i recant the places where i say impossible, and would
like to replace with near impossible. (i thought i had
made that clear, i apologize if i did not). the one
exception was that i didn't think it was possible to
survive a crucifixion but i suppose what is listed in
your article is plausible. (Other historical accounts
of people surviving)
To be clear, that article is by Richard Carrier. It's one of the two best presentations I've seen of the case against Christianity (the other being Michael Martin's book by that name).
you argue that my using certain details reported in
the gospels as main points in my arguments is
circular. this leaves me a little confused. do you
propose that to discuss/debate the resurrection we
must discard all recordings in the gospels?
No, we just apply standard principles of skeptical exegesis. This uncontroversially yields a hierarchy of confidence levels that we can have in various gospel narrative elements. One arrangement of these elements in decreasing confidence would be: