One-trick pony show

I got into a marathon debate about the Resurrection on Facebook:

Johnson 

The Resurrection argument fails its own burden of proof.

The only evidence for the resurrection that actually matters are the claimed "post-mortem appearances" since there would be no other way to confirm that an actual resurrection had taken place. So the claim solely relies on if these people really saw Jesus alive again after his death. Everything else is just a distraction. Appealing to things like the empty tomb, so called "prophecy fulfillment" and alleged martyrdom stories, etc are all irrelevant red herrings since they do not directly support the hypothesis that a dead man became alive again. Thus, the burden of proof is on the one who claims Jesus' resurrection actually happened, or put simply, they need to show these people really saw Jesus alive again after his death.

Well, according to the earliest evidence, since Paul uses a "vision" (Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19) as a "resurrection appearance" (1 Cor 15:8) then it necessarily follows that claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) were accepted as evidence of Jesus "appearing." Paul makes no distinction in regards to the nature, quality, or type of appearances. He uses the same verb ὤφθη (ōphthē) for each one as if to equate them and makes no reference to a separate and distinct Ascension between the appearances. This calls into question the veracity of the "appearances" because it totally changes the meaning of "appeared." Even though Jesus wasn't physically present on the earth, one could still claim that they just "experienced his presence" and that counted as "seeing Jesus." Based on the earliest evidence in Paul's letters, claiming Jesus "appeared" could be nothing more than feeling like you communicated with him from heaven in a vision or a dream!

It's only later, after the gospels are written that we see the appearances grow more physical/corporeal but scholars have long recognized that the gospels don't actually go back to eyewitnesses and the data they contain evolves more fantastic as if a legend is growing. Since Paul is the only verified firsthand source by someone who claimed to "see" Jesus in the first person, and the "appearance" to him was a vision, (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) which he does not distinguish from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8, then the earliest evidence suggests these were originally subjective spiritual experiences. Thus, the resurrection argument fails to meet the burden of proof - "they really saw Jesus alive again after his death."

Common apologetic response:

But Paul believed in a physical resurrection, doesn't that mean the appearances would have been physical as well?

Response: Non-sequitur. This is simply conflating Paul's "belief in the resurrection" with the "resurrection appearances" when those aren't the same thing. Even if the earliest Christians believed in a physical resurrection, it does not therefore follow that "they really saw Jesus alive again." Notice how the belief in a physical resurrection is just a belief, not an empirical observation because no one actually witnessed the resurrection itself. Rather, these people are only said to have experienced post-resurrection appearances, the nature of which is the exact point of contention. Apologists who use the red herring of appealing to the physical resurrection are making the further assumption that the physical resurrection necessarily entailed Jesus remained on the earth in order to be physically seen and touched like the later gospels describe. This doesn't follow and it is a separate claim not actually found in Paul's letters, the earliest evidence. As I've argued elsewhere, the earliest belief seems to be that Jesus went straight to heaven simultaneous with or immediately after the resurrection (regardless if it was physical/spiritual), leaving no room for any physical/earthly interactions. Thus, all of the "appearances" mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were originally understood to be of the already Exalted Lord in heaven and the gospel portrayals of a physical/earthly Jesus are necessarily false.

Hays 

1. The word "vision" is not a technical term for a "subjective spiritual experience". The term is neutral in that regard.

2. The fact that Jesus went to heaven doesn't mean he can't come back to earth whenever he wants to.

3. The Gospel of John is an eyewitness account. So is Matthew. And Luke had a wide range of informants who knew the historical Jesus.

4. Johnson fails to distinguish between "heaven" in the theological sense of where God, the saints, and angels, reside, and "heaven" in the atmospheric/astronomical sense of the sky. 

The fact that Jesus appeared to Paul from "heaven" doesn't imply a heavenly vision in the theological sense. It can just as well or better refer to Jesus appearing to Paul in the sky, just as the Ascension account in Acts has Jesus visible from/in the sky.

Johnson 

1. Begging the question by assuming the experience was veridical. Paul's firsthand description in Gal. 1:12-16 sounds like a totally subjective spiritual experience. 

2. No text says Jesus came back you're just making that up - ad hoc.

3. No they are not. Matthew never claims to be an eyewitness. John never writes in first person. Chapter 21 was a later added appendix. Luke's main sources were Mark, Q, and the Septuagint. At best, the authorship in disputed which means you can't just dishonestly declare they actually are eyewitness accounts as if that opinion is not controversial.

