From Johnny 3/22/05

Brady,

I will make this real simple. Since you are the initial claimant, please tell me what or who your primary sources are and why anyone should trust them. You keep asking me to establish criteria, but the New Testament has already established criteria of its own. Its criteria for establishing the truth are 1) the writings of four anonymous Gospel writers (even some Christian scholars admit this) who wrote in the third person and never claimed to have seen a miracle or the risen Jesus, 2) the writings of Paul in 1st Corinthians, and 3) faith. Therefore, you need to make a case for the Resurrection using those criteria. Regarding item 3, Romans 10:17 says "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The verse is part of your criteria, so you need to explain it in your arguments and what its relationship is to items 2 and 3.

From Brady 3/22/05

Well Johnny, it looks like you are still trying to play duck and hide. No one forced you to make the claims in your “theory,” from your previous post. You insisted on doing it and demanded that I print it on my site. Now that you are called on it, were back to “I don’t need to make claims.” But your above post proves beyond any doubt that your “theory” is nothing but the utter nonsense, as I suggested it might be. The “criteria” you site above is not criteria for investigating the reliability of documents or events; it is not criteria at all. This proves you have no idea what criteria are; therefore, your “theory” could not have been based on criteria, baseline and evidence. You are a fraud.

As for me presenting criteria, baseline and evidence, I have already suggested one in this debate and agreed to another in our other debate. So far, you have run away from both. But I will try again once I have finished demonstrating ALL of the fallacies in your previous post.

Since you have so amply demonstrated to all that you have committed that first fallacy, I will move on to your next set of fallacies.

Brady wrote in a previous post: I tell you what, why don't you go take a couple of logic courses, then figure out historical methodology from the historians, as you keep promising you will do, and then try again. Once you get some sort of education in these subjects, perhaps we can make some progress.

Johnny responded: Actually, since you are the claimant, it is up to you to prove that a general consensus of historians believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I know that you are well aware that there is no such consensus. Even though it is not incumbent upon me to produce a general consensus among historians, consider the following:…

The first is how do you know that there is really a consensus? Throughout our discussions you have been claiming that there is a consensus of historians that disagree with the argument for the reliability of the NT and the Resurrection. Here, you suggest it again. But, there are several problems with the fallacy of “argumentum consensus,” or the argument from consensus.

In order to know there is a consensus, you need to know how many participants there are in total. You also need to know how many are on a particular side.

So Johnny, please tell us exactly how many historians there are in the world? And how many of them agree with your position? Oh, and please give us a list of all their names and addresses, so we can check up on you.

Second, a consensus doesn’t tell us why someone affirms a position. Some of them may affirm something, but have bad reasons for the affirmation. This would invalidate the affirmation. Of course some people may have good reasons too. At this point we just don’t know.

So Johnny, when you are putting together that list, please identify which argument each historian is resting his affirmation on.

This shouldn’t take to long. I know you must have these lists handy. After all, you wouldn’t just be making this all up, would you? If the list is not presented, then we will know that, once again, you are a fraud, relying solely on made-up nonsense.

If you consider the above closely, you will readily see that it is not about numbers, but about good arguments. So far you have given none.

I am sure that all our readers are anxiously waiting your reply. Inquiring minds want to know!

P.S. We are still waiting for you to tell us what all those historians you contacted had to say.