“Based on what? Facts?”
This is a very good opportunity to refer to the work of Gary Habermas, who did a comprehensive study demonstrating that most scholars accept the things I mentioned.
“What are conventional methods of historicity for the resurrection of the dead?”
I didn’t say most scholars accept the truth of the Resurrection. I said they recognize as historical fact that the disciples sincerely believed in it based on their experience. This in itself is highly significant.
“What scholarly standards for historical facts exist to prove that what’s written in the Gospels is true?”
There are many ways to establish the credibility of particular writers. This is what all historians do. For example Luke’s writings stands up to the strictest standards of accuracy as regards geographical detail, as well as details about particular people. These things have been tested, for all the New Testament authors, by comparing them to the recordings of non Christian writers of the time. There are many books documenting these claims, as well as other tests of accuracy and credibility. I will provide titles to you, sometime in the next few days as time permits.
Once the credibility and accuracy of a particular writer has been established, it’s very difficult to apply that credibility to only the parts of his work that you want to accept as true. It’s a bit suspect to say well, he was consistently accurate in details of geography, people and other particulars, but when it comes to things I don’t believe in, he’s got no credibility. The error here is to establish certain claims as true in themselves—that they are true in an a priori sense. Like the claim that no particular miracle could have really happened because miracles in general cannot happen.
Rather than saying, “I refuse to believe this because such a thing is impossible,” it’s much more rational to investigate particular events in question based on what actually happened during that time. Facts can be established according to standards we all accept, and as more pieces are added to the puzzle the truth becomes more visible.
This is a very good opportunity to refer to the work of
Gary Habermas, who did a comprehensive study demonstrating that most scholars accept the things I mentioned.
Why should I believe him? He is not really what could be called unbiased. Let me see corroboration of his results by an independent or even agnostic/atheist course and then we can talk.
I didn’t say most scholars accept the truth of the Resurrection. I said they recognize as historical fact that the disciples sincerely believed in it based on their experience. This in itself is highly significant.
So does every Christian in the long chain of almost 2000 years. How do you know? You hears it form someone else. How do they know? They heard it from someone else, etc. all the way back to the authors of the New Testament books (as well as those that didn't make it into the canon).
Of the four Gospels, only Matthew and John would have been "eyewitnesses" to a risen Jesus (not the Resurrection itself; that was not witnessed by anyone). Of those, Matthew basically copies most of Mark's account who was not a witness!
The Church cleverly (but inexplicably) placed Matthew's account first, while biblical scholarship places Mark's account first. Which begs the question, why would an "eyewitness" copy the work of a non-eyewitness!?! And then the account by John differs like night and day from the Mark's account. Can two eyewitness accounts, both supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit, differ that much? Makes you wonder if someone was napping...
For example Luke’s writings stands up to the strictest standards of accuracy as regards geographical detail, as well as details about particular people
How can that be when there are two Gospels of Luke, one short and one long? That fact itself throws sufficient down to dismiss such a claim. besides, what does your statement say about those biblical references that are geographically, or otherwise incorrect?
These things have been tested, for all the New Testament authors, by comparing them to the recordings of non Christian writers of the time.
Like the account of the Roman census and Herod's death, a gap of 4 years?...or Peter's reference to enduring persecutions when there were none? Makes you wander why would someone born in Bethlehem be called the Nazarene...
The error here is to establish certain claims as true in themselves—that they are true in an a priori sense.
You have more than an a priori belief when it comes to Genesis?!
Like the claim that no particular miracle could have really happened because miracles in general cannot happen.
When there are no other instances in all of human history of such events, chances are they are, especially since neither snakes nor donkeys have human brains and human vocal cords, or at least science has not been able to find any vestigial evidence of such organs in either snakes or donkeys.
Rather than saying, “I refuse to believe this because such a thing is impossible,” it’s much more rational to investigate particular events in question based on what actually happened during that time.
The problem is that some people come out with something (I.Ed. talking pink unicorns on Jupiter) and expect others to believe them! Not only that, they expect others to "justify' their doubt. If you think about it, it's the people who make make fantastic claims who should be providing some reasonable evidence to back up their fantastic claims, not the people who express doubt about them!
Facts can be established according to standards we all accept, and as more pieces are added to the puzzle the truth becomes more visible.
I agree. So what do you have to offer to explain why a major world religion depends on a "talking" snake?