The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Angrboda]

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.   

This does nothing to answer the point I made.  Your answering for the text does not demonstrate the reliability of the text.

But nice try avoiding the point to once more shout "Hypocrisy!  Hypocrisy!"