Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

So, we're done talking about the New Testament and my relationship with divinity, then? OK. On to your misunderstandings about the mathematics of science.

If you want to talk about the New Testament, as my kids would say, "I am down for talking about the New Testament." Although we were not talking about the New Testament, we were talking about your relationship with divinity and how divinity implies that there is a God. But if you want to talk about the New Testament, I can do that.

What I said about scientists being wrong also applies to "open questions." Not knowing how something happened doesn't increase the likelihood of any particular made-up answer. In the absence of evidence for gods, I can say that gods don't exist with the same certainty that I can say that leprechauns don't exist. Any particular thing is possible, but that possibility is roughly one in infinity.

Unless you believe in an eternal universe, something has to exist outside of this universe, and whatever exists outside of this universe has to have the power to create this universe.

Not knowing how something happens significantly limits what you can rule out as a possible explanation. Since something has to exist outside of this universe, there has to be more to the totality of reality. You try to act like you are calculating something but do not explain how you are arriving at your conclusion. How did you arrive at your one-to-infinity ratio?

Again, you can believe with all your might that God does not exist, but that still does not make it true. Nor can you say with any certainty that God does not exist because you do not know what exists or does not exist outside of this universe. As soon as the possibility of God existing exists, the possibility that God created the universe and life also exists, along with the possibility of God raising Jesus from the dead.

That's right. It's based on the nothing that comprises the evidence for gods. When a theist (or leprechaunist, or invisible unicornist, or Tooth Fairyist, or Santa Clausist, or whatever) shows me something, then I might start to change my mind.

No, you will not. You only have that option if God chooses to convict you of your sin. John 15:16: "You did not choose me, I choose you." And Matthew 22:14, "Many are called and few are choosen." Salvation is a miraculous act of God.

There is your New Testament conversation.

[Difflugia]

If you want to talk about the New Testament, as my kids would say, "I am down for talking about the New Testament." Although we were not talking about the New Testament, we were talking about your relationship with divinity and how divinity implies that there is a God. But if you want to talk about the New Testament, I can do that.

This is the comment you originally took issue with:

We've had a few discussions of this, but I disagree. I think, perhaps ironically, that a modern analog to the New Testament is something like The Shack. It would be a plausible enough story without the supernatural elements, but it's obviously fiction. Its power has nothing to do with whether or not the story actually happened, impossible though it is, but in what the story says to you about your relationship with the divine.

The comment is about how the New Testament affects one's relationship with the divine.

Not knowing how something happens significantly limits what you can rule out as a possible explanation.

Hence, "not impossible" in a philosophical sense. I can't philosophically rule out gods or leprechauns.

You try to act like you are calculating something but do not explain how you are arriving at your conclusion. How did you arrive at your one-to-infinity ratio?

I did explain it:

The bulk of the probability space is taken up by things for which we have evidence. Whatever space is left over, however much that is, is shared by the infinitely many made-up explanations for which we have no evidence, including gods. No matter how much space they collectively fill, the probability of any given one still asymptotically approaches zero.

There are infinitely many made-up explanations lacking evidence that share a finite probability space. The probability that any particular one of them is right is one in infinity. As an explanation, any god is competing on equal footing with magic beans or time-travelling monkeys.

That's right. It's based on the nothing that comprises the evidence for gods. When a theist (or leprechaunist, or invisible unicornist, or Tooth Fairyist, or Santa Clausist, or whatever) shows me something, then I might start to change my mind.

No, you will not. You only have that option if God chooses to convict you of your sin.

That just sounds like sour grapes. I'm not convinced by your terrible arguments, so you weren't trying to convince me, anyway.

John 15:16: "You did not choose me, I choose you." And Matthew 22:14, "Many are called and few are choosen." Salvation is a miraculous act of God.

Or magic beans.

[Difflugia]

We continue to go through this over, and over.

Because you keep taking claims and trying to rewrap them as facts.

There are certain things we can know with almost certainty by reading what you are calling claims.

Even if that's true, those are conclusions from the evidence, which is comprised only of the actual claims themselves. You don't get to rechristen your conclusions as new facts.

