The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[dyresand]

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make ages ago in this thread, but for some reason it's always different when the subject is something other than Jesus. Or if someone is telling the wrong story about Jesus.

So it's simple special pleading, on top of ignoring the fact that eyewitness testimony is well known to be unreliable. And even that is after giving the benefit of the doubt that they actually were eyewitnesses, and that they were actually trying to tell the truth about an event, and that the event actually happened. That's a whole pile of unfounded assumptions.

I guess we're back to little hurdles. I think Randy should really decide whether this is a simple textual analysis or an actual argument.

Pretty much the video touches all bases saying jesus didn't exist. I'm wondering why people take hearsay and a book for its word especially the bible when it's inaccurate and
written by ancient man.