Hi, Paul. I’m actually glad that you are pressing Don for clarification on his argument. When I listened to the podcast, it seemed like you were trying to pin him down on this but were unable to do so.

In addition to falsely claiming that the writers of the New Testament (with a particular focus on the resurrection) have to fit broadly into one of four categories, Don made some other logical errors.

First, he tried to draw an analogy to a poker hand of a royal flush being dealt on the first hand of the poker game.

Although I think you aptly addressed the problems with this from a logical perspective, it is also fair to make the point that none of his friends were pegging one’s eternal salvation on the belief of the dealing of that hand.

I have never seen a royal flush dealt on the first hand (that I recall) but, I have seen a few dealt. The likelihood of this happening on the first hand is not any more incredible than on any other hand. Also, the statistical probability for such a thing is hardly even the same as the crucifixion and resurrection of the one and only “man-god” over two-thousand years ago.

Like you, I find it unfair that Don be so insistent to know Dr. Price’s world view. It is a “straw man” tactic that Don tries to use when facing opposition. Dr. Price brings up a lot of historical references that demonstrate either the unreliability of the biblical texts or of other instances that demonstrate almost immediate myth-making (which Don is claiming would have to happen over a long period of time) and Don is not really addressing those points. His basic response to these can be summarized with the reply of “Yeah, so? Christ was still crucified and resurrected because there is no reason to believe that the writer’s of the gospels would lie to us.”

I know that Don would love to refute Dr. Price’s scholarly arguments by generalizing his world view but that is just a diversionary tactic. It seems that Dr. Price made quite a few specific historical points and Don just wants to simplify the issues by arguing in broad generalizations (e.g. Christianity vs Atheism).

I admire you for such an undertaking and look forward to future discussions on global warming and intelligent design. I do hope that this podcast continues. At first I was disappointed that the debaters were not debating directly but now I have grown fond of your approach. Debate shouldn’t be about who has an answer the quickest and I like that you give each side the time to research and prepare for their rebuttals. But, when will this podcast be available on iTunes?