As just a very small list, we can know that Jesus was a real historical figure. We can know he had followers. We can know he was crucified. We can know there were those who claimed to have seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion. According to most scholars, we can know the early followers of Jesus truly believed they had encountered Jesus alive after death. We can know that Paul was completely opposed to Christianity. We can know that Paul converted. We can know that Paul goes on to be the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time.

There are people that come to these conclusions based on the claims in the Bible, yes.

It is these, and many other things we can know by reading what you call claims here, along with calling it fiction elsewhere.

You don't get to call your conclusions facts or evidence.

This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what is contained in the Bible.

I'm on the edge of my seat.

As we read what is contained in the NT we definitely have enough facts and evidence to know that something out of the ordinary occurred which has had an enormous impact upon the history of the world. There is no way anyone can deny this fact. So then, we have enough evidence contained in the NT to know this much. Now, you may look at this evidence and come to a different conclusion than I do, and I have no problem with this in the least. The problem comes in when there are those who want to insist, there would be no reason to come to the conclusions I have, when they continue to fail to demonstrate this to be the case, with very poor arguments. I mean, you all act as if I have not thought of the arguments, you are bringing forth, when it would be impossible not to think through these things for one who actually thinks. My main point over, and over is, there is no way one can sit down in order to think through what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and come away from such a study, under the impression that it is a "no brainer" either way. For one to come away believing such a thing, either demonstrates one who has not really done the work, or they are being intellectually dishonest.

This is a jumbled morass of non sequiturs. You're trying to get from the New Testament itself to modern Christianity without connecting any dots, then saying that there must be evidence between the dots, because here we are. Your argument seems to be:

• Christianity has impacted many, many people.
• You wouldn't let it impact you like that without evidence.
• Therefore, those many, many people must have had really convincing evidence.
• Since that evidence must be so convincing, you are convinced by it.

So then, we can continue this back and forth over the particular issues over, and over, or you can just go ahead and make the case why it is so simple along with demonstrating to us why there would be no reason to believe.

We're still working on the difference between claims, facts, and evidence. One step at a time.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #133]

Nor can you fill it with anything else. Unknown is unknown.

But what you are forgetting is what is called the materialist default, which is that what is known does not demonstrate a god, thus materialism or naturalism had a reasonable claim that whatever the explanation for the - as yet - unknowns, is likely to be natural or material, and not some supernatural explanation.

Thus while unknowns remain i unknown a material explanation is the go - to hypothesis.

All I have to say is, wow, that seems like you really thought it through that well. Who made the rules? If you say science made the rules, then we have a problem. Science, by definition, can only investigate material things. Therefore, science cannot investigate God. Materialism is not the default position. Materialism is the only position possible for science to take.

Thank you kindly, but this is not my thoughts. This is already well - known apologetics. These are the rules of logic and science, which - to be clear - is not a dogma of claims but a detection - method of finding what is so and what is not.

Sure some things are more certain than others. We can be pretty sure about the formation of the sun as we can observe suns being formed.

The formation of the planets can be pretty sure from the evidence, cosmic origins, still under discussion, but not a shred of decent evidence for a god. Name your own anyway.

Which is important - Cosmic origins, origins of life and consciousness, does not tell us Which god.

Cue the reliability of the Bible, particularly the NT and specifically the resurrection - claim, which is the only argument that even matters a tuppenny damn.

Though 'Who made everything, the?' is still the first and last resort of the god - apologist.

Final word - Logic and (scientific) evidence is war we use to determine what's correct and what isn't.

Now, you may be tempted to dismiss that. Many do dismiss logic and science as 'human opinion'. But, if you do, you have no empirical or logical basis for any claim that might be made.

Just clearing some mines out of your pathway.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

So, we're done talking about the New Testament and my relationship with divinity, then? OK. On to your misunderstandings about the mathematics of science.

If you want to talk about the New Testament, as my kids would say, "I am down for talking about the New Testament." Although we were not talking about the New Testament, we were talking about your relationship with divinity and how divinity implies that there is a God. But if you want to talk about the New Testament, I can do that.

What I said about scientists being wrong also applies to "open questions." Not knowing how something happened doesn't increase the likelihood of any particular made-up answer. In the absence of evidence for gods, I can say that gods don't exist with the same certainty that I can say that leprechauns don't exist. Any particular thing is possible, but that possibility is roughly one in infinity.

