Findo’s 12 Facts

That's a clever slight of hand – of course any historian who studies the NT documents is a NT scholar! What's more, if you were truly aware of who those scholars are that he reviews you would realise that they are the leading names in the study of this area, and further that not they do not all accept the resurrection (e.g. Ehrman – the anti-theists favourite NT Scholar and theologian! http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-…. So your point continues to be ad hominem in an attempt to avoid the actual argument.

As for Judge – presumably as Augustus was his other area of expertise, he relied on the writings of historians such as Seutonius and Paterculus, neither of whom were born when Augustus died, or perhaps even Cassius Dio who wasn't born until over 100 years later..

You certainly like to run off on assumptions, don't you? Who ever said I was surprised at your scepticism? How would you even know what I might think about Baba?

You are of course quite welcome to contest the reliability of the gospels – that doesn't change the results of Habermas' review of the literature – over 1400 works published in the last 25 years showing that the majority of scholars who deal with the subject, whether they accept the resurrection as historical or reject it, accept that those 12 things can be reliably gleamed from the texts as most likely having happened- even if the rest is embellishment. But all you've done is assert that this cannot be right & try a little ad hominem about Habermas and the scholars he reviewed, instead of just admitting that you disagree with that majority regarding these points and explaining why. You see, it's not disagreement that's the problem, I'm fine with that – it's derision and dismissal of any dissenting voice (which so often happens when anti-theists get together) which I have no respect for.

I find it a strange position to think 20-50years is too far removed, I mean really.. just look at most of the great ancient histories and when they were written in comparison (yes, we have a few autobiogs from a few rulers.. but most ancient history is written much later). I doubt you would find more than a handful of scholars who would argue that 20-50 years is far too late to be reliable. As one I recall put it, most historians would die for that kind of proximity. Or perhaps you really do only accept a very small selection of antiquity?

In any case, your eagerness to besmirch a respected historian like Judge, and continual insistence that NT scholars (& theologians) can't be historians (except for the ones who say things you like, e.g. Ehrman, it would seem!) and your willingness to make large assumptions about me and what I might think of other claims and issues, like you have, once again reiterates the pointlessness of this whole exercise.

(seems the unsubscribe link on the email doesn't work! hmmm…)

I'm not so much avoiding the question as refusing to get dragged into a largely irrelevant issue. There's no such thing as a 'one size fits all' explanation – there's no requirement that if you accept one claim you must accept them all. The question in point simply assumes the data is comparable, if not superior – quite simply, I don't know which documents David is referring to; I've never read them, and in any case, they're completely irrelevant to a C1st claim (ignoring the fact that levels of available evidence are going to be different between C1st & C21st claims). We must take each case separately and deal with the data we have in each case. So to answer your question then – what about the Guru & aliens? I don't know.. honestly, I guess I'm agnostic about it.. I simply don't have a position because I haven't looked into it. Again, it's not just a matter of 'they said they saw it, must have happened'. My argument is much more nuanced than @askegg seems to want to understand (which is precisely why I exited the discussion last time, before he decided to resurrect it on his blog, and for which I am attempting to exit yet again! Believe me, I'm not running away from too-hard questions – I'm running away from wasting time. I mean, do you really think that someone who calls me a "fucktard" is really interested to hear what I have to say? Surely we've all got better things to do with our time, right?)
My argument is about best explaining the historical data (via the Argument to Best Explanation criteria of power, scope and least ad hoc etc.). I realise that many will not agree with my conclusions – if one has naturalist assumptions or not will play a large part in that – and I realise that some here wish to challenge the data (data that I find to be sufficiently well attested & that the majority of scholars agree is well enough attested to be considered historical). That's fine. Surely we can disagree without besmirching the other's intelligence? Probably most of us can, but from experience, not all, which is why I don't wish to follow up the OP at this point.

