The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[downbeatplumb]

Ye olde "it could have been like this" apologetics.  Do you realize how unpersuasive such speculations are?

Oh, I see how it is.

When an atheist wants to propose that Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and dogs dug up and ate his body, that's okay, because it's plausible.

But when a Christian offers an equally plausible explanation for how something may have occurred, that's an just "unpersuasive speculation".

Okay. I got it, jorm.

Thanks for clarifying the double-standard that is operative here.

I have never heard anyone ever make that claim but I'll play.

If you heard someone had been pronounced dead and later got up and moved around, do you suspect immediately that they are the son of god or would a part of you think that the person pronouncing them dead in the first place made a mistake.

I would think that most reasonable people would go for the second option and at least try to rule it out before moving to the stupid one.

But remember we know nothing of the person who announced jesus as expired, could have been incompetent , drunk, having a bad day or lying we just don't know as the salient facts are missing, it is just presumed that people will suck it in and believe. I am not so gullible

And that's just one little problem another is that people are pronounced dead in error ALL THE TIME google it, there are loads.

So what you have is an unsubstantiated and unlikely event reported in isolation by a small group without any contemporary records or physical evidence backing it up and you are surprised when we are unconvinced and accuse us of playing by double standards.