- Is still do not believe that you [Joshua] have demonstrated that the historical record associated with Jesus’s Resurrection is factual. In addition, the same can be said about many Christian apologists. I believe, but you will probably beg to differ that my arguments in the Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry do not successfully challenge the reliability of the narratives. I do, and so do others. Unfortunately, and I could be in error, but I believe someone earlier claimed you do not have my book. If you have not read my book, how can you claim that I have not met your requisites?
I believe that I asked earlier: Have you read my text? I could be wrong, but you have not answered that critical question. If your entire criticism is based on Vincent’s lengthy review, that is not fair. So please, a response.
- You wrote: "You have not yet explained why we are calling your argument a Gish Gallop."
Response: That was my interpretation of your words. Later, another writer attempted to clarify what you said. What we have here may be “A failure to Communicate.” I do not want to be Cool Hand Luke after those words were spoken [I assume that you saw the movie.]
**3. You wrote: **Your case is severely diminished by this
Response: Respectfully, others and I disagree.
- You wrote: Why write a 800 page book to make an obvious point?
Response: I discussed the reason in the first two paragraphs of my text and on xlv, and my homepage, and previously in this blog. Question: Respectfully, have you actually read my text? Continued, that 800-page book was insufficient. Therefore, I am working on Volume 2 [previously discussed]
- You wrote: Let us start with this. You have admitted now to putting forward several week arguments
Response: Absolutely CORRECT. Please read my response to your statement located on xlvi where I discuss a baseball analogy. Furthermore, do you think that every argument presented by an apologist or theologian is equally waited? Of course, not. Do you criticize Christian apologists and theologian who present weak arguments to support their case?
- is the argument about communion (the blood drinking ritual), one of the strong or one of the weak arguments?
Response: In terms of Jesus’s resurrection, it is not strong. However, it is very strong when you accumulate the numerous falsehoods and “errors” recorded in the Christian Bible. If the drinking blood statement made by Jesus is not historical, other words and actions attributed to him are also dubious. But, you must read my text to know those errors. In my opinion, without reading my text you cannot make any honest evaluation. Theologically the blood drinking AND EATING FLESH ritual is EXTREMELY significant; 1) Jesus is changing the symbolism of the Passover seder = matzah and wine. WOW! Second, if interpreted literally, as some do, Christians are literally drinking blood and eating human flesh [transubstantiation] in direct violation of God’s command. So yes and no to your question.
**7. You wrote: **What you are describing are activities, not a methodology.
Response: numerous times I have detailed my methodology. Please go back and read where I have discussed this topic. Second, since I might be having a senior moment, please define methodology. See below.
- You wrote: You still have not brought forward a coherent methodology
Response: Respectfully, totally false. see below.
- You wrote: Reading all the arguments out there for the resurrection, and then regurgitating the arguments against them from other sources is not a methodology for adducting what are valid arguments or not.
Response: Respectfully, I disagree. You may not like my methodology but it is a methodology.
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology:
Methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study. It comprises the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and principles associated with a branch of knowledge
In my text, I have analyzed numerous methods and principles employed by Christian apologists and theologians who advocate the resurrection. I demonstrate that often, they employ dubious translations, take passages from the Hebrew Bible out of context, employ typology (foreshadowing) and numerology with a Christological lens, etc. But, you must read my book to determine whether or not what I said is true. So please, read my text. It is available at a few libraries and you can obtain an interlibrary loan.
Hating to strike a dead horse, in Volume 2 I will directly analyze The Minimal Fact Approach, best evidences strategy, etc.
- You write: You still have not brought forward a coherent methodology
Response: False. How can you make this assertion if you have not read my text? Not fair…
- You wrote: I suppose I will just draw attention to the fact that you do not have a historical methodology, and see if there is a way to make sense of your gallop regardless. I’m doubtful though
Response: Please the Wikipedia entry for Historical method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
I discussed:
- When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)? [ibid 2-6] See 4-13
- Procedures for contradictory sources [throughout my text]
3. Core principles of determining reliability 676-681
**4. Eyewitnesses 676-681and elsewhere