What we have expressed thus far is not that witness testimony is a truth-maker – we'd have a markedly different court system if it were! – but only a truth-bearer. In other words, what a witness says can relate something true, but the utterance is not what makes it true. In this light, I think you're grasping at straws to think I have said that testimony is irrelevant.

On one thing I do admit: I have not provided evidence for the truth of the Bible. But then, there's a good reason for that: the Bible's truth was never the point of the discussion. For you to demand such evidence, then, is another point of irrelevancy other than to make clear that you don't accept what the Bible claims. To which my only response is that the garnering of your intellectual assent was far from the purpose of this topic.

Anyway, here we go.

1. Referring to something occurring as “historical fact”, as Rene put it, is making a claim that these things actually occurred. This requires empirical evidence.

2. Saying things like:

“That the bible saying that something happened does not make it true – nor does a multitude of people affirming the same thing – is correct. Fortunately, no one was proposing such a thing here so you'd do well to go beat up your straw-man some place else.” doesn't look good when you started off with this:

“In other words, if you don't believe Paul's account of the risen Christ, just go and ask any number of the five hundred to verify his story.”

This is you – interpreting the Bible to be “rooted in fact”, making the case that a call to testimony is somehow telling of the truth of an event, then saying that testimony is irrelevant.

Straw man? Don't be ridiculous. I made the case that you haven't provided evidence for the Bible's truth, and the argument still stands. Quoting the Bible doesn't help in establishing its merit, neither does constructing caricatures of conversations with non-believers in which you leave intellectual pebbles and reach predetermined conclusions.

Yes, conversely it doesn't mean that it was necessarily false, but if you're going down that route, you'd be missing a very interesting bedfellow named burden of proof. When you make a claim, you have the responsibility to demonstrate its truth.

Although Hernandez tried to dismiss the whole thing for being fallacious, it would seem he fails to recognize that it was his straw man that committed the error; i.e., in a twist of delightful irony, his fallacy committed that fallacy. Since it is evident that nobody tried to argue that “X is true because lots of people believe it,” we may clearly see that it was a straw man of his own construction. Hernandez accurately identified a fallacy, but it was his straw man that committed it. Just so that the issue clear for the readers, neither Mathew nor anyone else said that testimony is a truth-maker. It was described as a truth-bearer. There is a very important difference between the two.

On the fact that you claim 500 people saw a person back to life from death, with no independent verification to back it up. The bible saying that something happened isn't necessarily “historical” by any measure.

In addition, even if 500 people did claim to see someone rise from the dead, that would not make it true. Testimony of a supernatural act of any sort would not lend to its truth value, especially one that allegedly happened nearly 2 millennia ago. How many people have claimed to be abducted by aliens? Does their testimony somehow trump those who say there isn't enough evidence to support their theory because they are in large numbers?

“… and then there's a whole host of other questions that will follow on from them answering those, down the rabbit trail, through the woods until – at last – we should reach the real reasons why they object to such testimony.”

I just told you the real reason I object to the testimony. An appeal to the popularity of something – therefore that something is true is a logical fallacy. It's nonsense.

“And then the decision is up to them. This approach is called leaving a pebble in their shoe. That's what apologetics is all about.”

What decision is up to me? Whether I want to accept a logically fallacious argument or not?

“Paul wrote to Titus that overseers (pastors and elders) in the church are required to be especially adept at refuting those who oppose the truth of God (Titus 1:9). However this is not merely the assigned task of ordained men. All believers are commanded to engage in it as well. Addressing himself to all members of the congregation, Peter penned the following command: “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give an answer to anyone who asks from you a reason for the hope that is within you, yet with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). It is God Himself, speaking through Peter’s inspired words, who calls upon us as believers — each and every one of us — to be prepared to defend the faith in the face of challenges and questions which come from unbelievers — any one of them.

The necessity of apologetics is not a divine necessity: God can surely do His work without us. The necessity of apologetics is a moral necessity: God has chosen to do His work through us and called us to it. Apologetics is the special talent of some believers, and the interested hobby of others. But it is the God-ordained responsibility of all believers.

… and then there's a whole host of other questions that will follow on from them answering those, down the rabbit trail, through the woods until – at last – we should reach the real reasons why they object to such testimony.

And then the decision is up to them. This approach is called leaving a pebble in their shoe. That's what apologetics is all about.

Still, the die-hard disbeliever would always reject those historical facts. You can always weasel your way out of that and saying “we didn't know then, what we know today”. Or…”if the bible is not the truth, they could have easily lied about those 500 witnesses as well”
It's poor reasoning, but that's what I hear anyway. :S