Fearless TruthvsGnostic Informant

Fearless Truth argued that stories can share identical events, as the 1945 Empire State Building crash and Morgan Robertson's earlier novel about a sinking liner show, without the later account being false or copied.

Fearless Truth argued that group hallucination is very rare, citing psychologist Gary Sibcy's statement that he had found no documented case, and that near-identical details across multiple eyewitness reports make it even less probable.

Fearless Truth argued that lying is an unlikely explanation: the early followers gained no money or political power, faced severe consequences including death, and none of them recanted.

Fearless Truth argued that corruption of the text is unlikely, pointing to early witnesses such as Irenaeus, who quoted most of the New Testament in the second century, and to Ignatius, a disciple of John, who would have said something had John invented the account.

Fearless Truth cited historical-critical criteria: multiple attestation across the Gospels, the criterion of embarrassment in Mary Magdalene being named as the first witness, Paul as a hostile witness who became a believer, and early testimony in 1 Corinthians 15 dated around 50 AD.

Fearless Truth argued that the question is which account best explains the evidence, that the resurrection is the highest-probability cause, and so we have justification to believe Jesus died and rose from the dead.

Gnostic Informant argued that the earliest attestation is Paul's letters, written by someone who never met Jesus and had a vision on the road to Damascus, and that the earliest manuscripts of Mark have no physical bodily resurrection, the appearance to the disciples being a later addition around the 5th century.

Gnostic Informant argued that Matthew and Luke depend on Mark, with about 90 to 97 percent of Mark found in Matthew and 88 percent in Luke, including identical Greek wording, so the synoptic Gospels are one account retold rather than independent eyewitness testimony.

Gnostic Informant argued that there are no first-century eyewitness accounts of Jesus's life or resurrection, since Paul was not present and Mark wrote secondhand, drawing on Peter according to Eusebius.

Gnostic Informant argued that the 'more than 500 brothers' in 1 Corinthians 15 is likely a textual error, since a Greek word for Pentecost differs from the word in the text by one vowel and one letter.

Gnostic Informant argued that no source up to about 200 AD mentions 500 witnesses, and that Tertullian and then Origen are the first to do so around 235 AD, while the Gospels, Acts and early church writers list appearances to Mary, Peter and James, then Pentecost.

Gnostic Informant argued that the empty tomb is a literary trope of the ancient world, citing Richard C. Miller's 'translation fable' and stories of heroes whose bodies vanish from tombs, such as Romulus, Caesar and Chaereas, and said this is a common literary pattern rather than a nefarious lie.

Gnostic Informant argued that Philo of Alexandria, who lived c. 20 BCE to 50 CE and wrote about Pilate, Herod and events in Jerusalem while looking for the Messiah, says nothing about Jesus, and that Josephus writes about Jesus only around 96 AD.

Fearless Truth replied that similarities between the Gospels are expected if they recount the same events, so overlap does not show they are one story.

Fearless Truth replied that the Gospels have eyewitness connections: John 21:24 identifies John as a disciple, Matthew 9:9 describes Matthew being chosen by Christ, and Matthew's emphasis on money and debts fits a former tax collector.

Fearless Truth replied that the lack of early mention of 500 witnesses is an argument from silence and does not show the event did not occur.

Fearless Truth replied that Irenaeus quotes the longer ending of Mark, that its absence from the earliest manuscripts does not show it was added later, and that the burden of proof lies with the critic.

Gnostic Informant said he does not deny that early believers held these beliefs or had visions, and that legends grew over time, as the development from Mark to John suggests, but he does not think they were lying.

Gnostic Informant said he would withhold a stance on the competing accounts because he was not there, and that each account should be judged case by case.

Gnostic Informant said the scholar Steve Mason holds that Luke-Acts was written after Josephus and depends on him, and so was not written by Luke; when asked for a source, he said he would show it later.

Gnostic Informant said that personal justification, such as experiences or visions, is subjective, and that he knows of no objective justification for the resurrection.

An audience member asked what criteria beyond self-identification would justify rejecting an author's claim, citing the Gospel of Thomas, which says it was written by Thomas. Gnostic Informant answered that contemporary evidence would make authorship more likely, that Thomas's text is rejected because it is later, and that the Gospels do not name their authors, with the names first attested by Irenaeus about 100 years later.

An audience member asked what Gnostic Informant thinks happened to Jesus if he did not rise. Gnostic Informant answered that Paul's vision came after Jesus's death, that the '500' is likely a variant of Pentecost, that the Gospels were written after the Temple's destruction as people sought explanations, and that Jesus was one of several claimed messiahs with the largest following; he added that because Jesus wrote nothing, the liar-or-lunatic options cannot be assessed.

An audience member asked for Fearless Truth's view on the raising of the saints in Matthew 27, which Gnostic Informant had raised, and why no other accounts mention it. Fearless Truth answered that he believes it happened, that few people in the first century wrote things down and many were poor, and that he is already justified in trusting Matthew.