WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

[POI]

I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now. As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side". This goes for both theists and atheists alike...

I've delved into the 'psychology of believe', in the passed. However, these topics below look to be my biggest 'findings' thus far, as to why so many believe....

- Most are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of (type 1 errors). We all commit them BTW.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination. - It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.
- (Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics)

I feel it's safe to assume that we will always have more god believers, verses 'atheists'. Apologetics, though fun to debate, hardly ever IS the reason someone becomes a 'god believer'. "It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?"

One last thing, before I pose the question(s) for examination...

I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.

Again, seems all roads, with Christians, seemingly often times leads to Romans 1. Anywho, moving along... Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #180]

You are missing the whole point of why I am mentioning Paul. I do not know how to better say it? Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. We all agree we have genuine Pauline letters. The Pauline letters could not possibly date as late as you have the gospels. We have very good evidence the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. With this being the case, the two letters addressed to Theophilus could not have possibly been authored in the 80s. Therefore, we have a gospel that would have dated before 70AD.

https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/node/1754

This is exactly what I figured. In other words, when you were a Christian, you simply took the word of others, and now that you have changed the mind, you continue to simply take the word of others.

From the article,

The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 C.E

It simply makes a statement without giving any sort of evidence to back up such a claim, and you simply take their word. All the while ignoring the fact, we have very strong evidence to support the author of the letters to Theophilus being alive at the time of the events, which gives us a gospel that could not have been as late as 80AD.

The article continues on'

none of the four gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus.

Again, it makes a statement without the first bit of evidence to back up such a statement, and you simply take them at their word.

It continues,

Mark, the earliest gospel, was likely written just after the destruction of the second Jerusalem Temple in 70 C.E, and was known by both Matthew and Luke when they undertook the task of producing their own narratives.

I mean, where are they getting this stuff from? I will guarantee you this author would have to concede the author of the letters to Theophilus gives certain reasons to believe he would have witnessed some of the things he reports, which would clearly demonstrate he would have been alive at the time of the events he records, which would then give us a gospel that could not possibly date as late as they would like you to believe.

They also go on to claim the gospel of Mark, would have been known by the authors of Matthew, and Luke. Again, where are they getting this from? I mean do you understand what a painstaking task it would be for copies to be made in that time? My friend, they did not have a "Kinkos" on every corner so as to make copies, and yet, we are to believe these folks somehow copied from Mark? GOOD GRIEF!

I said,

Oh really? Well, I have given you plenty of evidence to support a companion of Paul as being the author of the letters to Theophilus. So, what evidence can you share with us which would give us the impression the letters addressed to Theophilus would have been authored as late as 80AD?

To which you reply,

I mentioned the (4) Gospels. Not sure why you keep bringing up what Paul claims?

My statement above has nothing to do with anything that Paul would have claimed. We have very good evidence in order to suggest the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul. Ergo, we have very good evidence one of the Gospels would have been authored by one who would have been alive at the time. That my friend would be solid evidence that at least one of the gospels could not have been authored as late as you would like us to believe. What we need now is for you to give us some sort of evidence the author of this gospel would not have been alive at the time, along with evidence in support to the late dates given for the other 3 gospels, and simply supplying us with an article which tells us this is the case, does not count as evidence.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #180]

You are missing the whole point of why I am mentioning Paul. I do not know how to better say it? 1. Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. 2. We all agree we have genuine Pauline letters. 3. The Pauline letters could not possibly date as late as you have the gospels. 4. We have very good evidence the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. With this being the case, the two letters addressed to Theophilus could not have possibly been authored in the 80s. 5. Therefore, we have a gospel that would have dated before 70AD.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. ?? -- See below...
5. So your argument is that "Luke" was written before Mark? If we have no verification, like we at least do with 'Paul', how do you know who wrote what, and when?

*************************************

Interesting.... Why should I take your word here? Being that you ignore a majority of my observations, I'm less inclined to do so... (i.e.)

-- Why accept Paul's claim at face value, especially when it's 'supernatural'?
-- Is an 'eyewitness', who is not deposed, automatically deemed credible, simply because they were persecuted and passionate?
-- How many other verified names of deposed 'eyewitnesses' do we actually have?
-- How likely is it that the 4 Gospel writers were direct eyewitnesses, in light of the given life expectancy?
-- How likely is it that Jesus was buried in a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers?