4. No account says Jesus was up in the sky. Another ad hoc conjecture.

Hays

1. Now you're moving the goal post from the meaning of the word to whether Paul's experience was veridical. I appreciate your backdoor concession that your original argument failed so you had to change the subject.

2. No text says he didn't come back. And he's certainly capable of doing so. So that's one of our explanatory options. 

3. For starters, consider the uniformity of the Gospel titles. That's despite the fact that ancient Christian scribes operated independently of each other. The only reasonable explanation for the uniformity of the titles is if these are the original titles. 

4. The accounts of Paul's experience don't say Jesus revealed himself to Paul from heaven in the theological sense of the word rather than the atmosphere/astronomical sense. 

You have a fallacious habit of inferring that if a text doesn't say X was the case, that means X wasn't the case. Yet you yourself draw one-sided conclusions where the text doesn't say one way or the other.

Johnson 

1. The burden is on you to show they really saw Jesus. Since claims of visions and revelations are equally likely to be imaginary (and that's being generous) then the resurrection argument fails to be convincing to a neutral observer.

2. Ad hoc and shifting the burden of proof. At best, the evidence can equally be interpreted to mean Jesus stayed in heaven. Thus, you have the burden to show he came back. If you want to argue he already came back then I guess the Second Coming already happened? Lol! 

3. Haha! Titles don't prove authorship and we don't start seeing names attributed to the gospels until around the time of Irenaeus. Up until that point they were quoted anonymously. This is all a desperate red herring. The bottom line is all scholars agree Paul wrote Galatians and 1 Cor. All scholars do not agree with traditional authorship of the gospels. That position is extremely controversial. Thus, Pauline authorship is not disputed, while the gospels are. This is sufficient to refute your argument in a debate about history.

4. The accounts can be interpreted as subjective spiritual revelations while Jesus was believed to be located in heaven. Again, my interpretation is at least equally likely. Thus, the burden of proof is on you to show Paul met the physically resurrected Jesus *before* he went to heaven or show that Jesus actually descended into Earth's atmosphere. No scholar has ever actually argued that. It is only made up to defend against the problem of Paul placing his "vision" in the list of appearances.

Notice that Steve is shifting the burden of proof and inventing ad hoc scenarios such as "But Jesus was up in the sky" when the text doesn't actually say that.

Again, the burden of proof is on the Christian apologist to show these people really saw Jesus because they are the ones claiming he was actually resurrected.

Hays 

i) You continue to raise illogical objections. Since the Greek word for "heaven" has more than one meaning, it's not ad hoc to consider the sky as what Paul may be referring to, especially when we have an explicit example of that in the Ascension account. There's no antecedent presumption that "heaven" means "heaven" in the theological sense rather than the atmospheric/astronomical sense. It's not as if one interpretation has a burden of proof while the other doesn't. What a word means in a particular sentence is context-dependent. And sometimes there's not enough context to settle the issue. 

ii) I don't have to prove that Jesus appeared to Paul in the sky. Rather, you were the one who claimed it was a subjective spiritual vision, so the onus lies squarely on your shoulders to prove that. It's sufficient for me to demonstrate that your claim is invalid.

iii) You're still confused about the argument from silence. Suppose a biography of Frank Sinatra doesn't mention that he had blue eyes. That isn't a denial that he had blue eyes. Failure to mention that he had blue eyes isn't equivalent to the claim that he didn't have blue eyes. It would just mean the biography doesn't speak to that issue one way or the other. 

iv) Atheists have their own burden of proof. They are making truth-claims as well. They assert that there's insufficient evidence for the Resurrection, or evidence to the contrary. So you don't get off the hook by attempting to shift the burden of proof onto Christians. Both sides have a burden of proof.

Johnson 

Prove they really saw Jesus Steve Hays. Remember, the claim that Jesus was resurrected solely relies on if they really saw Jesus. Since claims of visions and revelations, without begging the question, are equally likely to be completely imaginary then we have good reason to doubt the veracity of such experiences.

i. It doesn't matter if it has more than one meaning unless you can show Jesus was really up in the sky. Per my reading, and every other Christian exegete for that matter, the appearance was "revealed" to Paul from heaven - Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19. The translation of Acts 26:19 does not make sense as "vision from the sky" or "sky vision." So again, if the text can *equally mean* Jesus was believed to be up in heaven then YOU have the burden of proof to show Jesus was up in the sky. Now where does the New Testament say that?

ii. No. This is how the burden of proof works. The Christian is claiming Jesus was resurrected, therefore THEY have the burden of proof to show these people really saw Jesus. If the earliest evidence can be equally interpreted to mean they just thought they were spiritually experiencing Jesus' presence from heaven (and it can) then YOU have the burden to show the appearances were veridical because YOU'RE the one making the positive claim!

iii. Do all scholars agree with traditional authorship Steve? Be honest.

iv. My argument has nothing to do with atheism. Another desperate red herring.

