Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

[bluegreenearth]

For example:

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?

[Danmark]

You got it all wrong my friend. You see, if we had such evidence that the "Elvis sightings" would be something besides the "Elvis sightings" the we could use this evidence to demonstrate that it was not an, "Elvis sighting".

Elvis sightings are a perfect example. We all know Elvis is dead and those who claim to have seen him after death are mistaken. How is this different from the claim of Jesus' supporters, that THEY saw a dead man living?

In both cases we say, no, he's dead. The sightings are bogus. The difference is that the Jesus sighters are anonymous.

[Danmark]

The thread is about the reliability of faith. There has been no rebuttal to the claim that faith is not even an epistemology; that it is merely an exercise in agreeing with what one has been taught. Faith is nothing more than hope. There is nothing to distinguish faith in a green cheese moon, faith in Zeus, and faith that Jesus is God.

[Realworldjack]

Okay, you have the author of Matthew, the author of Mark, the author Luke, the author of John, along with the author of the letters of Paul.
.....
Okay? I just listed 5 authors, so how many does it take to make it numerous?

And all, save Paul are anonymous. We don't know who they were or what the basis of their claims were. We are left with Paul, who never saw Jesus tho' he lived at the same time. We have Paul who contradicts the first half of his life. We have Paul who had some kind of medical event that left him blind and delirious and apparently guilt ridden, who, after 3 days without food or drink, told the world of the thoughts or dreams he had when he was delirious.

THAT is your basis for belief based on faith? Only 'faith' would presume to be a foundation for such utter nonsense. One can have 'faith' in anything. Faith is the most unreliable method of knowing ever invented.

"Faith" = confirmation bias.

And all, save Paul are anonymous.

Okay? So could you please explain to us, how the authors not identifying themselves would have anything at all to do with the reports being true, or false? I really don't get the connection here?

Seriously? You act as if this is some kind of evidence the reports may be false, and I am simply attempting to figure out how you may be making this connection? Are we to assume that anyone who writes anonymously, must be doing so, because what they communicate may be suspect?

Next, I would imagine there may be some who communicate anonymously, because they would rather not have their identity, be known. However, I would also imagine there may be many who do not identify themselves, because they have no need in doing so.

In other words, if you were to tell me you need some sort of information from me, I may well write this information out, and send it to you without identifying who I am, because we both understand that you requested the information, and so you would know where the information is coming from, which would mean there would be no need in identifying who I am.

We don't know who they were or what the basis of their claims were.

This is not exactly accurate. One of the authors does tell his audience at the time, where he got his information, and the reason for his writing this information to him.

Luke 1:1-4 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

So then, as we can clearly see, this author tells his audience, who is someone by the name of Theophilus, where he got his information, and why he is writing this information, and the reason given is, so that "Theophilus can know the certainty of the things he has been taught".

Moreover, this is not the only letter this author writes to Theophilus, and in his second letter he begins to use the words "we" and "us" when describing the events concerning the missionary journeys of Paul, as if he is there to witness the events himself, and he uses these words, all the way, and up until Paul is arrested, and the letter ends with Paul continuing to be under arrest, and the author tells Theophilus, this arrest was at least 2 years long.

Now, as we turn our attention to the letters of Paul, we know that Paul mentions the name of Luke, several times in his letters, and sends greetings in the name of Luke, as if Luke is indeed with him, and then in a letter written to Timothy, which would have clearly been written while Paul was under arrest, we have Paul telling Timothy, "only Luke is with me".

With all this being the case, we have pretty strong evidence that Luke did indeed travel with Paul on his missionary journeys, Luke was with Paul while he was under arrest, and that Luke was indeed the author of the two letters to Theophilus.

What this means is, we can be confident this author traveled around with Paul, which would mean this author would have been alive during the life of Jesus, would have known Paul, along with the other apostles personally, and would have known the claims they were making, first hand.

Another thing we need to keep in mind as we read these two letters to Theophilus is the fact that, the author is addressing Theophilus, and has no concern nor any idea, that the letters he is writing would ever be read by anyone else, besides Theophilus, and this author certainly could not have any idea that the letters he is writing would one day be compiled into a book, we now call the Bible.

What this means is, this author's only concern was Theophilus, and therefore we are reading a letter which was written to Theophilus, and the author may have felt there would have been no need in identifying himself, since he may have known, that Theophilus would have been fully aware of who the information would be coming from.

We are left with Paul, who never saw Jesus tho' he lived at the same time.