And again:

"Thus far, we apparently have a very small handful, at BEST, of (not deposed) 'eyewitnesses'?" What part of this needs more clarification????

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #182]

Let's take one thing at the time here,

So your argument is that "Luke" was written before Mark?

NO! My argument is, we have very strong evidence the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, which would demonstrate the letters he authored to Theophilus would be inside the same date range of Paul's letters. Can you see that? This would have nothing to do with the date of what has been called Mark. I am not giving a date for Mark, that would be you. In other words, you have been told the date of the gospels, and you have accepted what you have been told without any evidence in support of what you have accepted. Ergo, you can go on to assume that since I am arguing we have very good evidence the letters to Theophilus would have been authored in the same date range as the letters of Paul, this leads you to believe I am arguing the first letter to Theophilus would have been authored before Mark, because you have simply accepted the date for Mark, with no evidence in support.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #182]

If we have no verification, like we at least do with 'Paul', how do you know who wrote what, and when?

Let's examine the actual evidence. You have admitted we do have some "verification for Paul", and it is clear Paul would have authored all his letters before the year 70AD. Okay, we have letters in which the author clearly identifies as Paul, and in these letters, he mentions Luke as being a traveling companion. The author of the second letter to Theophilus, just so happens to begin to use the words, "we" and "us" when describing the travels of Paul, as if he is actually there to witness what he is recording and ends this letter with Paul being under arrest. In a letter to Timothy, it is clear that Paul was under arrest, just as the author to Theophilus describes, and in this letter, Paul just so happens to mention to Timothy in passing, "only Luke is with me". Since we now have a very good idea Luke would have been the only one left with Paul during this arrest, we have a pretty good idea who it would have been who could have actually reported upon Paul, all the way, and up until he would have been under arrest, and end his letter there. I do not care how you slice it here? This would be pretty strong evidence Luke would have indeed been the author of the letters to Theophilus, which would go on to tell us these letters would have had to have been authored, inside the same date range as the letters of Paul, which we would have to agree would have to be before the year 70AD.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #182]

Let's take one thing at the time here,

So your argument is that "Luke" was written before Mark?

NO! My argument is, we have very strong evidence the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, which would demonstrate the letters he authored to Theophilus would be inside the same date range of Paul's letters. Can you see that?

YES! I saw this, and even acknowledged this many times now. Remember when I stated "Paul and co........... etc", "Paul and friends..........etc", and "Thus far, we apparently have a very small handful, at BEST, of (not deposed) 'eyewitnesses'?"

you have accepted what you have been told without any evidence in support of what you have accepted.

Prove it.

And I'm sure all the historians, who have confidence that "Mark" was written (~70 - 80AD), pulled these random numbers out of their keisters, right?

********************

Now to my perpetually unanswered observations/questions:

-- Why accept Paul's claim at face value, especially when it's 'supernatural'?
-- Is an 'eyewitness', who is not deposed, automatically deemed credible, simply because they were persecuted and passionate?
-- How many other verified names of deposed 'eyewitnesses' do we actually have?
-- How likely is it that the 4 Gospel writers were direct eyewitnesses, in light of the given life expectancy?
-- How likely is it that Jesus was buried in a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #185]

YES! I saw this, and even acknowledged this many times now.

Okay then, you are acknowledging we have very good reasons to believe we have a gospel which would have been authored before 70AD, which goes against the article you supplied which has this gospel dated at, "roughly 85AD" without giving one shred of evidence to support this to be the case. Ergo, if your "scholars" seem to be so far off in dating this gospel, what gives you the impression they would be correct concerning the others?

Prove it.

I think you already have. You did this by assuming I was attempting to date Luke before Mark. The only reason I can imagine how you could have come to such a conclusion is because you have simply accepted the date of Mark given in the article without a shred of evidence in support. Why else would you assume I was attempting to date Luke before Mark, when I never mentioned Mark?

And I'm sure all the historians, who have confidence that "Mark" was written (~70 - 80AD), pulled these random numbers out of their keisters, right?

