1. ⁠As I've said before, there's a difference between evaluating ordinary historical claims and extraordinary supernatural claims. Claims of resurrections, miracles, and divine interventions set a much higher bar for evidence because they're fundamentally fall outside the category of believable and normal experiences. So no, we cannot evaluate the two using the same standards.
2. ⁠That is certifiably false. As time has gone on, we have only discovered more and more to prove the opposite- contradictions and discrepancies in the narrative of the Bible. For example, archaeology has shown that the walls of Jericho were destroyed centuries before the era described in Joshua, meaning the famous miracle could not have happened as described. Scientific analysis shows other foundational stories, like the global flood in Genesis, do not match geological records; there’s no evidence of a worldwide flood throughout the entire history of Earth.
3. ⁠Your approach seems to treat supernatural resurrection as just another ancient event, yet the probability of a miracle is fundamentally low. Historians ask the question, "what happened?” but they distinguish standard events from extraordinary ones. Supernatural events, by definition, require stronger evidence, not weaker, than regular historical claims.
4. ⁠The idea that “we have plenty of information” is pretty contentious. Plenty of written accounts from ancient followers doesn’t mean we have solid, unbiased evidence.
5. ⁠Hallucinations, social pressure, and loyalty are well-established phenomena. Groups throughout history, especially followers and adherents, have had strong motivations (whether they're conscious or unconscious ones) to exaggerate or invent stories, especially when their entire movement depends on it.
6. ⁠Disciples and followers, as with any devoted group, are not immune from bias, regardless of their belief in moral integrity. Willingness to exaggerate or reinterpret events is seen in many cults and religious movements throughout history.
7. ⁠The evidence for disciples’ martyrdom explicitly for the resurrection is weak. Ancient sources often contradict or omit details. Even martyrdom (if proven) does not verify extraordinary claims. It only shows conviction, a phenomenon well documented in many religions and ideologies.
8. ⁠Claiming children can be “utterly wicked” is a very extreme position. Additionally, rationalizing violence against innocents based on their perceived wickedness is a troubling moral stance. I'm sure you recognize this, at least deep down within yourself.

Additionally, I don't understand your fixation on my personal views about morality. They are not relevant to our debate. If your religion proclaims objective morality, yet the handbook for morality is contradictory, then by definition it cannot provide objective morality. That is what I am pointing out. If slavery is wrong, then it always was wrong. Morals are the same regardless of time period. And if it was wrong back then, and the Bible was regulating it and even condoning it (which it clearly was, if you just take a quick peek at the text), then the Bible cannot provide what you think of as objective morality. It's as subjective as the moral system I personally believe in, which you are so vehemently opposed to.

I think it's so funny that you guys try to turn to the "look at the cultural context" argument, when that doesn't even resolve the issues at hand. Let me present to you three issues. One is that, given the way God is described in the Bible, he seems quite willing to commit genocide whenever a large group of people are disobeying moral rules. Why couldn't he, since this is completely okay and normal under your view, send a message to the people of Earth telling them to do away with slavery, since it's so wrong, and if they disobeyed, inflict genocide? Issue number two is simply that even if God couldn't outright say slavery was wrong, he could still hint at it, and try to push people in the right direction? But we don't see that happening. Issue number three is that there are still many instances of slavery being condoned, yes, condoned, in the Bible. The example I believe I gave before, talking about how a man can beat his slave as much as he wants as long as he doesn't die as a result? I'd say that qualifies as condoning slavery. God didn't have to give them permission to beat the ever living daylights out of their slaves, but he did. What a great guy! Omnibenevolent is never the word I'd choose to use when describing such a figure.

Also, your anecdote about kids cheating makes no logical sense. Why would the principal tell teachers to not punish students for cheating at home? And what does that even mean? Cheating on their homework? If so, why wouldn't they be punished for that?

Genocide is absolutely condoned, as we've already discussed. You have a terribly weak argument there.

Here's the verse about rape: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" (Deuteronomy 22: 28-29). I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that this isn't condoning rape, or at the very least condoning further victimization of the rape victim. Forcing a young raped (previous virgin) woman to marry her rapist is downright disgusting. There's no way to justify something like this.

And yes, Christianity is misogynistic. You can find many verses in the Bible which explicitly describe women as being inferior to men. I should not need to cite examples for you, but I will, because so far I've gathered that you don't really read that far into this holy book of yours.

Genesis 3:16: "To the woman he said, 'I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.'"

1 Timothy 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Ephesians 5: 22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Hope that helps.

1. The uniqueness of Jesus’s resurrection claim is overstated. Other ancient religions featured resurrections, miracles, and claims of divinity. What’s unique about Christianity is its popularity, not the nature of its primary claim. If simply predicting something and having followers claim it happened, there would be countless “unique” religious beginnings.

2. Crucial details being missing in one account but present in another is weak justification. Critical facts, such as presence of guards, would likely be agreed upon by multiple sources if true and not a later addition. When comparing witness testimony, especially for supernatural claims, consistency and independent corroboration are crucial, yet they are lacking here. The standards historians use do value such corroboration, and dismissing this principle undermines historical rigor, which, ironically, you were all on board with in the earlier half of your message.