Unless you believe in an eternal universe, something has to exist outside of this universe, and whatever exists outside of this universe has to have the power to create this universe.

Not knowing how something happens significantly limits what you can rule out as a possible explanation. Since something has to exist outside of this universe, there has to be more to the totality of reality. You try to act like you are calculating something but do not explain how you are arriving at your conclusion. How did you arrive at your one-to-infinity ratio?

Again, you can believe with all your might that God does not exist, but that still does not make it true. Nor can you say with any certainty that God does not exist because you do not know what exists or does not exist outside of this universe. As soon as the possibility of God existing exists, the possibility that God created the universe and life also exists, along with the possibility of God raising Jesus from the dead.

That's right. It's based on the nothing that comprises the evidence for gods. When a theist (or leprechaunist, or invisible unicornist, or Tooth Fairyist, or Santa Clausist, or whatever) shows me something, then I might start to change my mind.

No, you will not. You only have that option if God chooses to convict you of your sin. John 15:16: "You did not choose me, I choose you." And Matthew 22:14, "Many are called and few are choosen." Salvation is a miraculous act of God.

There is your New Testament conversation.

We are very familiar with this inverted Faithbased reasoning. I may have become a bore in explaining it.

I'll just touch on the eternal universe, which is quite an interesting discussion. First, the universe - our universe - apparently had a cause. This cause (Big Bang) does not need a god. It only needs assembly of existing particles from a wider cosmos. That is the Real cosmic origins question, and there is a theory as to how that could be eternal.

Oh - as to timing, Our universe may expand, die (the Entropy apologetic) and contract to BB a new universe. Entirely possible - naturally, and does not have the problem of what God was doing before he made everything.

Universe without a god in fact leaves less problems than a god - claim does,.

Now as to the god - claim. The burden of proof falls on the one wo claims a god exists. They also have to show which one it is, because if you dismiss all the others without consideration, we can dismiss your claim without consideration.

And logically should unless you produce evidence.

Cue - again - the Bible, particularly NT and specifically the resurrection as without that Jesus was just another loudmouth with no particular clout.

The Resurrection is in fact the Only discussion that matters. And it is not sorted by quotes from a book the veracity of which is itself under discussion.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #142]

The bulk of the probability space is taken up by things for which we have evidence. Whatever space is left over, however much that is, is shared by the infinitely many made-up explanations for which we have no evidence, including gods. No matter how much space they collectively fill, the probability of any given one still asymptotically approaches zero.

What evidence are you referring to? Methodological naturalism, naturalism, materialism, whatever you want to call it. (Although methodological naturalism is the correct term for it) has no starting point, and it has to have a starting point. It has to have a first cause. Naturalism does not have a first cause. If you are clinging to a strictly materialistic theory, there is no evidence for that because it has no original cause. Anything that exists outside of this universe has to be immaterial. Because the laws of nature that govern this universe cannot extend outside of this universe.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #145]

We are very familiar with this inverted Faithbased reasoning. I may have become a bore in explaining it.

Well, Good I am glad you are familiar with the gospel.

I'll just touch on the eternal universe, which is quite an interesting discussion. First, the universe - our universe - apparently had a cause. This cause (Big Bang) does not need a god. It only needs assembly of existing particles from a wider cosmos. That is the Real cosmic origins question, and there is a theory as to how that could be eternal.

Oh - as to timing, Our universe may expand, die (the Entropy apologetic) and contract to BB a new universe. Entirely possible - naturally, and does not have the problem of what God was doing before he made everything.

Universe without a god in fact leaves less problems than a god - claim does,.

So, you believe in a wider cosmos. Where is that wider cosmos? The Big Bang theory proposes a universe that creates space as it expands. What are the physical laws in that wider cosmos? How does an eternal universe overcome the effects of entropy? How does anything occur without the flow of time? Time is a construct of this universe. I would say your "physical universe" (I am not sure how that is possible outside of our universe, but I will let you have your fantasies.) has enough problems to overcome.

God is not physical; He is spirit. Therefore, He can exist and produce action without needing time or space. There is no evidence of space outside of this universe or that time exists outside of this universe.

Now as to the god - claim. The burden of proof falls on the one who claims a god exists. They also have to show which one it is because if you dismiss all the others without consideration, we can dismiss your claim without consideration.

