Hello Andrew, thanks for taking the time to respond.

You said:

“Well written article Kyle but one big problem I have with what you have said is that you don’t seem to know what evidence is (which is kind of funny seeing as the whole article is about giving evidence). You repeatedly say (in the article and in your answers to the comments) things like like ‘historians of every kind agree overwhelmingly’ and ‘Most scholars, even atheistic scholars, agree that the disciples experienced Jesus alive after His death’ as if that actually constitutes evidence. It doesn’t. It is really just their opinion and people’s opinion is not evidence. Even if they are considered scholars it is not evidence. Stuff written in books is not evidence. Evidence is something that can be measured or repeatedly directly observed in the Universe.”

You raise an interesting issue — the nature of the evidence relevant to the discussion at hand.

The evidence you mention is scientific evidence — something measurable, experiments that are repeatable, direct observations of the Universe.

When we’re discussing science, certainly, we can define evidence this way.

But there are many fields of study where this explanation is not sufficient.

Take a crime scene investigation. You can see the evidence — a blank from a gun, the victim’s body, a safe that’s been cracked open. All of this is, properly speaking, evidence — yet it all fails your description.

You can’t repeat the crime. You can’t observe the crime directly. You can’t measure the crime.

Do we therefore conclude that the crime did not happen, because there’s no repeatable evidence of it, no direct observation of it?

No, of course not.

We examine the evidence of the blank from a gun, looking for fingerprints. We examine the safe. We look for clues. All of this is evidence, and all of it can help you understand what crime took place, yet your definition does not encompass it.

Similarly, with historical evidence, we aren’t looking for repeatable experiments, nor is direct observation possible. We must work with the clues we have. We must study archaeological artifacts, accounts from history, and so forth. An archaeological artifact is evidence, even if you cannot repeat an experiment with it. An historical account is evidence, even if you can’t measure or observe the event it records.

You said:

“Einstein writing down his thoughts on relativity in a book does not make relativity true. Even if a thousand scholarly scientists believe Einstein’s theory of relativity it does not make it true. What makes it true is that when you check it’s claims against how the universe acts it matches. Just having something written in a book, even if lots of people read it and believe it to be true, does not make it even close to evidence.”

You seem to stray into a straw man, here.

No one is claiming that a lot of people believing something makes it true.

No one is claiming that just having something written in a book makes it true.

No one is arguing that as evidence.

You said:

“I read in a book that 500 people saw Griffindor win the Quidditch Cup. Because one person claims, in a book, that 500 people witnessed an event does that mean the event happened ? I am sure you agree that, in the Quidditch case, it is not true - what is the difference between this and an ancient book making a similar claim ?”

Again, you stray into straw manning.

Harry Potter is quite intentionally fiction. No one, least of all the author, claims it happened.

The difference between a modern work of fiction and an ancient book that people were martyred over should be immediately obvious.

All twelve of Jesus’ disciples were persecuted. Most were executed in gruesome fashion. All of them staked their lives on the truthfulness of their claims. All of them lost their families, lost their homes, lost their reputations, lost their money, lost their health, and lost their lives to testify to the truth of what they saw and wrote and proclaimed.

How can you possibly compare that to an author who overtly states that her story is a work of fiction?

You said:

“Instead of telling us that many scholars believe something to be true why not tell us why the scholars believe - why not give us the evidence that has convinced the scholars ? I think you haven’t done this because there isn’t any. That is a bit harsh but it seems to be true. Can you (or anybody) give any actual evidence on whether a person rose from the dead 2,000 years ago ? It was a once-off event that happened long in the past so I don't see how anyone can.”

Again, being a once-off event doesn’t disqualify us from knowing it happened.

Every crime is a once-off event. But we don’t therefore say that these crimes can’t have happened. Nor do we say that we cannot possibly know what happened because they were once-offs.

Likewise, we don’t say that it’s impossible to know what happened in history. Most historical events are once-offs. Do we therefore say that it’s impossible to know what happened before us? Of course not.

In this article, I don’t have the space to list every bit of evidence. (Although the idea is intriguing, and I might have to expand this into a series of articles that do go into that depth. Stay tuned).

Instead, I appeal to those who don’t agree with me. I appeal to those who know the field, who have examined the evidence, whose professional knowledge and expertise carries weight. I appeal to them, because if I can make my case based on what my opponents assert, it strengthens the integrity of my claims.

As these experts testify to, we do have plentiful historical and archaeological evidence enough to be certain of the five facts at the start of the article. There’s a lot to talk about in addition to what’s in the article.

Again, the tactic I employ in the article is to cite the opponents of Christianity, not its allies.

I’m not appealing to a bunch of people who wrote something in a book.

In the case of Jesus dying on the Cross under Pontius Pilate, I’m appealing to Roman and Jewish sources — those opposed to Christianity, who have no interest in peddling Christian propaganda, who only record what they believe to be true.

When you can point to the opponents of Christianity to corroborate Christianity’s claims, it’s a strong historical argument indeed.