The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[robvalue]

Consider your position, Randy.

In your example to me, we have 4 incredibly reliable witnesses in court. They are impeccable, as reliable as anyone has ever been. They then tell us some supernatural account of events.

Now, there are only two options. We either just believe them, or we are sceptical. And apparently, we need you to stand there and listen to the particular claim to tell us which it should be. What gives you this authority? If they talk about Jesus doing what you want Jesus to do, we should just believe them. If they say anything contrary to your story, we should be sceptical. Can you see how ridiculous this is?

I see you're using the tu quoque on my position. Yes, I'm an atheist because there isn't even a coherent definition of a god, let alone any proof. That's not the subject of this discussion. A book is not proof, it is the claim: as shown by the fact that you reject every other holy book but your own. If God wants to come talk to me, he's quite welcome. I don't believe anyone has had an experience with God, I think it's far more likely it's all in people's heads.

I understand that to you this stuff is "just true". But the whole of this discussion is demonstrating that the reasons for this belief are not easily rationalised.

You are also making a false dichotomy. Either the gospels are 100% true, or they are all false. So if we can show part of them to be true, they are all true. No. Parts of it could be true, parts of it false. And each part needs its own verification. If we showed the Quran to be historically accurate, you'd still just refuse to believe when it came to the supernatural parts.