Please demonstrate the existence of demons, or provide unambiguous evidence of their existence. Follow this with a demonstration of demonic manifestations, or again, evidence of such, in this case in the context of an alien abduction.

Have you ever noticed the lack of actual evidence for alien abductions? All of the people who claim to have experienced them are people who vehemently claim that aliens exist and that they visit us. These people believe that aliens come to Earth and abduct people. They misinterpret something unusual to them, then write it off, without evidence, as evidence for the existence of aliens. (It's starting to sound like religion to me)

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time showing respect for scholars who I believe are being intellectually wreckless in using non-eyewitness accounts of events written decades after the events as enough to establish basic historic facts. Just because someone has a PhD does not mean that I have to respect them. If Judge was using those accounts of Caesar Augustus as corroboration of other records to increase the probability of certain claims for which there is already good evidence, I have no problem with his work on Augustus.

Yes, I am skeptical of much of history. I apply the same standards to other areas of history as I do to Jesus and the New Testament. I'm not a mythicist. I'm not saying that Jesus never lived. There very well could have been someone who the stories are based on. It's the specifics that I am very skeptical of.

I find it odd that Paul's epistles never mention any of Jesus' miracles. They are the earliest writings we have on Jesus. In Galatians, he said that he met James and Simon Peter. Surely Paul would have had even greater success spreading his message if he knew that Jesus had performed miracles. Superstition reigned supreme in antiquity. Jesus was not the only messiah around at those times. Yet Paul never mentioned them.

Miracles start popping up in Mark, which is used as a basis for the other gospels (as well as Q). Each gospel is more elaborate than the one written prior. Even then, they are not consistent. We know the gospels contain interpolations. We have no original copies, so additional interpolations may be in there that we have no idea about.

We have good reasons to doubt the accuracy and reliability of the NT. Any "facts" gleamed from the gospels should not be presented as actual facts.

If you're a Christian and accept the divinity of Baba, you would be a very odd creature indeed. You would not be a Christian, but some sort of new-agey spiritual enlightenment seeker. Possible, but I find it highly doubtful. If you do deny the miracles associated with Baba, but accept the events in the gospels as fact, why? What about alien abductions and the witch trials?

I do apologize for assuming you were surprised, and that you probably do not believe in alien abductions and black magic being used back in Salem. Most Christians I speak to who use evangelist sources such as Habermas do not believe in aliens because they believe God created this entire universe for just us. Maybe you really do believe aliens are traveling untold light years and using an enormous amount of their resources to mutilate some cows and molest an occasional human. Maybe you really do believe in black magic.

pt 2

We have good reasons to doubt the accuracy and reliability of the NT. Any "facts" gleamed from the gospels should not be presented as actual facts.

They can be presented as historical 'facts' – that is, that they most likely happened, as much as any other event which is gleamed from multiple attestation in documents of similar (or 'worse') proximity. You use the term 'we' but you've in fact not shown any scholarship to back that up, while I have referred to a literature review in a peer reviewed historical journal which references scholars of all different views who, in the majority, accept these 12 things as most likely having happened, even if they reject everything else in the gospels. If you want to challenge the review, please do so with scholarship and research, not just ad hominem. Of course, feel free to disagree with them, but you can' just pretend the mainstream position isn't that.

If you're a Christian and accept the divinity of Baba, you would be a very odd creature indeed.

Wait a second.. there's a further assumption in there that miracle worker = divine, which isn't so. I might very well accept him as a miracle worker (not saying I do.. I've got no idea, haven't looked into it) but that doesn't mean he must be divine. There are plenty of examples in the bible of people doing miracles who aren't God's people… In any case, Baba is irrellevent – there's no 'one size fits all' answer or explanation, and there's no need to take all or nothing. Each case must be examined on its own, and in this case, Baba 'aint the case. It seems very close to the argument in discussion here: http://spiritualmeanderings.wordpress.com/2010/06…

No, I don't think it's as simple as that. There are plenty of theologians who write about the significance of the death and resurrection – big name ones – who he doesn't even mention. If you check the names, they are all people who explore the historicity, and don't necessarily come to the same conclusions that he might.