Hays 

1. Prove that reporters really saw Napoleon, Lincoln, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great. 

As a rule we accept testimonial evidence unless we have positive reason to think the reporter was mistaken or lying. There's no general presumption that witnesses are untrustworthy. 

2. As far as that goes, there's no presumption that visions are imaginary. There are veridical postmortem apparitions. But that's beside the point.

3. Jews knew the different between a ghost and a physical, embodied agent.

4. Your position requires you to claim that Paul's experience was a subjective spiritual experience. So it does matter whether the words you use have more than one meaning. 

5. It makes perfect sense if Jesus appeared to Paul in the sky, just as he appeared to other observers in the sky in the Ascension account. That's precedent. That's not equally likely but more likely. 

6. Like many atheists, you're confused about the burden of proof. The onus is not confined to a positive claim. Negative truth-claims are still truth-claims with their own burden of proof. If I deny that chain-smoking raises the risk of cancer, I have a burden of proof. 

7. Now you're ducking the evidence I have for authorship. Whether all scholars agree is a red herring. I gave you specific evidence for traditional authorship. You did nothing to refute the evidence.

Johnson

"They don't have resurrection claims do they?"

Hays

Actually, they do. 

Johnson

"Testimonial evidence - when you pay attention to how the Risen Jesus was experienced in each account, the appearances grow more fantastic. In Paul it's visions…"

Asserting that Paul's experience was a merely psychological impression begs the question.

"in Mark we have the empty tomb but no appearance is narrated"

Hays

But Mark affirms the Resurrection.

For whatever reason, the ending of Mark is abbreviated. Scholars speculate on why that's the case. 

Johnson

"in Matthew there is an appearance in Galilee which 'some doubt.'"

Hays

It's a credit to Matthew's candor that he mentions some doubters. Given his candor, I assume you think he provides a reliable biography, including the miracles of Christ.

Johnson

"In Luke, they inspect a 'flesh and bone' Jesus, watch him eat and witness him physically ascend to heaven!"

Hays

i) Luke is more detailed than Matthew and Mark with respect to the Resurrection. But of course, Matthew and Mark are chockfull of miracles.

ii) Luke has additional material because he has his own informants. Luke has access to independent sources. That's true for historians and biographers in general. We don't normally discredit a historian or biographer because different biographers and historians have distinctive material.

Johnson

"Acts 1 makes the otherwise unattested claim that the Risen Jesus appeared for 40 days!"

Hays

Your comparison is silly. Luke and Acts have these same author. The ending of Luke reflects narrative compression because he's wrapping things up and he's going to write a sequel in which he gives more details. He doesn't have to squeeze everything into part 1 because he plans to write part 2. He saves some things for Acts because he has more room.

Johnson

"John has stories about Jesus suddenly vanishing and narrates the Doubting Thomas story!"

Hays

Luke also has a story about Jesus "suddenly vanishing". 

Both Luke and John recount examples that demonstrate the physicality of the Resurrection. One isn't more "fantastic" or embellished than the other. 

Johnson

"So tell me, what kind of reliable 'testimonial evidence' about the same event from history looks like that?!"

Hays

Testimony from writers with independent sources of information. 

Johnson

"So Joseph Smith's vision of Jesus/God which prompted him to create Mormonism actually happened?"

Hays

Completely unresponsive to what I actually said. I made a qualified statement about testimonial evidence. You then act like I made a universal statement. So your response does nothing to refute my observation.

To the contrary, the example of Joseph Smith is entirely consistent with what I said. What I said was "As a rule we accept testimonial evidence unless we have positive reason to think the reporter was mistaken or lying. There's no general presumption that witnesses are untrustworthy."

And there's abundant evidence that Smith was a conman. 

Johnson

"When a Hindu claims to have 'visions' of their gods they really see them? Their gods are real?"