If we go by the article you have supplied, we would have no idea, because they never give us any reason at all.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #185]

YES! I saw this, and even acknowledged this many times now.

Okay then, you are acknowledging we have very good reasons to believe we have a gospel which would have been authored before 70AD, which goes against the article you supplied which has this gospel dated at, "roughly 85AD" without giving one shred of evidence to support this to be the case. Ergo, if your "scholars" seem to be so far off in dating this gospel, what gives you the impression they would be correct concerning the others?

Well, no. Please recall what I've been saying in many posts now (i.e.) "Thus far, we apparently have a very small handful, at BEST, of (not deposed) 'eyewitnesses'?"

I do not have 'very good reasons' to believe we have a Gospel which would have been authored before 70AD. In fact, I have virtually no reasons to believe, much above your given assertion in this exchange thus far.

I trust you would agree, that we have 'reasons' to believe Paul authored many later canonized Books, which we now know to be the NT. Moving forward...

Who actually authored what is now referred to as "Luke-Acts"?
How are you so confident in 'knowing' who actually wrote "Luke-Acts"?
How are you so confident in 'knowing' what year the original publication was formulated?
How are you so confident in "knowing" the said eyewitness companion was even literate?
What is the likelihood that such said "second eyewitness" was also alive long enough to write this attestation?

Even if you were to establish all of the above, (in direct defiance to pitfalls of early antiquity), we then move forward to the many unanswered questions, for which I will paste here, for a third time now:

-- Why accept Paul's/other claim(s) at face value, especially when it's 'supernatural'?
-- Is an 'eyewitness', who is not deposed, automatically deemed credible, simply because they were persecuted and passionate?
-- How many other verified names of deposed 'eyewitnesses' do we actually have?
-- How likely is it that the 4 Gospel writers were direct eyewitnesses, in light of the given life expectancy?
-- How likely is it that Jesus was buried in a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers?

Prove it.

I think you already have. You did this by assuming I was attempting to date Luke before Mark. The only reason I can imagine how you could have come to such a conclusion is because you have simply accepted the date of Mark given in the article without a shred of evidence in support. Why else would you assume I was attempting to date Luke before Mark, when I never mentioned Mark?

Ratz! Foiled again! Yes, I pinned all my hopes and dreams on the link given. I ascertained all my beliefs about the Gospel dating from there.... Please... I asked you a question, for which you did not appear to really answer...

Do you think many historians pulled these dates out of their keisters? It's a yes or no question. Quite simple.

Heck, I'm sure none of them even thought to consider your given assertion.

Please remember, I accepted your claim that Paul wrote what Paul wrote. And it's not just because I have simply accepted the dates of Paul's writings, "without a shred of evidence in support".

[Difflugia]

Let's examine the actual evidence. You have admitted we do have some "verification for Paul", and it is clear Paul would have authored all his letters before the year 70AD.

Assuming the tradition of Paul's death in AD 64 is accurate, yes.

Okay, we have letters in which the author clearly identifies as Paul, and in these letters, he mentions Luke as being a traveling companion.

No. Luke is mentioned in one of the undisputed Paulines, Philemon, and only as someone for whom Paul is offering greetings. Colossians is considered by most scholars to be pseudepigraphical, but modeled after Philemon. In Colossians, "Paul" offers similar greetings on Luke's behalf. 2 Timothy is the closest that one might come to inferring the status of "travelling companion," but was almost certainly not written by Paul. Even there, all "Paul" says is that Luke is "with" him when the letter is written.

The author of the second letter to Theophilus, just so happens to begin to use the words, "we" and "us" when describing the travels of Paul, as if he is actually there to witness what he is recording and ends this letter with Paul being under arrest.

This wording is the source of the whole "travelling companion" tradition in the first place and is the sole source of evidence for it.

In a letter to Timothy, it is clear that Paul was under arrest, just as the author to Theophilus describes,

The imprisonment in 2 Timothy isn't mentioned in Acts (or if you'd prefer, "2 Theophilus"). Apologists generally refer to the imprisonment in Acts as Paul's first imprisonment in Rome and the one in 2 Timothy as his second.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #176]

After many exchanges, it appears (the 'facts' and 'evidence' for a man rising from the grave, which gives you a high degree in confidence that Christianity is true) would be the <main reason / primary reason> as to why you are now a Christian. Why is this so hard for you to admit outright?

