in historical methodology eyewitness accounts carry more weight than second hand accounts.

The important question - one you've declined to address - is whether an event took place.

Actually I have addressed this way back on page 4 in this post where I provided the evidence for the resurrection. But you may have missed that. Here I'll post the evidence again.

1. The testimony of Peter who was an eyewitness.

�Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…� – 1Peter 1:3-4

1 Peter internally self identifies and its authenticity is undisputed in the early church. If you wish to overturn this you’ll need something much weightier than simply implying the possibility of pseudonymity combined with easily overturned stylistic arguments around such things as the good Greek. The latter of which is easily overturned by an appeal to the letter itself at 5:12 where Peter is likely telling his readers he has used an amanuensis.

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death…� – Peter, as recorded by Luke in Acts 2:22-24

�The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.� – Peter, as recorded by Luke in Acts 3:13-15.


2. An eyewitness account in John.

�Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.� – Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1, c. 180AD.

Irenaeus tells us he met Polycarp who knew the disciples including John. So we have an unbroken line coming down to us from around 100 years after the last Gospel was probably written.

Not that we even need it after Irenaeus' testimony, but here is more external evidence for John.

�But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times.� – Eusebius, Church History 3.24.17

�But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.� – Clement, as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.14.7

�Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.' And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.� – Origen, as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.25.4-7

Additionally, even if we cannot reasonably establish the Gospel of John’s authorship, which I believe we can, the gospel itself internally claims to be written by a witness.

�And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.� - John 1:14

� And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.� – John 19:35

The epilogue confirmed the text was written by a disciple.

�This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.� - John 21:24


3. An eyewitness account in Matthew

“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.�- Papias, as recorded by Eusebius CH 3.39.16

�Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.� - Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1

The early church conflated the Hebrew Matthew with our Greek one because in their mind they were the same work. For instance see Eusebius’ CH 3.24.6-9.


4. The letter’s and testimony of Paul who met witnesses

�He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.� – Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:4-8

Even if we do not grant Paul’s experience as being on par with the disciples, at the very least, Paul is a former enemy and contemporary who also met witnesses (Galatians ch. 1&2)


5. The account of Luke who met witnesses.

�Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.� – Luke 1:1-4

Luke was also a companion of Paul so there’s no good reason to think Luke wasn’t alive at the same time as witnesses and in a position to speak to them.


6. The account of Mark who met witnesses.

�Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.� – Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, CH 3.39.15


7. The first letter of Clement who met witnesses.

Firstly, Paul knew Clement…

�Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.� – Philippians 4.3

Clement met the apostles including Peter…

“[Clement], as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…� – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.3.

�For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records…the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.� – Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, 32


8.The Letters of Polycarp who met witnesses

�But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.� – Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.4

�For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John...� – Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, 32

Now, Polycarp’s words…

�[O]ur Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave� - Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 1.

�Wherefore, girding up your loins, serve the Lord in fear and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave Him glory, and a throne at His right hand.� - Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 2.


9. The letters of Ignatius who met witnesses.

�When Trajan, not long since, succeeded to the empire of the Romans, Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle…� – The Martyrdom of Ignatius.

�At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first…At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.� – Eusebius, CH, 3.22-3.23.1

Now, Ignatius’ words…

�I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant.� – Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 4.

�under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection� - Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 1.

�For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.� - Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 3.[/quote][/quote]

With the Eruption it is patently true.

Okay let’s use this event as a baseline to establish that an event is a historical fact. Tell us the methodology you used to arrive the conclusion it is patently true Mt. Vesuvius erupted in 79AD. Let’s then run the evidence for resurrection through that same methodology and see how it fairs. Agreed?

[Goose]

''Disputable'' is generous. More accurately, it is simply unknown. Disputable makes it sound as though there's a fringe group wailing that the authorship doesn't match the books' namesakes. The reality is far worse than that.

We know the identity of the Gospel writers with as good, if not even better, external evidence as we have for other secular works not disputed.

Yourself and Goose are quiet on the posts I've asked you to address.

You mean the one where you wanted us to pretend we were atheists?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 233 by Goose]

I want you to answer whether or not a presupposition in your god's existence is necessary to defend this resurrection occurred, as the two of you do nearly identically. If the historical methodology behind your argument is as strong as you think it is, any reasonable non-theists* should support a resurrection from a purely historical framework, yes? Why isn't that the case?

And since you know the identity of the authors, please explain who authored each, how you know this, and who ''we'' is that seem to know it.

Edit: any reasonable non-Christian*

[Willum]

Remember, Egyptian and Greek religions had people resurrected from before time. Given so many tales of Theseus, Asclepius, etc., it is unlikely that there isn't some truth to the legend.

Just think of the sensation of the time near 0 AD. When that event occurred it would be spoken about written about discussed everywhere in Rome, Palestine, even as far away as Africa, China and India, every civilized nation would have the man who came back from the dead in their headlines and gossip, even if it took 6-24 months for them to hear about it...

Now you tell one.

[marco]

At any rate, since you’ve clarified that your position is that Pliny wrote an eyewitness account of the eruption we now have a baseline to establish what constitutes an eyewitness account. And in historical methodology eyewitness accounts carry more weight than second hand accounts.

I admire your certainty. I have no problem with saying eye-witness accounts carry more weight than second hand accounts. It would, of course, depend greatly on what event was being witnessed.
I understand that on the day of the supposed Resurrection Christ showed himself five times.... to Mary Magdalene, to devout women, to Peter, to two disciples on the way to Emmaus and then to the apostles, without Thomas.

