We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response

[Randy Carson]

<dramatic pause before springing the trap>

So, if we can accept the existence of the historical Pontius Pilate based upon the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and a few others, we can accept the existence of the historical Jesus based upon the writings of those same authors.

Game. Set. Match.

Goodnight, Min. Pleasant dreams.

You'd have to stop at "historical Jesus," though, and you couldn't then get to "supernatural divine avatar Jesus," without a whole lot more evidence than is available. I know it's inconvenient, but please do keep in mind the difference between mundane claims and extraordinary ones here.

I mean, there's also that problem where you say you know things about Joseph of Arimathea, and all you did is cite bible verses. Sorry, but "bible says so," is not sufficient justification for a rationally supported knowledge claim.

Esq-

This is fair. We will ultimately have to decide what to do with the accounts of magic.

Consequently, I think it is reasonable to establish several other things first:

1. Jesus existed.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by eyewitnesses.
3. The gospels WERE written by eyewitnesses or people who had access to them.
4. The gospels are reliable in the minor details that can be verified through internal evidence, external corroboration, archaeological support, etc.

IOW, at some point, one's opinion of the gospels crosses over from incredible to credible. Once you can honestly say, "You know, I think these guys may have been telling the truth", then faith is not far away.