Read the footnotes. And it's disingenuous to pretend that NT Scholars are not doing historical scholarship.

in order for an appeal to authority to have any weight, the authority must be shown to be an expert in the relevant field.

Well.. that's exactly what many of these names are – experts in the field of NT and C1st Jewish and Greek thought and history. Your reasoning, if applied to another ancient text – say Suetonius shows how absurd it is – a suetonian scholar obviously is an expert in that field! Or more broadly, a scholar of C2nd greek texts is obviously an expert in that field. To then argue that scholars specializing in the NT texts are somehow not experts in that field is baffling – unless of course you're just imposing some prejudice because it happens to also be a religious text.
Were the scholars all WLC-esque you may have a point, but such arguments as you make cannot reasonably be sustained against people like Moltmann, Strauss, Ehrman, Lüdemann, Hengel, Borg, Brown, Fuller, Crossan, Wright.. heck, he even included Wells in there, and he is clearly on the very fringe in his criticisms.
To pretend that it's just a list of what "WLC & friends" thinks is very much mistaken as anyone who reads the footnotes and references will easily see.

I do maintain that a survey that purports to establish the consensus view of historians should not include any scholars whose faith based commitment to a particular view would cause them to reject the conclusions of historical methodology.

Can you please reference this alleged comment? Where did he make it?
In any case, such criteria would itself be biased – a literature review is just that – it reviews the literature, and it would be methodologically dishonest to omit those who the author might not like. Habermas review encapsulates those who publish scholarly work on the issue, and like it or not, WLC does that – if his conclusions are not shared by other, perhaps more methodologically secure scholars, then the review would show that. I think it is misguided to suggest that the majority of the scholars Habermas has reviewed aren't qualified to make informed judgements in their work. (one also assumes that scholars who publish would also reference their work, and rely on other experts when needed as you allude to). It strikes me as odd that you think textual criticism is not a form of historical investigation! Quite simply, your criticism of the review just doesn't stand up. I realise that such a consensus doesn't match what is oft spouted on anti-theist forums and so might seem to jar, but mainstream scholarship is often not reflected in internet discussions! If you disagree that these 12 points are not accepted by the majority of scholars who write about the issue, then please demonstrate that.

Would you care to elaborate how reviewing around 1400 published works in the last 25 years by the mainstream scholars who publish in and study this area, and whose views constitute a broad spectrum of opinion, including those who don't share Habermas' views on the resurrection, constitutes 'flawed methodology'? Just how would you do a literature review if not to, say, review the literature?

Your rejection, based merely on the fact he includes scholars who you don't like is not justified. You may think it is, and assert that it is, but that doesn't make it so, as I have outlined why. Besides, if we consider WLC to be on the one fringe of scholarship, surely that's balanced by including Wells who is decidedly on the other fringe, arguing against even Jesus' existence. And in any case, as I said, it's unreasonable to suggest that WLC's approach is necessarily shared by the rest of the scholars.

Sorry Vinny, as valiant as your attempts to discredit this research are, they are simply prejudiced and ignorant of the both the nature of this review and it would seem, how literature reviews in general work! If you disagree with Habermas' conclusions, then please show us some peer reviewed research (as I have done) to back it up.

You really haven't been paying attention, have you!
The 1400 documents are ones published in the last 25 years by mainstream scholars in the field. If you'd actually read the links posted you would know that. My argument, because you keep missing it (this is the umpteenth time of trying to clarify for you, and the reason I gave up the first time) is that based on the review of this literature – the publications of scholars of differing viewpoints, from Wells to WLC via Ehrman, Borg & Dunn et al. – these are the minimal 12 things that they majority accept as having taken place. Now please get this – this says NOTHING about what these scholars think about the actual resurrection; many of them reject the resurrection yet still accept these 12 non-miraculous points.

