1. Considering munchausen's trilema for justifying a belief, is there a fourth option? (answer: revelatory truth–justified coherentism–but this falls into #3)

2. If it is coherentism how do you escape the trap of “circular reasoning with extra steps” given that coherentism embraces a kind of sophisticated circularity (a large web of mutually supporting beliefs rather than a tiny vicious circle)?

3. Munchausen's Trilema; each one considered unsatifsying– but lets pick on #3. Since observational evidence is the strongest form of scientific evidence, why is observational proof or self-evident proof disqualified? Even if we embrace a kind of solipsism, are we saying that the very ability to process and comprehend evidence itself is not sufficient to verify the truth or falsehood of a statement? In that case I would propose that it is a kind of bait and switch; you have asked for evidence but you have pre-denied not only that there is no such evidence, but that evidence itself cannot satisfy truth or falsehood.

“Do you deny the necessity of a necessary God” – first mover, non-contingent, non-eternal/post-eternal etc. (this is a throwback to #1)

1. Who was the guy that said there is a 33.3% chance Jesus existed and a 66% chance he didn't? On the subject of, well we will allow HIS argument but in the general case you lose credibility if you claim jesus did not exist? – break down the credibility thing and explain more about this guy.

2. I would argue we CAN prove that there either was or was not a Jesus. But I forgot my line of thinking since I had to write out the other thing above. Im sure I will remember it more clearly in discussion but it was somehting like, (and this was mentioned), the Jews wrote the bible but deny he existed, yet apparently confirm he was the messiah (break that down please) – but the idea is that IF jesus existed he certainly must appear in the old testament and if he doesnt this is actually proof he did not exist. The rationale for this is a) necessary being, b) from there we need to get to the god of the old testament (Yaweh) being that god.

These are all logical deductions from first mover to most ancient alive religion. I.E. we know there is a necessary being, but we dont know if it is the abrahamic god, …

But by logic it would have to be him because its the only remaining case. Given THAT, we can now find Jesus in the old testament, but we can only do that if we first understand Jesus in the New Testament. Meaning, if you start from the old testament, you have to deny progressive revelation. So if the New Testament has any validity it has to explain this. Once that is done there is no issue with Jesus; given the idea that there is progressive revelation in the sense that people have forgotten things taught in the past; but there can be no abrogation over an eternal covenant, or else the implication is that it breaks the abliity of God to predict the future. I.E. it has to be explained why God made an eternal covenant and then changed the covenant or made a new covenant or maybe a different covenant with a different group of people, i.e. how can we understand the validity of one covenant if another is arbitrarily deprecated?

Meaning, if we do not have an independent source of authority over covenant validity, is the covenant itself arbitrary? if people could be righteous under the old law, why was a new law needed? And is there a choice now? All sorts of issues! It would be based on an exact study of Jeremiah's new covenant at a minimum.

Since we have authorized the holy scriptures as holy, they now become a tool for exposition. This section moved to Jeremiah vs. King David.