The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

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.

You're attempting to demonstrate the reliability of the text, not the capacity of your imagination.  Try to remain on point and not deviate into ad hoc excuses when you fail to deliver on your point.  As to whether there is a double standard, the mythicist is attempting to demonstrate the possibility of an alternate explanation, whereas the apologist is attempting to demonstrate the probability of a certain explanation.  There is no double standard as the epistemic standard required of each position is different based on the conclusions they are trying to reach.  Your attempt to demonstrate the reliability of the New Testament is not enhanced by postulating "missing stories" and ad hoc explanations for why a particular segment of the text suggests that it is unreliable due to a logical difficulty.  All you do is undermine your entire case by doing so.  How many other "missing details" are we to grant before its reliability is discredited?

Nice try, jorm.

You want to be free to speculate about alternative explanations for the resurrection or anything else to which you take exception. 

But you refuse to allow me the freedom to theorize about how the questions posed by Jenny A and Wyrd might be answered. In case you've forgotten, they were pretty simple really:

Who was with Jesus and Satan when they were in the wilderness?  

Did anyone see Jesus pray in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36)?

And how could anyone but Mary possibly have known she was a virgin?

And my answer was: Someone asked.

Whoa. That's "unpersuasive speculation" if I ever saw it.