MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Angrboda]

Wow. We started out with Josephus et al. and now we're on to discussing whether the hearsay of Paul is "really really twoo." You believe that Paul probably learned significant facts about Jesus from Peter, but you don't have any evidence that he did; that's just your belief. Is it wrong or right? There's no way to know.

However, there's a larger problem here. In part 1 you're trying to prove that a conjectural "Jesus the man" who was a first century rabbi and died by crucifixion. This Jesus is an extrapolation based on the Gospels and other documents. However, these documents don't describe a "Jesus the man," they describe a miracle working Messiah. So this "Jesus the man" is a separate fiction created out of these documents. But you're not trying to prove the existence of an ordinary man; the evidence required to prove the existence of an ordinary man is different from that used to demonstrate a miracle worker. I fully expect in part 2 or whatever for you to use the case for the existence of an ordinary man, "Jesus the man," as supporting evidence for "Jesus the miracle worker." You've got two separate Jesuses, one that meets a lesser standard, and the Jesus that is actually described by the Gospels, "Jesus the miracle worker." You can't just swap in the "Jesus the man" case when you start arguing for "Jesus the miracle worker" as they are two very different things. The statement that the vast majority of historians believe in "Jesus the man" cannot simply be lifted out of that context and transplanted into a case for "Jesus the miracle worker" as if the support of those historians for the former was good enough for the latter. You would be equivocating on who you mean by the name "Jesus" — in this phase, you've proved a man, not a miracle worker. Those are two separate arguments. Trying to use the case for the man as evidence for the miracle worker is fallacious because you would be switching horses mid-stream, and that's invalid. That's the fallacy of equivocation.

What would good evidence for a miracle worker be? Certainly not the horseshit you've trotted out so far. I would expect eye witnesses, and none of what you've presented so far is an eye witness. And you know the problems in claiming that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses without my even mentioning them. The three synoptic Gospels are all anonymous. (I note that you've attempted to shift the burden of proof already by demanding we prove that the Gospels attributed to Matthew and John weren't actually written by them. Nice try. The burden of proving that they were so written is on you.) So we're left with John as the only potential eye witness, and that's a very weak case. But good luck proving that John was actually written by the disciple John.

As to the "Jesus the man" argument, thanks for the entertainment, but that argument can't be used to support the existence of "Jesus the miracle worker." You'll just have to start over.