What I continue to attempt to explain to you is there is not a main reason. Rather, there would be many different reasons, and when you combine all these reasons is where I begin to draw my conclusion. Therefore, there is no main reason. Why do you find this difficult? Could it be the fact that you admit to being a convinced Christian for no reason at all, besides accepting what you were told? Ergo, this gives you the impression we as Christians must, and have to narrow our reason down to some sort of main reason? I really believe the "main reason" you are looking for one to give a "main reason" is in order for you to be able to go on to attack this "main reason" with your falsification argument, which I have demonstrated would have nothing to do with whether there would be fact, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims.

You see, we continue to have the same arguments over, and over, which is why I said there is really no need in answering all these things because it is pointless. The question you need to answer in order to end this part of the conversation once and for all is, "would the fact a claim is unfalsifiable be a reason to doubt the claim?" If it is not, then what is the point?

I have also stated, more than once now, "the question remains, what IS true?"

One thing which would be true is, we have all the facts, and evidence for a reason. If you have come to the conclusion that it is best to doubt these things, then I have no problem with your opinion. But please do not attempt to insist your opinion is the correct opinion and there would be no reason to believe the claims.

What exactly is the objective in a debate?

I would suggest it is to demonstrate a point.

Further, how do I plan on 'winning', when I admit, straight away, that I cannot falsify your belief?

And around, and around we go! Would a claim being unfalsifiable be a cause to doubt the claim? Well no. Therefore, you only point would be that my belief is safe because it is unfalsifiable, which has nothing to do with the facts, and evidence we have, as to whether there would indeed be facts, evidence, and reason to believe the claim. The point is again, you continue to bring things into the conversation which would have nothing to do with it. If you bring this up again, I guess I will have to "rinse repeat".

- Many ancient people were superstitious...

Am I simply to take this to be a fact? Even if it would be a fact, how in the world would this be evidence against the claims? I mean we cannot go through the whole of the NT, but if we take a look at the letters addressed to Theophilus no one would come away with the idea this author was explaining some sort of superstition. Rather, one who takes the natural reading would come away with the idea this author is describing at least what he claims to be, historical events. If this sort of thing causes doubt in your mind, I have no problem with that. But please let us not pretend it is a reason to doubt the claims.

- I no longer believe in the supernatural. Hence, it's more likely a natural explanation is the root cause.

Oh? I see. Your belief causes "a natural explanation to be the root cause". Kinda like when you were a Christian?

- Seems unlikely Jesus was buried in a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers...

OH MY! I did not realize this. If it "seems unlikely" then it certainly must be false.

- Countless of earnest and intelligent people have claimed to witness supernatural type events.

Which would have nothing to do with the claims made in the NT.

- We don't even have 100's/1,000's of documented "eyewitnesses", by definition, to examine (regardless).

You see, this is why I say this is a waste of time. You are simply throwing out these one sentence remarks, when there would be a whole lot to think about. These folks did not have television broadcasts, cell phones, etc., but what they had, they used. The author to Theophilus tells him "many have undertaken to write out an account of the things accomplished among us". Bart Ehrman, who is one of the most outspoken critics, and atheists, agrees the author would more than likely be correct in that many did take up such a task. But the thing is, if we were to simply take the letters addressed to Theophilus, along with the letters your scholars agree would be true Pauline letters, we would have enough evidence to believe a resurrection took place. So, it has nothing to do with numbers.

I mean, what in the world are you imagining happened here? Is it your suggestion, there were a few folks who were somehow mistaken about an event some 2000 years ago, and this mistake goes on to have the most influential impact in all of history? I'm here to tell you that would be an extraordinary tale in itself, and the only thing you are eliminating would be the miraculous. Ergo, you are only exchanging one extraordinary tale, in order to believe another extraordinary tale.

-- How many other verified names of deposed 'eyewitnesses' do we actually have?