Hays

i) I don't grant that the Resurrection appearances are visions.

ii) The Hindu gods are real in the sense that Hindus have demonic experiences. 

iii) Even more to the point, your reply is completely unresponsive to what I actually said. I made a qualified claim: "there's no presumption that visions are imaginary. There are veridical postmortem apparitions." You then act as though I made a universal claim. I didn't say or imply that all visions are veridical. The fact that some visions are hallucinatory is entirely consistent with what I said. 

iv) In addition, visions of nonexistent Hindu gods are hardly equivalent to postmortem apparitions. It's not as if the decedent is imaginary. The question is whether the apparition is real. When you're forced to misrepresent my stated position, that betrays the weakness of your own position.

Johnson

"Paul claimed to experience a vision from heaven (where no physical person was actually present…"

Hays

Begs the question.

Johnson

"or seen according to the account)"

Hays

But his traveling companions heard Jesus. 

Johnson

"I've already explained that all my position requires is that my read on the evidence is equally likely and it is."

Hays

i) Which, unfortunately for you, isn't equally likely (for reasons I've given).

ii) Moreover, even if your interpretation of Paul's experience was equally likely, you struggle to discount the other Resurrection accounts. 

iii) I'd add, to the contrary, that your position requires that Jesus never physically showed himself to anyone after he died. For if he physically appeared to even one person after he died, then the Resurrection is true.

Johnson

"Huh? They watched him ascend up to heaven and he vanishes. Not only does this show the story is false (heaven isn't located up past the sky. That's where billions of miles of outer space is), the point is no text actually says Jesus came back from heaven. Which necessarily means you are making that up to get around the problem. This is the definition of ad hoc."

Hays

You lack reading comprehension. What the account actually said is that Jesus levitated to a point in midair, then he was enveloped in the Shekinah cloud. So, no, it doesn't have Jesus shooting up into outer space. 

You then repeat one of your fallacious talking points, which I already refuted.

Johnson

"In this case, the burden of proof lies with the Resurrection proponent because they are the ones making the positive claim."

Hays

You repeat your fallacious understanding of how only positive claims have a burden of proof. It didn't take you long to bottom out. You have a few bad arguments that you constantly recycle. 

Johnson

"This has nothing to do with atheism."

Hays

It's revealing how touchy you are about the atheist tag. there's nothing "desperate" about pointing out that Christians and atheists alike have plausibility structures. An atheist plausibility structure is hostile to truth-claims like the Resurrection while a Christian plausibility structure is open to truth-claims like the Resurrection. If you suppose that your atheism or naturalism has no bearing on how you evaluate the NT testimony to the Resurrection, then you're very naive.

Johnson

"No, it's relevant in the case of Paul since he's the only verified and undisputed firsthand source written by someone who claimed Jesus 'appeared' to him in the first person."

Hays

Begs the question.

Johnson

"All the gospels are written in third person."

Hays

A stock convention of ancient historiography:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/05/illeism.html

Johnson

"Their historicity and authorship are disputed."

Hays

i) The mere fact that something is disputed doesn't imply that the dispute is legitimate. Are you a 9/11 Truther?

ii) There's extensive evidence for the historicity of the Gospels. For instance, Peter Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Crossway 2018).

iii) You keep dodging the evidence I provided regarding the titles of the Gospels.

Johnson

"Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows"

Hays

There is no scholarly consensus on the dating of the Gospels. 

Johnson

"Paul c. 50 CE"

Hays

Johnson seems to be regurgitating Richard Carrier's fanciful reconstruction . 

Johnson

"Mark c. 70 CE"

Hays

Mark's Gospel could be as early as the 40s. Read John Wenham.

Johnson

"The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one."

Hays

Johnson has a tin-ear for hyperbole. 

Johnson

"Matthew c. 80 CE"

Hays

I date Matthew to the 60s.

Johnson

"zombie apocalypse"

Hays

A mindless village atheist trope. In cinema, zombies are cannibalistic corpses. That's not remotely analogous to the resurrection of the body. 

Johnson

"let alone any other contemporary source from the time period."

Hays

How many extant contemporary sources do we have from that time and place? 

How many people would recognize the resurrected saints? For those that did, would they write that down? Even if they did, would the record survive?

Johnson

"Luke 85-95"

Hays

I date Luke to the late 50s. 

Johnson

"has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction."

Hays

Johnson doesn't know what a contradiction is. It's not contradictory for someone to be in two different places at different times. 

For that matter, it's not contradictory for Jesus to bilocate. He's omnipotent. 

Johnson

"John 90-110 CE"

Hays

I date John to the 60s. The postscript was occasioned by Peter's death. 