Which God is a different discussion than "Is there a God?" I am not a Muslim, but they would agree that there is a God. The burden of proof falls on the one who believes the material is all there is. In this post, you have testified that there is more to this universe than the material. You have declared that something must exist outside of this universe. Whatever exists outside of this universe has to be able to exist and cause action without time or space and be all-powerful.

Thank you for proving God does exist. GOOD JOB.

[Difflugia]

What evidence are you referring to? Methodological naturalism, naturalism, materialism, whatever you want to call it. (Although methodological naturalism is the correct term for it) has no starting point, and it has to have a starting point. It has to have a first cause. Naturalism does not have a first cause. If you are clinging to a strictly materialistic theory, there is no evidence for that because it has no original cause. Anything that exists outside of this universe has to be immaterial. Because the laws of nature that govern this universe cannot extend outside of this universe.

That's all very fancy, but it doesn't get you anything and looks like the beginning of a slippery slope that leads to you getting to claim probability out of nothing ("ex nihilo," some might say).

You say that methodological naturalism "has to have a starting point," but it doesn't. Regardless of the philosophical baggage you try to saddle it with, methodological naturalism is the accepted method of science because it works without having to opine about some esoteric feature of the universe. Let's try an exercise:

Take a normal game die and examine it. This is the first bit of evidence we're collecting. The faces look like this:


Now, we're already well past any "starting point." We've seen dice and understand the language surrounding them. We can discuss experimentation without having to quibble over what I mean when I say "roll the die." Unless, of course, we're dissembling a bit and trying to pretend that methodological naturalism is somehow an invalid way to ask questions of the universe.

Anyway, for one trial, let's roll the die on a table or something and record the outcome. For our experiment, let's list a number of outcomes.

First, the ones that we have some evidence of happening. We've examined the die and based on its shape, we can deduce some likely ones:

• is facing up.
• is facing up.
• is facing up.
• is facing up.
• is facing up.
• is facing up.

Now, to be fair to your "methodological naturalism must have a starting point" nonsense, we'll assume that some made-up stuff might happen. Let's list some made-up stuff.

• The table disappears.
• A leprechaun steals your wallet.
• Jesus Christ, Son of God hands you a dollar.
• A can of soup (any brand) appears and dances suggestively for you.

Now, if you were to predict the results of a thousand trials, how many Jesus bucks do you think you'll have? How many cans of soup will you fall in love with?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #143]

Because you keep taking claims and trying to rewrap them as facts.

This has not occurred. But let's not argue about this. Instead let us start over and see if I can make some factual statements without confusing them with what you call claims.

It is a fact we have the material contained in the NT. It is a fact that the authors of the NT report on a resurrection. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was addressed to audiences at the time, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern that anyone else would read what they wrote other than the intended audience at the time. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to those who were already believers. It is a fact that none of the NT authors could have possibly known about any sort of Bible. It is a fact that what is contained in the NT has convinced most all scholars that the early followers of Jesus were convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death. It is a fact that we have very good evidence the author who addressed Theophilus was a traveling companion of Paul. I mean, I could continue on, and on, but all the aforementioned would be fact, and I have not in any way asserted my conclusion concerning these facts, would be fact.

The one thing we do know is, whatever it was that occurred some 2000 years ago, it has had an enormous impact upon the history of the world, and this sort of thing demands some sort of explanation. Now, you are certainly free to examine the facts and evidence we have concerning these events and come to whatever conclusion you think best explains the facts and evidence we have, but unless you can demonstrate the reports to be false, you cannot rightly insist there would be no reason to believe the reports. Moreover, and as I continue to say, there is no way one can sit down in order to understand what all would have to be involved for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false and come away with the idea that it is a "no brainer". One who insist that it is a "no brainer" on either side is living in a dream world.

Even if that's true, those are conclusions from the evidence, which is comprised only of the actual claims themselves.

It is not, "even if that's true" it is simply true, but I am certainly glad to see you use the word "evidence" when referring to the "actual claims themselves" because the claims are indeed evidence. They are not in any way proof, but they certainly have to be considered evidence until, or unless they are demonstrated to be false. In other words, we cannot simply assume the reports to be false. Rather, I would need a reason to believe them to be false. If the scholars are correct, then the one thing this would mean is that these folks were not reporting what they knew to be false, but rather what they truly believed to be true. I'm just telling you, there are no easy answers here to be had. I mean, I would love to believe Christianity to be false, because I do not know how anyone would want to believe it, but when I sit down to think it all through the math just does not add. Again, if you come to a different conclusion, I am absolutely fine with that.