So I have explained my rationale sufficiently, too many times. The reasonable reader (rather than perhaps the one who seeks merely to get a few laughs and call some names.. yes, I am talking about you) will surely be able to understand it well enough.

I will however, despite your ignorance of my argument, apply your question where is ought to go:

Should we believe an original story as being factually true if it is repeated by enough people?

If we are talking about ancient texts, and multiple attestation, it is simply the reality that an account that is early and independently, multiply attested and with no competing account is most likely to be true. If we take the account that Jesus was crucified, that is attested very early by Paul, and multiply and independently by other writers, both canonical and non-canonical. Further, there is no competing account and the extant hostile witness referenced in Matthew confirms that the tomb was found empty – which implicitly confirms he was killed and buried there. As it happens, this hostile apologetic is pretty poor – saying the disciples stole the body – and no contemporary scholar that I know of would argue that they did so. Another point to consider that it is in no way unlikely for a would-be messiah to be executed, this was not uncommon. So not only is it well enough attested, lacking in competing account by not unlikely either. So why doubt it? Because of where it may perhaps lead down the track?

You seem to have missed the point too.
We're not looking at historians surveying theologians but rather a theologian surveying those who've done the historical study.
Of course it is the usual criteria of multiple attestation, lack of competing account etc. that these scholars use – it is conclusion regarding their consensus that Habermas' review establishes. Close but no cigar… again.

Thanks for the video.

Your question about Islamic scholars is a red herring, intended to distract from the fact that most of the scholars in question are the mainstream scholars who deal in this area and they do not all share conservative Christian views either. Further, the editorial board of the Journal in question is not homogeneously conservative either but has scholars who hold to a wide range of views, including those who do not accept the resurrection, and those who belong to the Jesus Seminar.
Yet again, your attempts to portray this as too biased to have any credibility is demonstrably false. Again, if you contest that these points are not accepted as historical by the majority of scholars who publish on this subject, then please, show us your literature review.

No, an appeal to authority is to say that because x says it's true it must be. I have not made that claim. I am simply pointing out that the majority of scholars who study this area share my view. Arguing that scholarly consensus has weight is not a fallacious appeal to authority. The consensus could of course be wrong, but simply dismissing the consensus opinion or refusing to believe that it is so because it jars with preconceptions is not exactly rational either. In my opinion, the one who argues against scholarly consensus bears the burden in doing so. Attempts to discredit the claim to consensus have fallen flat, pending some other peer reviewed literature review to say otherwise.
Further, your comment betrays the fact that you still don't actually understand my line of argument. I have said nothing about what these scholars conclude as explanation for things like Paul's Damascus Rd experience. No doubt, many of them who accept that he experienced something would like you reject the idea that he met the risen Jesus.
If you will carefully re-read what I have written here, and what you have quoted me on, my only claim is that the majority of scholars who study this area accept that those 12 non-miraculous events actually happened.
I have provided peer reviewed scholarship to back up my claim regarding the the position of mainstream scholarship. That is hardly outrageous. All that I see in reply is personal incredulity.
I, like the majority of scholars, find these 12 events sufficiently attested, fulfilling the criteria for authenticity. Further, by applying the criteria of Argument to Best Explanation, I find no natural explanation with sufficient scope, power or with less reliance on ad hoc for all of this data. I don't expect you to agree with my conclusions, particular when you seem to have decided that miracles can't happen.

Talk of earthquakes and eclipses (who said it was an eclipse btw?) at the time of death is no reason to assume that the entire narrative or reference of his cruficixion is fabricated in every source, particularly when there is no competing account. By the normal criteria of attestation, that he was crucified is most likely true, earthquakes or not. Even if the resurrected saints is an embellishment by Matthew, there are still two earlier sources attesting the crucifixion, the earliest being unembellished. You see – as I have said before, despite whatever errors or embellishments there may be, a reliable historical core can be found via the usual methodology. There is no need to throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater!

