The Historical Jesus

[Ravenshire]

Check me here guys:

The authors made truth claims...

New religions can't be started...

Eyewitness testimony of miracles...

They wouldn't die for a lie...

The crucifiction was special and unique...

I think I got a "Bad Christer Argument Bingo" winner here. And all from just one post.

The authors didn't just make truth claims, they also made these claims during a time when there were living witnesses to the events in question who would've called them out for telling lies. Many of them died for those claims as well.

       When did I say new religions can't be started?
What I was saying is that if your new religion is based on something verifiably false then it will be much more difficult for it to spread. 

Is all eyewitness testimony of the supernatural wrong by default? 

Yes, most people won't die for something which they know to be a lie. 

     Oh and yes the crusifixion of Jesus was unique, even from a totally secular perspective; this is because Jesus was well known for his ability to talk his way out of a tight situation. And yet, when faced with certain torture, humiliation and death, he didn't bother to open his mouth in his own defense. 

Also, the crucifixion is one of the biggest events in all of human history. So yes it is a very big and unique event, not just because a person died on a cross but because one of the most famous people died on a cross. Indeed, there was something peculiar about this one Roman crusifixion which stands out against all others.

You desperately need to audit a comparative religions class. There is nothing about your religion that is unique. It was all stolen from previous beliefs. You're bringing nothing new to the table. We've heard all this bunk before, and found absolutely none of it convincing.