Actually, now we know there would be Paul, and the author of the two letters to Theophilus, who would have been alive at the same time as Jesus, but this would also tell us that Paul, and this author would have known the other Apostles personally, would have spent a good deal of time with these Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making, first hand.

So then, since we know the information in the two letters to Theophilus, is coming from an individual who would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have known, and spent a lot of time with the Apostles, knowing the claims they were making first hand, and since the first letter to Theophilus contains much of the same information as the other 3 of what has been called Gospels, so much so, that the scholars complain the authors must have copied each other, then we can be confident this information would be coming from one who would have been right there at the time, and, or, very shortly after, so as to be able to investigate claims, as he assures Theophilus he had.

Now let us consider the fact that the two letters to Theophilus, along with the letters of Paul, take up the majority of the NT, which means we can be confident that the majority of the NT was recorded by those who would have been alive at the time, and as we can couple this with the fact that much of the same information which is given to Theophilus, would be pretty close to the information in the other writings which have been called gospels, so much so the scholars complain about copying, then we can be confident the overwhelming majority of the NT was written, and, or was confirmed, by those who would have been alive at the time, and would have known the Apostles, and the claims they were making first hand.

We have Paul who contradicts the first half of his life.

What we know beyond a reasonable doubt is that Paul was very opposed to Christianity to begin with, so much so he was traveling around doing all he could to put a stop to it, even going to the extent to allowing those who were followers to be dragged off to prison, and even consented to the death of, Steven, only to later convert, and begin traveling around now, becoming Christianity's biggest champion.

We have Paul who had some kind of medical event

This is simply an assumption which may be true, but this is not what was reported. So then, the facts as we have them are, Paul had some sort of experience, and this experience is said to be a visitation form the risen Christ. Anything beyond this would have to be, speculation.

left him blind and delirious and apparently guilt ridden, who, after 3 days without food or drink, told the world of the thoughts or dreams he had when he was delirious.

Again, what you say may be a possibility, but it would not be a fact we can know. What we can know is what is reported to have occurred, by the author of the second letter to Theophilus, and also Paul himself concerning this event, and as we read the letters of Paul, and understand how he was living his life for years, he does not seem to some across as one who is suffering any sort of mental problems.

I would also point out, the "going without food and water" is not reported to have occurred until after the event, and not before.

THAT is your basis for belief based on faith? Only 'faith' would presume to be a foundation for such utter nonsense. One can have 'faith' in anything. Faith is the most unreliable method of knowing ever invented.

"Faith" = confirmation bias.

No, you see, my belief in these things requires no faith at all, because my belief in these events, is based on the facts, and evidence we have, and when there are facts, and evidence, faith is not required.

As an example, as demonstrated above my understanding that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been alive during the time of Jesus, and that he would have traveled with Paul, and would have known the Apostles and the claims they were making first hand, is not based in faith at all, but is rather based in the facts, and evidence which demonstrates these facts, and therefore I need no faith at all to know these things.

In fact, I do not need faith to believe that Jesus walked the face of the earth. I do not need faith on order to understand that he was crucified. I need no faith in order to know that Jesus did in fact die. Faith is not required to understand that the tomb he was laid in, was later found empty. In fact, I do not need an ounce of faith in order to believe that Jesus was, Resurrected.

The reason I do not need faith in order to believe these things, is because there are facts, and evidence to support these things, and I can study, look at, analyze, and weigh these facts, and evidence.

What I would require faith to believe is, these events have caused the forgiveness of my sin. Because you see, and cannot see, study, analyze, touch, feel, or weigh forgiveness. Rather, this forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence to support the rest.

[Zzyzx]

.

Okay? So could you please explain to us, how the authors not identifying themselves would have anything at all to do with the reports being true, or false? I really don't get the connection here?

Knowing the identity of an account writer can help to determine if the account is accurate, truthful, biased, fabricated, etc.

A widely respected and trusted person giving an account carries more weight than an unknown person.

The fact that an author of an account remains anonymous can cast doubt upon veracity of the account " Unnamed sources / writers claim that so-and-so happened is rightfully given far less credibility than an account that identifies its sources / authors.

If an account by an unknown person is falsely attributed to a well respected and trusted person, that is FRAUD. It is an attempt to gain credibility by falsely attaching a famous name. A legitimate and honorable publication would not participate in such actions (or risk losing its own credibility when the fraud is exposed).

[Danmark]

Okay, you have the author of Matthew, the author of Mark, the author Luke, the author of John, along with the author of the letters of Paul.
.....
Okay? I just listed 5 authors, so how many does it take to make it numerous?

