Actually, my continuing a discussion of Caesar at the Rubicon would be off topic for this thread.
We were comparing the relative strength of the evidence for two historical events. One of which would be evidence for God interacting in history thereby proving his existence. The point being that evidence sufficient to establish one event should be sufficient to establish the other. One event is the resurrection which would be evidence for God. Which was the Topic. (By the way I have no doubt that Caesar did cross the Rubicon.)
I'll say this though, despite the records being further removed from the event than the resurrection
..
I am glad you have accepted that as true. Many Athiest never concede a point even in the face of factual error.
.those events were transcribed into a book and passed on. Your resurrection story, unfortunately, was passed by word of mouth for decades before being transcribed.
. I believe that the authors of the Gospels were exactly who they claimed to be. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John two of whom were of the twelve Apostles, one( John Mark) was the scribe of Peter whose Gospel he wrote, and Luke who accompanied the apostle Paul and who used primary sources for his Gospel. And I believe that authorship has been established as well as the authorship of any ancient document. Again I want you to know that I am making a secular historical claim, not a faith based claim.
Nolegitimate historian considers the two methods equally valid..
This is not a completely accurate statement but its not relevant since the Gospels were not derived from Oral tradition.
one is horribly suspect, especially in light of its claims.
1. The Gospels do not rely on an Oral Tradition.
2. It doesn't matter what the claim is. An extraordinary claim only requires that it be more likely than any other explanation.
Since you won't be giving an example, I'll just assume you have none.
The arguments are dependent upon when you date the gospels and who the authors are. But since I believe an early date for the Gospels and the authorship as I have stated above I would offer this. Human Nature.The church exists
only because of the resurrection otherwise you have to explain why the writers would make up a story that did not bring them any financial rewards, brought them a great deal suffering and one that they were all eventually died for (except for one). The simplest explanation is that they taught what they had actually seen and heard. Without the resurrection there would have been no gospels and without the gospels there is no church
God Bless
Jax