If one were a true student of the Bible, they would understand if we were to simply take what the most critical scholars concede, we could trace some of the information we have, to eyewitnesses, all the way back to a very few years of the cross, and maybe even inside a year. Of course, this would be an in depth explanation, which is not good for those who are looking for simple answers.

-- How likely is it that the 4 Gospel writers were direct eyewitnesses, in light of the given life expectancy?

I do not know where you are getting your information for the "life expectancy" back then, but it really does not matter. Allow me to explain why. First, Jesus would have been right in the middle of the range you give, and he seemed to be getting along just fine, so much so he was able to get himself in enough trouble to be crucified. Therefore, I see no reason for us to believe that Jesus would not have lived on for a good number of years later. So, are we to suppose Jesus would have been one of the older folks at the time, and most of the folks who would have been born around the same time as Jesus would no longer be alive? That math don't add. We have pretty good evidence the mother of Jesus was alive at the time. Moreover, we have very good evidence the brother of Jesus would have been alive years after his crucifixion, and he did not die of natural causes. Next, we can know for certain Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have lived decades after, and did not die of natural causes. Moreover, we have very good evidence that the Apostle John lived well into his nineties. I could continue on, but the point is, your objection only works if you accept the dates given by the scholars as to when the gospels were actually authored.

Now, since you seem to have so much confidence in what the scholars have to say, do you have any idea what the "main reason" (since you like main reasons) they give for dating the gospels after the year 70? As far as I can tell, it has to do with the prophecy Jesus made concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. That's right! In other words, they understand the description is so close to what actually happened, they are convinced the event would have already occurred.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #176]

After many exchanges, it appears (the 'facts' and 'evidence' for a man rising from the grave, which gives you a high degree in confidence that Christianity is true) would be the <main reason / primary reason> as to why you are now a Christian. Why is this so hard for you to admit outright?

What I continue to attempt to explain to you is there is not a main reason. Rather, there would be many different reasons, and when you combine all these reasons is where I begin to draw my conclusion. Therefore, there is no main reason. Why do you find this difficult? Could it be the fact that you admit to being a convinced Christian for no reason at all, besides accepting what you were told? Ergo, this gives you the impression we as Christians must, and have to narrow our reason down to some sort of main reason? I really believe the "main reason" you are looking for one to give a "main reason" is in order for you to be able to go on to attack this "main reason" with your falsification argument, which I have demonstrated would have nothing to do with whether there would be fact, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims.

You see, we continue to have the same arguments over, and over, which is why I said there is really no need in answering all these things because it is pointless. The question you need to answer in order to end this part of the conversation once and for all is, "would the fact a claim is unfalsifiable be a reason to doubt the claim?" If it is not, then what is the point?

I have also stated, more than once now, "the question remains, what IS true?"

One thing which would be true is, we have all the facts, and evidence for a reason. If you have come to the conclusion that it is best to doubt these things, then I have no problem with your opinion. But please do not attempt to insist your opinion is the correct opinion and there would be no reason to believe the claims.

What exactly is the objective in a debate?

I would suggest it is to demonstrate a point.

Further, how do I plan on 'winning', when I admit, straight away, that I cannot falsify your belief?

And around, and around we go! Would a claim being unfalsifiable be a cause to doubt the claim? Well no. Therefore, you only point would be that my belief is safe because it is unfalsifiable, which has nothing to do with the facts, and evidence we have, as to whether there would indeed be facts, evidence, and reason to believe the claim. The point is again, you continue to bring things into the conversation which would have nothing to do with it. If you bring this up again, I guess I will have to "rinse repeat".

- Many ancient people were superstitious...

Am I simply to take this to be a fact? Even if it would be a fact, how in the world would this be evidence against the claims? I mean we cannot go through the whole of the NT, but if we take a look at the letters addressed to Theophilus no one would come away with the idea this author was explaining some sort of superstition. Rather, one who takes the natural reading would come away with the idea this author is describing at least what he claims to be, historical events. If this sort of thing causes doubt in your mind, I have no problem with that. But please let us not pretend it is a reason to doubt the claims.

- I no longer believe in the supernatural. Hence, it's more likely a natural explanation is the root cause.