Johnson

"Jesus can now walk through walls"

Hays

John doesn't say that. It could be like how Peter miraculously got through barriers (Acts 12). 

Johnson

"Right back at you. Asserting Paul's firsthand description in Gal. 1:12-16 was veridical, begs the question."

Hays

To begin with, you're the one who's hung up on Gal 1:12-16, not me. You made that the centerpiece of your argument. 

Merely asserting that his firsthand description is veridical would be question-begging, but it's not question-begging if supporting arguments are provided. 

Johnson

"This is what everyone believes about claims of visions from other religions they are not a member of."

Hays

False. Adherents of non-Christian religions can have genuine visions. For instance, they can have visions of evil spirits.

Johnson

"The data of the resurrection narratives grows in the telling."

Hays

I already debunked your facile narrative. 

Johnson

"Mark is traditionally based on Peter's testimony. Well, how come we have no description of an appearance to Peter or a description of the witnessed Ascension?"

Hays

Actually, I'd say some of it is based on Mark's firsthand observation. After all, he was living in Jerusalem during the public ministry of Christ (Acts 12:12). That also gave him access to many eyewitnesses to the public ministry of Christ. 

Johnson

"It's still consistent with the growth hypothesis because Matthew is our first recorded appearance report."

Hays

Because the ending of Matthew is not abbreviated.

Johnson

"The 'miracles' are a red herring. We are focusing on the Resurrection appearances."

Hays

It means you wish to artificially isolate the credibility of Matthew when he says something you suppose is useful to your case, but then deny his credibility when he says things you don't believe. 

Johnson

"That Matthew records some doubted the appearance doesn't speak very well to its veracity."

Hays

How does that follow? Take parents who refuse to believe their kids lie to them or refuse to believe their kids use drugs, despite impressive evidence to the contrary? Likewise, does the existence of 9/11 Truthers speak poorly to the veracity of the standard account? Does the existence of skeptics who think the lunar landings were staged speak poorly to the reality of the lunar landings? 

Johnson

"Why is Luke 'more detailed' in the Resurrection appearances when he wasn't even a witness himself?"

Hays

Because multiple witnesses can report events at more than one time and place, since they can be at different places, whereas a single eyewitness can only report what he saw from where he was at the time. So that's to be expected if Luke has a range of informants. 

Johnson

"His main source was Mark which he copied verbatim."

Hays

As Lydia McGrew has documented in her book on undesigned coincidences, Matthew and Luke have independent sources of information. 

Johnson

"No, but that's only if the differences are minor."

Hays

To the contrary, historians and biographers can have significant omissions in their accounts, in relation to other accounts by the historians and biographers. 

Johnson

"the differences look like a legend evolving. That's a big problem."

Hays

It's only a big problem if we accept your claim, which I don't (for reasons I already gave).

Johnson

"It still follows that Paul, Mark and Matthew (nor John for that matter) mention the amazing 40 day period."

Hays

Paul isn't writing a life of Christ, and he wasn't present for the period in question. 

Again, you keep operating with the fallacious assumption that they'd all report the same incidents if these were historical. Do you think Churchill and Eisenhower duplicate each other in their personal accounts of WWII? Do you think Grant and Sherman duplicate each other in their personal accounts of the Civil War?

Johnson

"And both of those were thee last sources written, still consistent with the growth hypothesis."

Hays

If there are "consistent" explanations that the lunar landings were staged, is it rational to doubt or deny that the lunar landings really happened?

Johnson

"They are much more fantastic than the earlier reports. That's the point."

Hays

They are "fantastic" or "more fantastic" from the viewpoint of an atheist. 

Johnson

"Ok name some from history about the same historical event that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, and yet, you regard the fantastic details to be historical."

Hays

Loaded question since I don't concede that the Gospels grow in fantastic detail. And I don't concede that the details are fantastic. 

Johnson

"…and then a later unverified third person report said 'some say Bruce Lee stayed in midair for 30 seconds'–would you actually believe the latter account?"

Hays

You have a simplistic way of sifting testimonial evidence. Bruce Lee isn't Jesus. There's no reason to think Lee had superhuman abilities.

If, however, I had evidence that Lee was a practitioner of the occult, then his reported superhuman abilities (to use your hypothetical example) would be credible. 

Johnson

"you should apply the same skepticism to Jewish/Christian visions."

Hays

That's irrational. Unlike Smith, there's no evidence that Paul and the Gospel authors were conmen. 