And all, save Paul are anonymous. We don't know who they were or what the basis of their claims were. We are left with Paul, who never saw Jesus tho' he lived at the same time. We have Paul who contradicts the first half of his life. We have Paul who had some kind of medical event that left him blind and delirious and apparently guilt ridden, who, after 3 days without food or drink, told the world of the thoughts or dreams he had when he was delirious.

THAT is your basis for belief based on faith? Only 'faith' would presume to be a foundation for such utter nonsense. One can have 'faith' in anything. Faith is the most unreliable method of knowing ever invented.

"Faith" = confirmation bias.

And all, save Paul are anonymous.

Okay? So could you please explain to us, how the authors not identifying themselves would have anything at all to do with the reports being true, or false? I really don't get the connection here?

Sure, anonymous reports are inherently less reliable because we know nothing about who is reporting. Both the law and journalism and basic common sense have long held this to be so. One problem is that there is no way to cross examine or otherwise critically investigate how and why the person may have said what they did.

What we have in the 'Gospels' is anonymous reporting followed by multiple hearsay; in other words, gossip.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 69 by benchwarmer]

And you believe these are all disconnected?

Why no! I happened to believe they were very well connected, so as to be very well antiquated with each other. However, there are those who insist that these authors are anonymous, and they go on to insist that we cannot know who they were, nor when, or where they wrote, and if we concede these things, then we cannot insist they would be connected in any way, because if we cannot know who they were, or when they may have written, then we have no way to demonstrate they would have been connected in any way, and simply because they report much of the same things, would not demonstrate they would be connected in any sort of way.

As an example, there were may folks who witnessed the events of 9-11, and many of them reported on what they saw, and many of them report the same events, but they are not connected in any way, other than being witnesses of the event.

So then, either we agree that these folks can be connected (which again, I believe they were), or we agree we cannot know who they were, which means we have no way to connect them at all, and the fact they report the same events, would not demonstrate they would have been connected in any way. The point being, you cannot have it both ways.

Given the obvious connection between the gospels and their dating, we've essentially just gone from 5 sources to 3. I don't consider people copying other peoples work and adding in new stuff to be original sources of information, at least the copied portion.

This is SO, SO COMICAL! Where are you getting the idea these authors copied each other? One thing I do know is, it is not an idea you came up with. So then, where are you getting this information? Well, let us see?

Historical-Critical Scholarship
More modern, historical-critical scholarship generally states that the Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66"70,[16] Matthew and Luke around AD 85"90,[17] and John AD 90"110.[18] Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses.[19] Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek.[20]

Certainly you can see now, why this is so hilarious? It is because you are placing your faith in these "scholars" and acting as if their opinion would be a fact, and it would be far from it, but for some reason you simply take their word for it, seemingly without giving it a moment of critical thought at all.

However, right now, I would like to know what the difference would be between Christians who simply accept what they have been told without really thinking about it, as opposed to those who put their faith in what the "scholars" have to say, without giving it a moment of critical thought? GOOD GRIEF!

First off, if you will notice, the quote you cite starts off with, "More modern, historical-critical scholarship generally states". Can you not see right here that this is not being stated as a fact? It's an opinion! To make this even more clear, it goes on to say, "that the Gospel of Mark probably". Do you see that word, "PROBABLY"? This should have indicated to you, they don't know! When they move on to Matthew, Luke, and John, that word, "PROBABLY" is still in effect.

At this point, in order to save me some time, since I have so many other post to respond to, allow me to simply copy and paste, what I have said to others, who had these very same objections,

Actually, it is not a fact according to the consensus of New Testament scholars from both the Christian and secular communities who acknowledge that the earliest known manuscripts of Luke-Acts are anonymous. Many modern scholars challenge the traditional view you've presented (Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 267"8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.) (Metzger, Bruce; Coogan, Michael (1993). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 'Acts of the Apostles', "Luke, The Gospel According to"). Of course, this doesn't disprove the traditional view but justifiably calls it into question.

And here is my response to this,

The first thing I will point out here is, you seem to be relying heavily upon the "scholars?" This seems to be no different than the many Christians who simply believe because of what others have to say.

While I have read, and considered what the "scholars" have to say, I do not simply take their word for it, nor do I accept something to be a fact, because of the opinion of the majority of these, "scholars". Rather, I attempt to determine if they may be correct, by analyzing the evidence for myself.