Oh? I see. Your belief causes "a natural explanation to be the root cause". Kinda like when you were a Christian?

- Seems unlikely Jesus was buried in a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers...

OH MY! I did not realize this. If it "seems unlikely" then it certainly must be false.

- Countless of earnest and intelligent people have claimed to witness supernatural type events.

Which would have nothing to do with the claims made in the NT.

- We don't even have 100's/1,000's of documented "eyewitnesses", by definition, to examine (regardless).

You see, this is why I say this is a waste of time. You are simply throwing out these one sentence remarks, when there would be a whole lot to think about. These folks did not have television broadcasts, cell phones, etc., but what they had, they used. The author to Theophilus tells him "many have undertaken to write out an account of the things accomplished among us". Bart Ehrman, who is one of the most outspoken critics, and atheists, agrees the author would more than likely be correct in that many did take up such a task. But the thing is, if we were to simply take the letters addressed to Theophilus, along with the letters your scholars agree would be true Pauline letters, we would have enough evidence to believe a resurrection took place. So, it has nothing to do with numbers.

I mean, what in the world are you imagining happened here? Is it your suggestion, there were a few folks who were somehow mistaken about an event some 2000 years ago, and this mistake goes on to have the most influential impact in all of history? I'm here to tell you that would be an extraordinary tale in itself, and the only thing you are eliminating would be the miraculous. Ergo, you are only exchanging one extraordinary tale, in order to believe another extraordinary tale.

-- How many other verified names of deposed 'eyewitnesses' do we actually have?

If one were a true student of the Bible, they would understand if we were to simply take what the most critical scholars concede, we could trace some of the information we have, to eyewitnesses, all the way back to a very few years of the cross, and maybe even inside a year. Of course, this would be an in depth explanation, which is not good for those who are looking for simple answers.

-- How likely is it that the 4 Gospel writers were direct eyewitnesses, in light of the given life expectancy?

I do not know where you are getting your information for the "life expectancy" back then, but it really does not matter. Allow me to explain why. First, Jesus would have been right in the middle of the range you give, and he seemed to be getting along just fine, so much so he was able to get himself in enough trouble to be crucified. Therefore, I see no reason for us to believe that Jesus would not have lived on for a good number of years later. So, are we to suppose Jesus would have been one of the older folks at the time, and most of the folks who would have been born around the same time as Jesus would no longer be alive? That math don't add. We have pretty good evidence the mother of Jesus was alive at the time. Moreover, we have very good evidence the older brother of Jesus would have been alive years after his crucifixion, and he did not die of natural causes. Next, we can know for certain Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have lived decades after, and did not die of natural causes. Moreover, we have very good evidence that the Apostle John lived well into his nineties. I could continue on, but the point is, your objection only works if you accept the dates given by the scholars as to when the gospels were actually authored.

Now, since you seem to have so much confidence in what the scholars have to say, do you have any idea what the "main reason" (since you like main reasons) they give for dating the gospels after the year 70? As far as I can tell, it has to do with the prophecy Jesus made concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. That's right! In other words, they understand the description is so close to what actually happened, they are convinced the event would have already occurred.

I may or may not respond to this, depending one which route you decide to actually go next...? Meaning, sometimes you seem to respond blow for blow, other times, you wish to state you wish to address one point at a time, and other times, you wish to reiterate "the author to Theophilus".

Can you please pick a lane? At this point in the conversation, I'd say the natural progression has now brought us to my follow up questions: Request number 4 and counting:

-- Why accept Paul's/other claim(s) at face value, especially when it's 'supernatural'?
-- Is an 'eyewitness', who is not deposed, automatically deemed credible, simply because they were persecuted and passionate?
-- How many other verified names of deposed 'eyewitnesses' do we actually have?
-- How likely is it that the 4 Gospel writers were direct eyewitnesses, in light of the given life expectancy? -- (If you wish to let the above answer stand here, we can address from there).
-- How likely is it that Jesus was buried in a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers?

Oh, and "I would love, love, love to respond to all of this"... <-- Paraphrased from you But it might be heading backwards at this point... Let's keep this conversation moving forward, so we do not risk a rinse/repeat