RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 24, 2015 at 10:28 am
(This post was last modified: May 24, 2015 at 10:38 am by Randy Carson.)
(May 24, 2015 at 10:04 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Ye olde "it could have been like this" apologetics. Do you realize how unpersuasive such speculations are?
Oh, I see how it is.
When an atheist wants to propose that Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and dogs dug up and ate his body, that's okay, because it's plausible.
But when a Christian offers an equally plausible explanation for how something may have occurred, that's an just "unpersuasive speculation".
Okay. I got it, jorm.
Thanks for clarifying the double-standard that is operative here.
(May 24, 2015 at 10:21 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: The thing that really blows the whole thing out of the water, at least for me, is the fact that this "universal truth" was only known to a small group of people in a geographically limited area.
The people of South America and the Australias had to be told about these things and made to believe, often at sword point they had different incompatible beliefs.
Christianity wasn't even that popular in the Roman world until it became the religion of the state.
If yahweh was the only godthen all the people of the world would have heard about it prior to western contact and would all have known of christ, moses and all the rest. The fact they didn't shows it for the man made fairy tales that they so obviously are.
This is a non sequitur.
God does not have to reveal something to every race, tongue and tribe simultaneously for it to be universally true. The fact that different groups have different understandings of God at any one time doesn't disprove His existence any more than the fact that there are some people on this planet who do not know that DNA or irrational numbers exist.
If that's really what "blows the whole thing out of the water" for you, then I guess your remaining days as an atheist are few in number.
