The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[robvalue]

I don't care if they are reliable. I already told you, I would concede they are the most reliable people ever. It makes no difference.

I gave you exactly the same scenario, with your 10 most reliable people in the world, and you take the same position as me. Scepticism. The only difference is you already believe certain claims, and you're trying to make a special case why they should just be taken at face value.

All religions claims are equal: they make supernatural claims, and they provide no credible evidence.

I don't know how many more times I can say this, but even if they think they are writing the truth, it doesn't mean they are interpreting the events accurately. So no, if the most reliable men on the planet got up in court and said Jesus just visited them and told them to kill someone, so they did, the court would not believe them. No matter how much they thought it was true, believed it was true, the court would not accept it. Would you? Clearly this "reliable" property only matters if the claims are ones that you have already decided are true. Otherwise, people are simply mistaken, according to you. Can you see there is a problem here? These 4 reliable men, from your own scenario, could stand up in court and say Islam is true. Yet you don't believe them. Now we should be sceptical.

Your case only makes sense if we pre suppose the claims are actually true.