Likewise, the fact that Vedic sages have hallucinations when they get high on mushrooms is no reason to presume that visions are hallucinatory absent a necessary stimulus.

Johnson

"We do not have the same abundant information about Paul."

Hays

Paul had everything to lose by becoming a Christian. He threw away a very promising career as a leading rabbi and had a thankless life as a missionary. 

Johnson

"This raises the prior probability that these people would claim to have 'visions' of Jesus."

Hays

Most Christians today don't claim to have visions of Jesus. And visions of Jesus don't have the physicality of what the NT reports. 

Johnson

"Paul disagrees."

Hays

Recycling your original argument after I debunked it does nothing to advance your case. You're a one-trick pony. 

Johnson

"Christian visions good. All other religion's visions bad." 

Hays

Because not all religions can be true. 

Johnson

"The Acts account does not describe seeing an actual person and Gal. 1:12-16 sounds like a totally subjective spiritual experience."

Hays

You're like a tape-recorder. You have your prerecorded message. When challenged, you simply push the rewind button, then replay your prerecorded message. 

Johnson

"Are those the 'traveling companions' that Paul doesn't mention in his firsthand writings and that we have no report from themselves? Gosh, it's almost as if Luke just made them up."

Hays

If Luke just made them up, when didn't he make them full-blown eyewitnesses?

Johnson

"I haven't seen a demonstration of this."

Hays

What you find convincing isn't my standard of comparison.

Johnson

"The account literally has him ascends 'upwards toward' heaven - Lk. 24:51 'up' Acts 1:9-10 - 'taken up, up into the sky.'"

Hays

It says "he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9). 

i) So that's not Jesus shooting straight up into outer space like a rocket. Rather, he levitates low in the sky, then the Shekinah cloud takes him to "heaven".

ii) And, once again, "heaven" means more than one thing in biblical usage. They didn't see Jesus after he went into the Shekinah cloud. The fact that the Shekinah cloud took him to "heaven" doesn't imply that he went into outer space. "Heaven," in the theological sense, isn't the sky. 

Johnson

"Romulus was said to have ascended to heaven in a cloud too."

Hays

Superficial parallels like that betray a fundamental confusion. The Shekinah cloud goes back to OT narratives in Exodus. So the origin of the concept has nothing to do with Roman tales about Romulus. And it moves in a different conceptual universe than Roman tales about Romulus. 

Johnson

"I am not making a negative claim. I'm making an equally likely claim."

Hays

You're very far from thinking the Resurrection is equally as likely as a hallucination. 

Johnson

"Only one Christian source written firsthand by someone who claimed to experience Jesus in the first person and that is Paul - Gal. 1:12-16, 1 Cor 15:8. All the gospels are written in third person."

Hays

This is you in tape-recorder mode.

Johnson

"That doesn't therefore mean 'the gospels contain eyewitness reports.'" 

Hays

i) That's you moving the goalpost again. You implied that third-person narration is at odds with narration by an eyewitness. Having lost that argument, you change the subject. 

ii) According to traditional authorship, the Gospels contain eyewitness reports. I gave an argument for traditional authorship which you've been impotent to refute.

Johnson

"Comparing conspiracy theorists with legitimate mainstream New Testament scholarship?"

Hays

An illegitimate argument from authority. Scholarly opinion isn't evidence. Scholarly opinion isn't probative. Scholarly opinion is only as good as the supporting arguments that scholars adduce to justify their opinions. 

Johnson

"Paul is the earliest and only verified firsthand source."

Hays

Your one-trick pony show.

Johnson

"You need to show these people really saw Jesus otherwise the Resurrection argument fails to be convincing to a neutral observer."

Hays

Atheists aren't neutral observers. 

Johnson

"So all those scholars are lying then?"

Hays

You're appealing to a subset of scholars as if that represents scholarly consensus. Your appeal suffers from sample selection bias. 

Johnson

"You can't have them "leave and tell no one" while at the same time have them "leave and tell the disciples." That is a contradiction."

Hays

Like I said before, it goes to show that you're tone-deaf to hyperbole. 

Johnson

"The only way out of the contradiction is to invent something Mark doesn't actually say…"

Hays

Hyperbole is a standard literary convention in the Bible, and when writers use hyperbole, they don't tell the reader that they are being hyperbolic. You have sophomoric reading skills. Bone up on stock rhetorical and literary devices. 

Johnson

"Also, another quick contradiction is Mark 16:1…Luke 23:55-56"

Hays

What commentaries on Mark and Luke have you consulted?