My point is, I am not presenting the "traditional view" as you suggest. Rather, I am simply reading the letter exactly the way in which it is written, and attempting to determine if there would be any reason we should not read it exactly as it is written, and comparing what is written in these letters, with things which may be written by someone else, to see if there may be evidence to be had.

So then, simply from the letters we read that this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events concerning the travels of Paul. Notice, that he does not do this in the first letter, and he does not use these words in the second letter until these journeys of Paul begin. He uses these words, all the way, and up until Paul travels to Rome to stand trial, and he ends this second letter with Paul being under arrest, waiting to stand trial, and he says this wait lasted some 2 years.

Now, as we move our attention to Paul, we have a letter written by Paul addressed to Timothy that would have clearly been written while Paul would have been under arrest. In this letter, Paul tells Timothy, "only Luke is with me."

So then, while the author of these letters never identifies himself to Theophilus, we have solid evidence from his second letter, along with the letters of Paul (because Paul mentions Luke in more than one letter) that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have in fact been Luke, since the author claims to have traveled with Paul, all the way, and up until Paul was under arrest, coupled with the fact that Paul says that at that time, "only Luke is with me".

This all means you would be correct to say, "Of course, this doesn't disprove the traditional view". However, I do not see how it would even qualify as, "justifiably calling it into question" with the evidence we have?

This is why one needs to analyze what the "scholars" have to say, instead of simply taking their word. In fact, many of the critics suggest that Paul would not have been the author of the letter to Timothy I referred to. Can you imagine why? Well, it is because they clearly understand that if Paul did indeed author this letter to Timothy, then it is pretty strong evidence in order to come to the conclusion that Luke was indeed the author of the two letters to Theophilus, and would have been alive during the life of Jesus, known the original Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making first hand.

So then, while there may be those who attempt to defend the content of the Bible who may hold a bias, or prejudice, and may also attempt to slant the evidence, I would suggest there may in fact be those who are opposed who may in fact be attempting to protect a bias.

Next is when he cites the scholars giving a date for Luke/Acts, which would be close to the same dates your "scholars" give for Luke/Acts. Notice carefully how it is said, "it doesn't conclusively demonstrate the author was alive during the time of Jesus".
This will become very important as we move on to his next comment, giving his evidence as to why this author "more than likely" could not have been alive during the life of Jesus if he indeed wrote, in 80-90.

Nevertheless, even if we assume for the moment that Luke-Acts was written by a companion of Paul, it doesn't conclusively demonstrate the author was alive during the time of Jesus. The consensus of scholars agree that Luke-Acts was probably written between 80-90 AD

My response to this,

Again, you seem to be relying upon the "scholars" very heavily? Again, how would this be any different than the Christian simply taking the word of others? You are pinning your conclusion on the "opinion of the scholars" that these letters were indeed "written between 80-90" when in fact it clearly says, "PROBABLY"!

Moreover, we have just analyzed evidence which would suggest the author did indeed travel with Paul, and as we couple this with what you say below concerning the age folks lived to at that time, this alone would be evidence that these "scholars" are grossly incorrect.

The fact of the matter is, there are "scholars" who hold to the idea that these letters would have been written somewhere in the late 50's to early 60's, and we have evidence to support this idea, so what is the evidence which would support the idea that these letters would have been written much later? It is not the idea that I have heard from any "scholar", but it is my idea that Luke would have used the two years Paul was awaiting trial in order to write these letters.

My whole point is here, you seem to be banking on these "scholars" getting it correct, while I am not taking the word of any "scholar" pro, or con, but rather analyzing the evidence for myself.

Now he is going to begin to talk about why he believes there is evidence that this author could not have been alive during the time of Jesus, if the author wrote in 80-90. Notice, he is not giving any room at all that these scholars might not have it right,

This would have been around 50 years after the Crucifixion and at least 35 years after Paul begin his missionary work. So, if the author of Luke-Acts was old enough to pal around with Paul at the start of his missionary work in approximately 45 AD (lets say 20 years old to be liberal), he would have been at least 60 years old when he wrote Luke-Acts. According to the consensus of experts in the field, if people in and around classical Rome were lucky enough to survive until they were 20 years old, they could expect to live no more than an additional 30 years on average. Given the odds, there is high probability that the author of Luke-Acts would not likely have survived long enough to write the 2 letters in 80-90 AD if he was old enough to have traveled and interacted with Paul and the other Apostles in 45 AD. Granted, it is possible the author could have beat the odds, but the point is that it would be irresponsible for us to ignore this evidence.

