| Finishing up my rejoinder to TogetherForPeace's latest video response regarding the use of texts in the Christian scriptures as historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection. Completing the outline: IV (continued) Early Christian church authorities who included, among other things, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the canon, did not do so as historians, but rather as ecclesiastical leaders. V. When Inaccuracies Accumulate While some Christians wish to maintain that inconsistencies enhance a story's credibility, the opposite is true. There is an inverse relationship between the number and significance of inconsistencies and the credibility of a story. If enough inconsistencies are present in a story, it's unlikely that the story is true. VI. Whether the Christian scriptures can be used as evidence of anything as regards Jesus' resurrection? They can, but that doesn't get us very far because other mythological texts can be used as evidence of non-Christian religious beliefs. VII. The Charge of "Excessive" and "Unwarranted" Skepticism Given the pertinent facts, skepticism about the value of biblical texts as historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection is neither excessive nor unwarranted. VIII. Focus on One Criterion The special relevance of the corroboration criterion to the instant discussion. IX. Disagreement There is no question that there's disagreement here. However, the salient issue is which side has the stronger case. Music: "Confitemini Domino" by Taize |