My argument is logically sound and referenced. Yours is merely Appeal to ridicule.

Ah I see – if 75% of the people who study and area hold a different view to you, it must be biased sampling! Of course, you're begging the question – there's no reason why they could not hold those views because of their research – it is fallacious to immediately assume they are all just biased (if you do want to argue that, you must accept that the opposite is also so – Wells and Ehrmann are thus 'biased' and unreliable too). If you can name an Islamic scholar of C1st Palestine who publishes about the existence of Jesus, by all means, tell me and I'll be happy to read him or her. Moreover, if you can tell me which mainstream scholars not of 'conservative' view that Habermas' review has missed out, your claim might have some credibility.
All that your argument is, as yet, is that you don't like the findings, therefore they must be wrong.

Again, if you dispute that this is the consensus of the mainstream scholarship regarding the historical Jesus, please, would you be so kind as to reference some peer reviewed scholarship. Thanks.

Could you please tell me what makes Bart Ehrman an historian, but Martin Hengel not? (Surely it's not just that you like the conclusions that one of them happens to make?) Your comparison of respected mainstream historians and NT scholars like Hengel to holocaust deniers and YEC-ers is an appallingly puerile and ignorant assertion.

You see, there are really two issues in your responses. The first is the validity of the mainstream scholars whom Habermas has reviewed – it seems to be your opinion that those who are the scholarly mainstream in the study of the historical Jesus are not qualified to be so (except for the few you happen to like, such as Ehrman), that they are somehow deficient as historical scholars? You are free to have this opinion, as fanciful and prejudiced as it may be, and I am of course free to ignore such an opinion.

The second issue is whether this scholarly consensus is as Habermas' review asserts – this is not simply opinion. If you are claiming that the peer reviewed review I've provided is incorrect, then you must provide evidence to the contrary.

Your opinion I can easily ignore (the standard of work, career and peer-standing of scholars like Hengel don't need me to defend them), but any claim to the fact of consensus requires evidence please.

So you're not going to tell me why Ehrman is an historian but Hengel isn't?

Presumably peer reviewed historical journals, whose editorial board is made up of a wide range of scholars who don't all share Habermas' views on the resurrection, is a fairly good indicator that his review is methodologically sound. That you don't like that he included WLC is not a problem to them, nor me. He has reviewed a significant amount of literature, and even a quick perusal of the references shows that he has reviewed scholars of all positions, including the critical scholars and the fringe scholars completely opposed to his position. Your objection is nothing but prejudice.

As I asked before – if you think Habermas' review has neglected some mainstream (or even fringe) scholars, please, say who. (Actually, your comment that 'some' 'might' be trained historians only betrays your complete ignorance of who these scholars are and your unwillingness to admit that people like Hengel are highly respected historians). Again, your opinion that they're all or mostly just people with faith based commitments is simply not true.
If you've got nothing to say but opine that the mainstream scholars in this subject don't deserve to be considered so, then great.. we've all heard that. Enough of your question begging. Either put up some evidence of important scholars he's ignored, or admit it's just your prejudice.

So, which scholars has he failed to consider?

Well yes, to be fair, it was not you who referred to Ehrman's work regarding historical issues in these comments. Presumably though, if you deny that scholars like Hengel are valid historians, then you would say the same about Ehrman? Or maybe you're going to try and avoid the implications of your absurd stance?
I note with great interest that you have not offered the names of any scholars whom Habermas' review has failed to consider.