You don't get to rechristen your conclusions as new facts.

As we start over, I will endeavor to attempt to word what I say better, but please attempt to read what I type better. Again, I think what I stated above would all be facts without confusing my conclusion of the facts as fact.

There are people that come to these conclusions based on the claims in the Bible, yes.

These are not simply conclusions. Rather, these are things we can know based upon what is contained in the NT and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the claims of a resurrection. I was just listening to Paula Fredriksen yesterday, who is a scholar who is not Christian and she claims that one of the things we can know with almost certainty is that Jesus was crucified. She is also a scholar who is convinced the early followers of Jesus were convinced they had encountered the risen Jesus. She states it this way, "I do not know what they saw, I was not there, but as a historian I know they must have saw something". This is what I am attempting to explain to you. There are certain things we can know by reading this material whether the material be trustworthy or not, and you continue to attempt to deny the things we can know, and this is what folks do in order to avoid having to deal with the actual facts.

Christianity has impacted many, many people.

I have never, ever made such a stupid argument. Rather, my argument is, we can know something extraordinary (meaning out of the ordinary) occurred some 2000 years ago, which has had an enormous impact upon the history of the world. This has nothing whatsoever to do with how many people are or have been believers. Rather, it has to do with the enormous impact these common fishermen have had upon the world no matter what the explanation may be. If the scholars are correct, these folks truly believed they encountered Jesus after death, and this is what has caused this enormous impact upon history, or there is some other explanation of the facts we have, but either way we are dealing with events that just do not happen every day. I mean, I have been going at this on this thread since the first of June, and we have not even scratched the surface of all which needs to be considered, which means there is no way I can go into all the facts, evidence, and reasons there would be, and you would not want me to. What I can tell you is that I would never, ever make the argument that it must be true because of how many people believe it.

You wouldn't let it impact you like that without evidence.

And I have not. However, I can assure you that it would have nothing to do with believing there must be evidence since there are so many people who believe. Before we continue, you need to understand that you are dealing with one who has thought long and hard about what it is I believe, and why I believe it, and while I will not insist you will not bring up an argument I have not thought through, I can tell you that it has not happened thus far. All you are doing at this point is creating strawmen arguments, because I have never made these arguments, and never would.

Therefore, those many, many people must have had really convincing evidence.
Since that evidence must be so convincing, you are convinced by it.

I have combined these two, and I am not even going to respond to them because they are just plain silly. Rather, I am going to ask you a question. Were you at one time a convinced Christian?

We're still working on the difference between claims, facts, and evidence. One step at a time.

Hopefully we have cleared up the differences, so can we move on to the next step?

[Difflugia]

Because you keep taking claims and trying to rewrap them as facts.

This has not occurred. But let's not argue about this. Instead let us start over and see if I can make some factual statements without confusing them with what you call claims.

It is a fact we have the material contained in the NT.

Yes.

It is a fact that the authors of the NT report on a resurrection.

It depends on what you mean by "report" and if you're trying to create a single resurrection out of multiple incompatible accounts.

Fact: Authors of the NT wrote narratives involving resurrections of Jesus.

It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was addressed to audiences at the time, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern that anyone else would read what they wrote other than the intended audience at the time.

This is a reasonable conjecture, but not a fact per se.

It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to those who were already believers.

This is a reasonable conjecture, but not a fact per se.

It is a fact that none of the NT authors could have possibly known about any sort of Bible.

It depends on what you mean by "any sort of Bible." The accepted dates of composition of the texts range from the middle of the first century (the earliest genuine Paulines) to middle of the second century (the Pastoral epistles). Considering the content of Acts, it is likely (reasonable conjecture, not fact) that several Pauline epistles were being circulated together. This is even more likely by the time the Pastorals were written. These documents were written for audiences that likely had collections of texts used for liturgical purposes. Not exactly a canon as such, but could be considered a "sort of Bible."

It is a fact that what is contained in the NT has convinced most all scholars that the early followers of Jesus were convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death.

