That is how you debate historical claims. It is only a fallacy in claims of proof. In claims about the quality of testimony and evidence it is used in virtually every classroom and courtroom on Earth. There are three main methods used to examine historical claims.
1. Historical corroboration. The Bible has as much or far more corroboration as any ancient claim could possibly have. Not long ago for example a cash of document seals was discovered. Within this single find over 50 Biblical names appeared. There exists no basis upon which to claim the Bible has less corroboration than it should. In the absence of significant contradictory evidence it has more than anyone could expect.
2. Supernatural claims (and many other types) have no historical evidence possible outside testimony. As I have illustrated and my "authorities" demonstrate there is once again no basis no declare what should be expected to be lacking. If 40 authors are dismissed how many does it take to convince.
3. Scholarly testimony in the form of historians; testimony and evidence experts are perfectly applicable and used to evaluate claims exactly as I have done in every form of academics that apply.
To deny what the apostles claim about Jesus would demand you deny what Caesar claimed in the Gallic wars, Thucydides said in the Peloponnesian wars, or Herodotus said in his "histories" yet all are taught as history in universities. None have a textual integrity even a meaningful fraction as substantial as the Bible.
I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I accept that there is a Historical Jesus and that certain things in the Bible do corroborate with history. I don't believe any of the supernatural things attributed to Jesus in Bible because there is no evidence for them. The scholars you keep mentioning aren't presenting any evidence for what Jesus supposedly did they are only saying that the "eye witnesses" were trustworthy. That is not evidence. Until there is evidence that can be verified I'm not going to believe. I can deny what the apostles claim because there is no evidence for what they are claiming. Why aren't these miracles at least mentioned by Jewish scholars of the day?
First there would have to be a justification for requesting that we have more evidence than we do. Dark matter can't be measured. No scientists have ever observed it. It can't be detected. Yet it is a virtual given in science. Assuming you agree as I do that dark matter exists, then since it has less evidence that it does than the supernatural, which one of us is being consistent? To claim as you do these statements would have to be true.
1. Authors who have been shown to be historically accurate to a degree that is incomprehensible for some reason were wildly inaccurate concerning only those things that leave no evidence but correct where evidence exists?
2. They risked life and assumed poverty and oppression on the basis of a truth they were perfectly capable of knowing?
3. The concept reported to have been experienced by billions has no basis in fact.
4. The most influential human in Earth's history achieved this within three years in a minor tribe of a middle east backwater despite the fact that half of what is said about him never occurred.
It is true that there is no absolute proof. It is wholly false that insufficient reasons do not exist to more than justify faith.
I don't know much about dark matter but I do know there is enough evidence to show that it does exist. The same cannot be said about the claims made about Jesus in the Bible.
1.What
Authors have been shown to be historically accurate to a degree that is incomprehensible? The Biblical authors?
2. Nothing special to Christianity. Other religious movements have faced the same thing.
3. Other religions claim these same experiences also. Once again it's not something that is unique to Christianity.
4. Jesus being the most influential is very debatable. He is one of the most influential but I don't know about the most influential. Muhammad achieved similar things.
They are expert claims about the quality of testimony used by academics to evaluate all such matters. In what way could that ever be inapplicable?
Because they don't present any evidence. They only make claims about testimonies. They haven't presented any evidence for what is being claimed.
I gave the conclusions of those whose job it was to actually formulate the science around separating fact from fiction. They know more than me or you and most what testimony consists of. One of them literally wrote texts that established the methods used by which the accuracy is determined. We must be having two different arguments. If you are claiming I can't prove the supernatural claims the Bible makes are facts then I thought that was known long before we discussed anything and not the issue. I have been discussing the reasonable justification for faith and that I believe you have yet to adequately contend. For some reason God demands faith. Faith precludes proof. Yet faith is not asked outside of justification. My argument is that faith is reasonably justified. The claim it isn't objectively proven to a certainty was never the point. If you used the same standards you do for the Bible's claims for the rest of knowledge then very little of what you believe could be justified. Like the vast majority of life we must take the information we have and make the best determination. The Biblical explanations for the historical facts contained in the Bible are the best explanation but not proven fact. We have gotten way off track. Faith has no burden of proof, only reasonable intellectual sufficiency.
Faith as defined by the dictionary is "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Faith doesn't require proof. If there was proof it wouldn't be called faith. How can you have faith is something that there is evidence for? Honestly I'm not really sure what we are debating. If you feel your faith is reasonably justified then good for you. I don't share those same sentiments as you. You've admitted that you can't prove the Bible's supernatural claims. There's nothing more to debate about this specific topic.
It is a wonder how Christianity is perceived by non-Christians. When I was an atheist all the atheists I knew had a certain version of Christianity in common. After becoming one very few of them turned out to be true. Half the common sayings credited to God are not in the Bible. I understand that going in so dont sweat it.
I should have asked beforehand I know not all Christians share the same beliefs about hell.