I did not say that Habermas' review was limited to journals – I said that his review has been published in a peer reviewed historical journal. I'm sure you'll excuse me if I respect the opinion of his peers (historians and scholars who don't necessarily share his view of the resurrection!) regarding the validity of his methodology more than I respect yours – you did after all compare Martin Hengel et al. to a holocaust denier!
You still seem to cling to the false idea that some theologians and NT Scholars are not, and can not also be historians (e.g. N.T. Wright and indeed, Bart Ehrman). Indeed, to suggest that studying the NT documents as historical documents is not historical study is just silly. Or are you going to argue that Bart Ehrman is not a valid source for comment on the historical issues in this case?

And just how does that mean that Habermas hasn't reviewed the mainstream scholarship on this issue? Again, if he's missed somebody – who is it?
The fact that the ones you might allow to be historians (though in your back-peddling you haven't even acknowledged Hengel!) generally agree about these 12 points is the issue. If it were only the conservative theologians who came to this view, you would have a point, but as Habermas has shown that the acceptance of these points is agreed upon by a broad range – including ciritical historians – means your objection simply doesn't stand.

I'm going to reply to this further down for ease of reading.

There are many problems with the "minimal facts" approach. I think it is important to spend some time on the ones that do not get addressed as frequently.

And just to be clear: the review was done by Habermas, not the majority of historians; it is a review of 1400 or so published works in the last 25yrs by mainstream scholars of all persuasions who study this area; and via this review Habermas has established the position that the majority of these scholars take regarding the historicity of these non-miraculous events. It still reads like your not quite getting that straight…

Please learn to read. I am not backpedaling at all. Six days ago I wrote "I am sure that some NT scholars do historical research that is quite impressive." Why do I have to keep repeating that?

Try searching the phrase "critical scholars" rather than simply the word "critical." Habermas refers to all the scholars as "critical scholars" in much the same meaningless generic way that you refer to them as "mainstream scholars." However, he occasionally uses the word "critical" to modify some other noun in which case it has a more specific meaning that actually specifies some sub-category of the overall sample.

Since you don't seem to understand how language works, I can see how you might have trouble figuring out when you are mistaken.

Your second reply (the chinese whispers one) seems to have gone missing.. ?

The stories weren't written down immediately and they would have been passed verbally from person to person, this leaves massive issues with modifications, intentional or otherwise; have you ever played Chinese Whispers?

It's hard for us to understand how reliable oral tradition could be, as we don't use it, and we're not practised in it.. but it would simply be cultural and chronological snobbery to assert that because we're not good at it, that no one can be. Have you ever played Chinese Whispers where each persons speaks it aloud to the next with the others having the ability to correct the message? How do you think that would play out? I suggest it would not be as distorted as a secret retelling might be. In any case, the synoptics, and indeed, Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of people who could object and correct the message – much more like our modifed chinese whispers (which is no whispering at all) comparison.
Further, the accounts are written well within an acceptable time-frame for ancient historical texts – just compare them to most other ancient text and see just how early they are! Even if there may be discrepancies in certain details, if the core event is attested by multiple, independent sources and there is no competing account it is most likely to be historical.

…relied upon by a large group of people to support their world view…

Seems to me that this is simply a case of goal-shifting.

it doesn't take into account the fact that people would be inherently separated by distances when they are telling others, not at all within earshot. To spread a story over any significant distance you have to spread your story tellers, so they simply don't hear what the others say, and even if they did on occasion, they wouldn't with any great regularity.

I don't agree that they wouldn't have regularly heard the stories repeated, or that they were necessarily all separated, nor indeed that they were all spread out over large distances necessarily. In any case if the story was different in each place there would have become obvious when Paul started writing to them and they started protesting the differences.. but we don't see that. Further, as I already pointed out, Paul is almost certainly referring to an existing creed. I don't think your criticism of oral tradition really stand. In any case, even if we allow that it might be a problem for some details, I don't see that it causes any real problems for the main core of the narrative.

The main issue with the lack of a competing account is that people would not write down that Jesus did not exist at the time; it would be pure insanity.

