The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[robvalue]

OK, so you yourself would not believe 10 eye witnesses who just said they talked to god. You'd assume they were mistaken. But you want me to believe a bunch of guys I've never met writing 2000 years ago about what they think they have experienced. I hope you can see the problem there.

I've tried to make my challenge very clear, but it seems you don't have anything more than "they wouldn't lie" and I've said already it's not a matter of whether they are lying. People can believe they are telling the truth, as in the above example, and be mistaken, just as you would say your mates are. Considering I've given you absolutely every advantage I possibly can, I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that, especially with the clear double standard you are showing with my example.

If you want me to stop giving you all those bonuses, I could just say I don't believe a word of anything in the bible except where it can be independently verified. Which is barely anywhere. Proving there was "a Jesus" is a far cry from every word being true.