Usually, this would be sufficient to confirm some event. But there are several questions, since the conclusion you wish to take is one involving something impossible. The obvious first thing to do would be to examine the witnesses. Did they have a vested interest in saying what they saw?
Next we can look for an explanation other than miracle? Can we find any?
Then we have to go back and ask, if Christ DID appear, presumably in possession of the clothes he was stripped of, was his a dead body resurrected or a body that had never died?

All the references to the gospel accounts must return to these first principles. This would of course not be necessary were they all witness to a battle, a birth, a star - for there would be no need to question what seemed to be reliable people.

(I) I don't know how reliable the witnesses are but I suppose we can accept they did see someone.
(2) A non-miraculous explanation would arise from delusion. There could also have been someone who impersonated Christ? Is this a better explanation than a walking corpse? How do we explain the occurrence at Fatima over 100 years ago? Did Mary actually appear or were the witnesses somehow all deluded?
(3) I am inclined to believe Christ didn't die on the cross. The donation of a tomb, by Joseph of Arimathea, could have been done to provide a place that was already suited for a body to get out.

There are natural explanations to be taken before we move to the miraculous. Let us suppose the events took place last Sunday. Would we so readily reach a conclusion that a corpse walked? We would subject everything and everyone to intensive tests. There were no tests done. People are simply asked to believe in an impossible event because some simple folk say they saw a corpse walking about.

The other ridiculous thing is that the physical being appeared and vanished somewhere. Then came back out again, then went away. Truly magical, but beyond belief.

Remember that a few centuries AFTER your authorities made statements about a resurrected body, the church was burning people for attesting the Earth orbited the sun. Is it reasonable to accept the word of such unsophisticated folk regarding a body rising from the grave?

Regarding Vesuvius, I said it was patently true it erupted. I didn't mention 79AD. You will note that one witness to this event, hearing the accounts of those who were rescuing people, is enough for historians. To accept their testimony does NOT involve believing the impossible. Sense and reason are not overturned by believing Pliny; they are by accepting the Resurrection.

Reason therefore concludes there was NO Resurrection. Hence it is NOT a historical fact.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 232 by Goose]

And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.� – John 19:35

Wow - so John testifies that what he's saying is true because he knows it to be true...and that's good enough for you, Goose? Are you John? No? Then why use that as evidence?

But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times.

And we're supposed to just take this as gospel (stop snickering you in the back!) truth? Eusebius says that there is no dispute, so therefore there is no dispute and there can be no dispute?

But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.

What is a spiritual gospel, versus a non-spiritual one? Why should I or anyone else believe that this John was 'inspired by the spirit'? Just because this Clement says so? Remember, this is sorta like those histories of pharaohs. We (historians) believe the mundane, secular things about the pharaohs, but we don't believe the claims of their godhood.

The epilogue confirmed the text was written by a disciple.

You mean claims there. Last I had checked, John was dated to about a hundred years after Jesus.

3. An eyewitness account in Matthew

Your two quotes there don't say anything at all about Matthew being an eyewitness, just that he wrote in Hebrew.

4. The letter’s and testimony of Paul who met witnesses

Of course, the mysterious 500. What do we know about this event, these people? Literally nothing. Paul is the only person who mentions this 500 people thing, and it is mentioned nowhere else. We don't have any writings from anyone else, least of all the 500 people themselves.

The account of Mark who met witnesses.

So let me see if I have it right. A one Papias, as written by a second person, Eusebius, is claimed to have said that a third person, Mark, was an interpreter of Peter.
This is what? Fourth hand 'knowledge'? And in Papias's opinion, Mark made no error? Am I supposed to take Papias's opinion as gospel truth?

Tell us the methodology you used to arrive the conclusion it is patently true Mt. Vesuvius erupted in 79AD. Let’s then run the evidence for resurrection through that same methodology and see how it fairs. Agreed?

The stratigraphic and magnetic evidence here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruption_ ... ic_studies
Notice we cannot do the same with the resurrection. There simply is nothing to measure, nothing at all.

[WinePusher]

The baptism of Jesus has been established with a high degree of certainty, even though the authors of the synoptic Gospels haven't been established.

In what way has the baptism been established to a high degree of certainty?

You have admitted that you've read nothing on this subject right? How can you hope to have a substantive debate on a subject that you admit you haven't read anything about? You see, if you would actually take the time to read a textbook on New Testament studies you would realize that the Baptism of Jesus is an event that virtually all scholars say occurred, including John Dominic Crossan, a liberal scholar.

By applying the historical critical method, scholars of both liberal and conservative tendencies concluded that the Jesus was actually baptized by John the Baptist at the Jordan river. If you are unfamiliar with how the historical critical method works then please, go read about it.

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is indisputable

This is exceedingly sloppy.

Wait, how would you know? You have admitted to having read nothing on this subject so you are in no position to criticize anything I say.

Of course it's disputable. It's BEEN disputed. There are entire mythicist movements and literature on this exact dispute. Because your opinion is that the mythicist movement has no traction is of no relevance to the point that you're simply wrong here. Do you have evidence that is wholly indisputable about the man existing? No, you do not.

Wow, what a terribly weak argument. Evolution has been disputed, there are entire CREATIONIST movements and literature on the dispute. Because your opinion is that the creationist movement has no traction is of no relevance. Understand how inane your argument is yet?

Yourself and Goose are quiet on the posts I've asked you to address. I suppose add this one to the commentary if you can get around to it.

The post where you just ask a bunch of questions? Like I said, I'm not here to answer your little meaningless questions. If you want to have a question and answer session there is another subforum for that. If you want to have a debate session, try re-writing your little questions in some type of coherent argument and I'll respond.