As you can see, he is banking on the fact the scholars have it right, ignoring the fact that we have overwhelming evidence that this author did indeed travel with Paul on his missionary journeys. So then, instead of acknowledging the scholars must be grossly incorrect, he simply assumes this author could not have been alive to travel with Paul, and write at this late of a date. At any rate, here is my response to this,

This all hinges on "IF" your "scholars" are correct, and keeping in mind the evidence we have seen, they seem to be incorrect, which means the "scholars" who hold to a much earlier date, late 50's to early 60's seems to in fact be the correct view.

At this point he gets into the something which ties into the idea the writers copied each other when he says,

In any case, we must ask why the author felt it was necessary to draft a completely independent account if there were other known attempts that already accomplished that task.

My response,

Okay, let's think about this? The author does in fact say that others had written accounts. Okay, so who did these other authors write their letters to? Who would they have been addressing? This means, the audience these other authors were addressing would have been in possession of that letter.

Let's keep in mind how painstaking, and time consuming copying these things would have been at this time. It is not like they would have had a "Kinkos" on every corner, in which to go in to make quick copies. This demonstrates that if there would have been more than one copy of any of these letters at the time, there could not possibly be very many, which would mean that everyone would not have the luxury of having their very own copy.

This goes on to demonstrate that the "scholars" who hold to the idea that Mark would have been the first gospel written, and Matthew, and Luke copied from Mark, is not very likely at all, since as I say, copies would be hard to come by.

With this being the case, since Luke would not have a copy of these other writings he is referring to, but knows about these writings, because he knows the folks who wrote them, and knew the original Apostles, along with Paul, and since he had the ability to "follow all these things himself from the beginning" he would have had no need to copy anyone, and he could give his own account as he knew it, since there would be no way for Theophilus to have a copy of what these others had written. Would this be a possibility?

Okay, this would be the end as far as my response to "Bluegreenearth". However, below I will supply a link where I respond to the idea that the authors copied from each other.

viewtopic.php?p=958829#958829


What has been demonstrated here is, your whole argument is coming directly from the "scholarly opinion", and you simply assume these opinions, must, and have to be facts, and as we have seen, most of these opinions, simply do not add up!

Therefore, what I would like to see now, is for you to defend the "scholarly opinion", instead of simply citing their opinions.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 69 by benchwarmer]

And you believe these are all disconnected?

Why no! I happened to believe they were very well connected, so as to be very well antiquated with each other.

Then why did you propose there were numerous and disconnected sources? Which is it? We either have a few connected sources or numerous disconnected sources. You can't seem to make up your mind or cite the numerous disconnected ones.

However, there are those who insist that these authors are anonymous, and they go on to insist that we cannot know who they were, nor when, or where they wrote, and if we concede these things, then we cannot insist they would be connected in any way, because if we cannot know who they were, or when they may have written, then we have no way to demonstrate they would have been connected in any way, and simply because they report much of the same things, would not demonstrate they would be connected in any sort of way.

This was already covered in my original post. Their connection to each other is supported through textual analysis and the dating of when they were written. You seem to want to ignore that for some reason.

As an example, there were may folks who witnessed the events of 9-11, and many of them reported on what they saw, and many of them report the same events, but they are not connected in any way, other than being witnesses of the event.

That's fine. Do we have one 9-11 witness writing down their account and then another one 20-30 years later writing pieces that are EXACTLY the same as the first witness and adding extra details?

It's known that witnesses will often report varying things even if the central theme is the same. Witnesses copying verbatim from reports decades earlier raises suspicion that they are possibly involved in plagiarism instead of giving their own account.

So then, either we agree that these folks can be connected (which again, I believe they were),

Great, where's our numerous disconnected sources then?

or we agree we cannot know who they were, which means we have no way to connect them at all, and the fact they report the same events, would not demonstrate they would have been connected in any way. The point being, you cannot have it both ways.

In fact we can have it both ways. Just because I don't know who wrote something down, if I can compare the texts and see verbatim sections of the writing are exactly the same, I become suspicious of copying and thus conclude there must have been some connection. i.e. at the very least one person has read what the earlier person wrote. Connection and anonymity. Voila.

Given the obvious connection between the gospels and their dating, we've essentially just gone from 5 sources to 3. I don't consider people copying other peoples work and adding in new stuff to be original sources of information, at least the copied portion.

This is SO, SO COMICAL! Where are you getting the idea these authors copied each other? One thing I do know is, it is not an idea you came up with. So then, where are you getting this information? Well, let us see?

