Hello Michael:
Thank you for the clarification!
-
It seems that a pertinent issue boils down to what Joshua thinks are my text’s weak arguments. Obviously, not all arguments are equally weighted. However, collectively they can demonstrate a rational reason to question the reality of Jesus’s resurrection, especially if that resurrection is being employed to evangelize or witness.
-
You wrote: “Swamidass begins by picking up from his comments from TSZ, claiming that professional scholars such as Tim McGrew had regarded Alter’s case as unworthy of serious engagement.”
Response: It would be appreciated if it could be confirmed whether or not Tim has examined my text.
- It seems odd that the assertion being raised is that I am employing “Gish Galloping” while the same technique is employed by virtually every Christian apologists, especially William Lane Craig. Gary Habermas and Mike Licona employ the Minimal Facts Approach. However, Gary often mentions that there are about 12 facts that he considers worthy of discussion. These, he boils down to four or five depending upon time limitations. And, many of these “Big 4 or Big 5” contain numerous subcomponents employed in his presentation. See: The Case for the Resurrection (pp. 50, 61, 63, 66, 69, and 74.)
Josh McDowell, in his classic text The Resurrection Factor employs the same approach. And, in reality, most Christian apologists employ the same strategy.
Then, there are those who use C. B. McCullagh’s Best Evidence strategy whereby seven criteria are detailed.
In terms of my text, as I have repeatedly stated, I start with the the arrest of Jesus, and, in general, proceed chronological through the accounts concluding with Jesus’s ascension. In doing so, I present to the reader 217 speculations: a speculation is a speculation. It offers an opportunity to examine the text and further our discussion and understanding. Similarly, I identified 120 potential contradictions. Throughout the text, I present BOTH sides of the aisle. And, a healthy bibliography is presented. In Volume 2, I will further elaborate on several important issues. There was only so much that I could discuss in 912 pages (Volume 1).
So, I guess that I must plead partially guilty, but on grounds of self-defense. Will you [Joshua] permit me the same courtesy and privilege to “gallop along” [bad pun] as do Christian apologists? If not, why? If yes, then they must respond to the points that I raise. Or, am I to commit a metaphorical suicide?
I hope that my comments successfully addressed Joshua’s concerns.
Take care
Mike