A simple challenge for atheists

[Esquilax]

Your comparison of the supposed secret letters that claim Jesus was not real is a poor example to support the point you are trying to make.

Funny you say that, because:

1. We don't even know if they exist.

1. We don't know the eyewitnesses to Jesus exist.

2. We don't know their content.

2. We don't know if the content of the gospels is an accurate reflection of reality.

3. We don't know the other pertinent facts of the documents: their provenance, their likely time frame, likely authors, reasons for writing, etc.

3. We don't know any of this for the gospels either, since the authors are anonymous.

So, under your own logic your claim is equally poor. Well, except for the fact that you special plead in favor of your own claim.

Likewise your fictitious modern friend who claims to know something about God and tells you so is a poor parallel as well because:

1. The gospel writers exist as evidenced by the gospels.

1. You don't know who the gospel writers are, so your conception of the gospel writers as eyewitnesses or second hand tellers of the events in the gospels is equally spurious.

2. The gospel writers understand themselves to be relating historical events that are happening in real places with real people--many facts could still be verified at the time. Your fictitious friend isn't providing details, just "the bible isn't true".

2. The bible writers make the claim that they are relating actual events, as does my friend, and you have no justification for privileging the former claim while dismissing the latter.

2. We know the time frame of the gospels (with the lifetime of eyewitnesses). Time travel aside, your fictitious friend cannot add nor take way from period writing and experiences.

2 again, for some reason. We know the time frame for my time travelling friend, and it is the same as the gospel writers, only more exact because it was precisely during Jesus' life, and not the vague window your has. Again, you're positing the existence of a problem that your own claim also has. The only difference is that I know that what I'm saying is a poor example. You do get that, right?

3. We know the content was believed by others even before the gospels themselves were written (epistles, etc.). Does your friend have friends that say the same thing and acted in real life on that information?

3. You have claims that the content was believed beforehand, but with no way to verify that, and no non-primary sources to support this, you're forced to circle around and use the claims to verify the claims, which is obviously fallacious.

4. and perhaps the most important thing that does not seem to sink in is that we are discussing a particular event, the resurrection. This is not a case where someone gets a new message from God or some other truth claim. Christianity hinges on a real event.

4. Why do you keep calling it a real event when you have no indication that it even occurred, or is possible to occur? Real events, by definition, require both of those things. And are you therefore saying that if I made a claim that my friend sat and watched Jesus not rise from the grave after three days, then you'd give that additional weight because it too is a real event? Because somehow being present to confirm that Jesus wasn't who he said he is isn't a real event, because you say so?

I have yet to hear why you think that the gospels and the epistles were written and why the early church believed these events took place.

And if I don't know exactly why the gospels were written or the early church believed them, does that make them automatically true, in your book? You wanna add the argument from ignorance to your ever growing pile of fallacies?

The gospels could be written for any number of reasons, in fact in your world there are countless other holy books written for non-truthful reasons that were still believed. This is not an argument in favor of your specific religion.