I already explained where I got the idea. I would also appreciate it if you toned down the backhanded insults. This is supposed to be civil debate.

Peer reviewed scholarship from people who have spent years studying these things have determined various things about all sorts of things We can go read this scholarship and compare it to what we see in our Bibles. We can then either decide to ignore these people, both Christian and secular, (which you appear to be doing) or we can try to learn from them. Perhaps if you are in such disagreement with these scholars you should publish your own works for peer review.

Historical-Critical Scholarship
More modern, historical-critical scholarship generally states that the Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66"70,[16] Matthew and Luke around AD 85"90,[17] and John AD 90"110.[18] Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses.[19] Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek.[20]

Certainly you can see now, why this is so hilarious?

No, I don't. I see someone trying to lob soft insults on their interlocutor as way to distract from the debate.

It is because you are placing your faith in these "scholars" and acting as if their opinion would be a fact, and it would be far from it, but for some reason you simply take their word for it, seemingly without giving it a moment of critical thought at all.

You assume far too much. I read what they have to say then go look in my Bible. Well what do you know, they seem to be onto something. As in science, I also trust the peer review process and look for disconnected sources. When both Christian and secular scholars are agreeing on basic details, I take that as a good indication of what is likely true.

However, right now, I would like to know what the difference would be between Christians who simply accept what they have been told without really thinking about it, as opposed to those who put their faith in what the "scholars" have to say, without giving it a moment of critical thought? GOOD GRIEF!

Yes, good grief indeed. Since I haven't done that, I'm not sure who you are addressing at this point. Is there possibly a straw filled object you are talking to at this point?

First off, if you will notice, the quote you cite starts off with, "More modern, historical-critical scholarship generally states". Can you not see right here that this is not being stated as a fact? It's an opinion! To make this even more clear, it goes on to say, "that the Gospel of Mark probably". Do you see that word, "PROBABLY"? This should have indicated to you, they don't know! When they move on to Matthew, Luke, and John, that word, "PROBABLY" is still in effect.

Who said they knew for 100% sure? I'm well aware we are dealing with probabilities here, that's why I want your numerous, disconnected sources you promised. Got any?

At this point, in order to save me some time, since I have so many other post to respond to, allow me to simply copy and paste, what I have said to others, who had these very same objections

Noted and read.

I do appreciate you taking the time to respond since you have had so much to respond to. I would only ask that in the future you perhaps you just stick to the topic and lay off the characterizations of your fellow debaters.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 85 by Realworldjack]

Because you see, the only thing I am insisting at this point is, there are very good facts, reasons, and evidence to support the claims, which means there is very good reasons to believe the claims.

You make statements like this over and over and over, but when push comes to shove you never actually present any verified, irrefutable facts and evidence. Everything is based on 'could have, 'should have' or 'would have'. Please present some of the most compelling facts and evidence you have so that we can evaluate its credibility.

Okay, let's get back to it. It is a "verifiable, irrefutable fact" we have the claims made by the authors contained in the NT. Comparing these claims to other claims is completely useless, which is all you nave done up to this point. Because, as I have demonstrated, even if were to demonstrate the claims you are comparing the resurrection to, would indeed all be false, it would have no bearing whatsoever, as to whether the claim of the resurrection would be false.

It would also be a "verifiable, irrefutable fact" we have a reason given to explain the reports of the reports of the resurrection. Therefore, there is no need in us moving on to any of the other facts, and evidence we may have, until, or unless you deal with this first, "verifiable irrefutable" fact we have, and thus far you seem unwilling to do so, besides attempting to compare this claim, which you cannot explain, to other claims you cannot explain, and assuming they all must somehow compare, simply because you cannot explain them.

So then, when you are able to give us some sort of reason for the "verifiable, irrefutable fact" that we do indeed have these claims, along with reasons there would be to come to the conclusion these reports would be false, backed up with some sort of facts, and evidence in support, then there is really no need in moving on.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 98 by Realworldjack]

Okay, let's get back to it. It is a "verifiable, irrefutable fact" we have the claims made by the authors contained in the NT.

I had to stop right there. Already you have stumbled at the first hurdle. That there are claims is not being disputed. What is contained in those claims is what needs to be verified and established as facts.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 98 by Realworldjack]

Therefore, there is no need in us moving on to any of the other facts, and evidence we may have,....

I take that as being a strategy to avoid having to present any of the alleged facts and evidence supporting the resurrection when there actually aren't any. Got it. If you had any compelling facts and evidence there should be absolutely no rational reason for failing to present it and convince us of the truth of the alleged event.