On the contrary – there were a great number of people, the Jewish leaders not least, who sought to quell the new movement – it would make a lot of sense for them to counter the claims by pointing out that Jesus never existed (if that were so). The only extant reference to the Jewish counter-polemic only serves to corroborate the empty tomb and implicitly, then, his existence. There's a very good reason why lack of competing account is an indicator of authenticity. If the story had developed and been changed as you allege, then we should evidence of that happening, and I can't see any evidence that the historical core has ever been any different. To speculate otherwise is really argument from silence.

It would be like someone other than myself writing down that there isn't an invisible dragon living in my garage.

I don't know.. if a large enough group of your neighbours complained to the police that you had a dragon in your garage, presumably it would appear on some kind of police (or RSPCA?) report that you in fact didn't have any kind of large reptile in your garage. Ok, it's a silly analogy (you made it) but the point stands – there were people who had vested interests in quelling the movement the and claims, and the easiest way to do that would be to point out the leader's non-existence, if it were the case. That they don't appear to have, and moreover, corroborate his existence makes it much more likely that he did exist and the tomb really was empty (add to that the embarrassing details).

how is that shifting the goal posts?

The reliance of a group of people upon a text has no relevance to it's reliability. We use the usual historical criteria for that – and the time frame for the NT documents is within acceptable limits – more so than many other ancient documents – so to suggest they aren't is also shifting the goalposts.

Sorry but I'm not making a circular demand – I want evidence which can ONLY be accounted for by the existence of the Christian God. Not evidence which could but isn't necessarily accounted for by the existence of the Christian God. This isn't Hume's argument, you're not only misrepresenting it you now give me the impression you don't understand it.

"If we conclude that Jesus was raised from the dead by an external causal agent, do you really think that the Judeo-Christian God is not a logical conclusion from there?"

No. That is just it! I can explain this, not just with natural, expected and wholly uninteresting features of human behaviour, psychology and limitation but I could explain it with the existence of supernatural entities which are not the Christian God.

Example: Jesus wasn't just a man, he was half man and half flibberwikky. A flibberwikky is in fact something of a mystery to most humans but the entity kind of flits from universe to universe playing tricks on the life forms which have sprung about. What flibberwikkies do in other universes is unknown but in our own, on our planet, they have enjoyed themselves by twisting time and space by manipulating the quantum foam with their flabberwackels. Jesus, being half man and half flibberwikky was able to perform miracles and even triumphed over death however, he himself was not entirely sure why or how he held this capacity and framed it within his own Jewish culture and religion. The men who befriended and followed Jesus took him to be divine or even god himself with his feats but never fully understood that by defeating death, the half of Jesus which was human died and he morphed into a full flibberwikky and moved on to a new universe to start playing tricks on other life forms.

Cute I know, insulting to your belief system? I hope because I'm tired of being polite. I'm just doing what you are without the faux authority of 2,000 years of sociocultural conformity.

I'm saying your facts don't support the existence of a God, the Christian God, Jesus' divinity or even his resurrection. Your facts are explainable by other means and do not in themselves support your conclusions. Your derision of me for 'assuming that it must have been another explanation' really only shows you simply do not get it. I'm not saying it had to be that way I'm saying it COULD of been that way and the evidence isn't clear that it wasn't. You need to do better if I'm to accept that the Judeo-Christian God is the best explanation, it might be the neatest and cleanest but it is so far out there Occam's Razor is over the horizon.

I step away from my burden of proof now because I never accepted your facts to begin with and was only entertaining your claims to show how irrelevant they actually are. If I was to accept your facts they have no influence over my atheism and do nothing to improve my opinion of religion or specifically Christianity. I'm not being close minded, I'm not being circular in my logical demands. I want evidence for your god which is ONLY explainable by his existence not evidence which can be explained by his existence or his nonexistence and normal human behaviour.

Where is your evidence for God? I remain unconvinced of your entire religion's theological claims.

Having now read your responses I wish I hadn't wasted my time and I won't waste anymore.