The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

This happens in courtrooms around the world every day. Jurors are asked to evaluate evidence, to consider the credibility of the witnesses, and to make a decision.

Unfortunately, in this case, almost nothing is known about the credibility of the witnesses and they prove themselves all too willing to forego the basic questions even a moderately skeptical person would ask if they experienced voices and visions. Evaluating miracles in history or today is not like judging the guilt of a person accused of committing some crime. Your appeal to such a silly comparison demonstrates your utter lack of seriousness concerning the points you wish us to address.

The evidence for Christianity is stronger than most of the members of this forum would lead you to believe and better than authors like Bart Ehrman care to admit.

No, it really isn't, as your arguments have shown.

I don't know which books you've read, of course, but I'm confident that there are some Christians with more than enough mental horse-power to argue side, and it would be to your advantage to read some of their books to hear the other side.

Try reading other ancient sources that aren't Christian. In terms of miracles, you'll be about as impressed as we are with your Gospels---which is to say you won't be---yet their authors display far more thoughtfulness and skepticism than any of the NT authors (Try Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, Cicero, and Lucretius to boot; they specifically address the types of vulgar superstition common in their day that you find so convincing when coming from Christian writers, and some of them even believed in it).