"Most all" is strong, but at least a majority as long as you don't try to smuggle in any more qualifiers, like a physical encounter or that "alive" necessarily meant "alive in the flesh." The academic consensus is that the early followers of Jesus believed that they encountered Jesus in some form.

It is a fact that we have very good evidence the author who addressed Theophilus was a traveling companion of Paul.

This isn't a fact. The evidence is extremely poor and the counterevidence strong enough that the "author who addressed Theophilus" didn't know Paul or any first-generation Christians.

The one thing we do know is, whatever it was that occurred some 2000 years ago, it has had an enormous impact upon the history of the world, and this sort of thing demands some sort of explanation.

This is true as you've written it. We need "some sort of explanation." I think the explanation is that a bunch of religious zealots wrote allegorical fiction about their demigod hero.

Now, you are certainly free to examine the facts and evidence we have concerning these events and come to whatever conclusion you think best explains the facts and evidence we have, but unless you can demonstrate the reports to be false, you cannot rightly insist there would be no reason to believe the reports.

You haven't demonstrated that the reports were intended to be historical. You can't rightly insist that the reasons to believe the reports overcome their inherent implausibility.

Moreover, and as I continue to say, there is no way one can sit down in order to understand what all would have to be involved for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false and come away with the idea that it is a "no brainer". One who insist that it is a "no brainer" on either side is living in a dream world.

If you mean the difference between entirely true or entirely false, I agree. Some of the reported details are pretty implausible, though, and there are a lot of explanations that are much, much more likely than a resurrection. Jesus was a real guy and crucified by Pilate? Sure, that's plausible. On the balance, I don't think even that much is true, but if we had a way to travel back in time and check, I wouldn't bet more than a few dollars either way. Walking on water? Water to wine? Raising Lazarus from the dead? Being resurrected from the dead? I'd bet the farm that none of those happened in a historical sense and I'd bet a substantial amount that the stories about them were intended to be fiction as genre.

It is not, "even if that's true" it is simply true, but I am certainly glad to see you use the word "evidence" when referring to the "actual claims themselves" because the claims are indeed evidence.

They're evidence of some things, but poor evidence that the details as written were historical events.

They are not in any way proof, but they certainly have to be considered evidence until, or unless they are demonstrated to be false. In other words, we cannot simply assume the reports to be false.

Considering the style, we can't simply assume the reports are true, either. Some of the events are so implausible, though, that it's extraordinarily unlikely that they're true. This isn't an assumption. There are no verified resurrections, supernatural or otherwise, so as a statistical matter, none of the resurrections reported in the New Testament are at all likely to have happened.

Rather, I would need a reason to believe them to be false.

In the course of our discussions, I've given you several.

If the scholars are correct, then the one thing this would mean is that these folks were not reporting what they knew to be false, but rather what they truly believed to be true.

Yes.

I'm just telling you, there are no easy answers here to be had.

Christians now believe without direct evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead. A pretty easy answer is that Christians of antiquity weren't any less credulous than Christians are now.

These are not simply conclusions. Rather, these are things we can know based upon what is contained in the NT and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the claims of a resurrection. I was just listening to Paula Fredriksen yesterday, who is a scholar who is not Christian and she claims that one of the things we can know with almost certainty is that Jesus was crucified.

That's simply a conclusion. If that's really what she claimed, I think she's overstating the evidence. If she's actually a relevant scholar, she probably knows things that I don't, though. If that's true, I'd like to see the rest of her evidence rather than just take your word for her word.

She is also a scholar who is convinced the early followers of Jesus were convinced they had encountered the risen Jesus. She states it this way, "I do not know what they saw, I was not there, but as a historian I know they must have saw something".

"They had encountered the risen Jesus" and "they must have [seen] something" are both far cries from "they talked to Jesus in the flesh after his death." Maybe that's what she meant, but I've read enough scholars to have seen nearly identical language with the understanding that it includes the possibility of mystical or visionary experiences.

This is what I am attempting to explain to you. There are certain things we can know by reading this material whether the material be trustworthy or not, and you continue to attempt to deny the things we can know, and this is what folks do in order to avoid having to deal with the actual facts.

I don't deny the things we actually can know, but there are far fewer of those than what you claim we can know.