The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

A couple of points before I move on.

People are willing to die for either of those. What I reject is the idea that eleven apostles all died for something that they knew was a lie.

I've been on vacation for the last week and so have missed the last 20 pages of discussion. However, I believe I did predict that this, the die-for-a-lie argument, would be the conclusion of your long-winded and often copied and pasted "proof" of the resurrection of Jesus. I hope it will not surprise you that we've all heard this argument many times before.

Point #1
Since you admittedly missed the discussion an "only skimmed" the thread, then you do not realize that my statement which you quoted above was NOT the summation of my defense of Christianity but a specific response to a specific poster.

The "die-for-a-lie" point (as you call it) is one of the pieces of evidence in support the the HRotNT, but not the apex or summation of the argument. Keep that in mind.

Point #2
All of my OP was written by me and NOT copy and pasted. Don't be rude.

Okay...where were we? Ah...

In fact, you've not only failed but done so spectacularly. 

Let me sum it up for you:

1. You made an extraordinary, to say the least, claim (the resurrection)
2. You offer philosophical arguments (which is not even evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence)
3. You offer some alleged eye-witness accounts (which is weak evidence at best).

Gee, I don't recall offering much in the way of defense of the resurrection in this thread at all. Tangentially, perhaps. But did I talk about Josephus or the Roman Guard or any of that stuff. 'Cause if I was REALLY discussing the evidence for the resurrection, I wouldn;t have forgotten to go into all that detail.

No, THIS thread was supposed to be about the Historic...oh, read the subject line for yourself.

So, beginning with the suddenly deflated assumption that I have failed SPECTACULARLY to do something I have not even really set my mind to in this thread, let's see what other "analysis" you might have to offer of my posts.

Analysis: 

Yes, Eye-Witness Accounts is the Weakest Form of Evidence
In a court of law, eye-witness accounts is one of the weakest forms of evidence if not THE weakest. 

In science, eye-witness testimony is virtually useless.

Understandably so. In science, experiments are either replicable or they aren't. But here is where things start to get surreal.

On the one hand, deniers such as yourself like to point out that LOTS of people have been raised from the dead. Consequently, there is nothing special about Jesus. Well, hello? If resurrection from the dead is possible, then that makes the claim that Jesus rose from the dead a little more palatable, doesn't it? It's been replicated.

On the other hand, if resurrection does not and has not EVER occurred, then I should pay no attention to the members of this forum who like to trot out the claims of Horus and others who have allegedly been raised from the dead, right?

So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Now, about your eye-witness testimony. Yeah, I agree with you to some degree. Cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace (author of Cold-Case Christianity) says that he would RATHER work from circumstantial evidence because eye-witnesses can lie. And he has dozens of court convictions based on nothing BUT circumstantial evidence.

So, why would this former atheist argue that the authors of the NT are valid witnesses? Precisely because they were willing to die for what they knew - not what they believed. That doesn't happen in your typical murder trial.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains why:

Sorry. Until I am allowed to link and post stuff like this, I'm not going to view or respond because I cannot respond in kind. Forum rules and all that. You understand, I'm sure.

Having established that, let's go on to the assumption underlying the crux of your argument: They claimed it, they died for it, so it must be true.

I'm special pleading? You spent several minutes typing up examples of the most outrageous nut-jobs in recent memory who were willing to die for their causes then accuse ME of special pleading? Do you find David Koresh to be a typical example of the kind of person you would expect to meet every day? Seriously?

Wrapping this up...

And we know that Paul or any of the original disciples were any more sane how? Because they attracted followers? So did these modern cults. Because they were willing to die themselves? So were the leaders of these modern cults. Because they "knew" the Truth? The leaders of these modern cults seemed pretty convinced, putting aside the problematic assumption that we can "know" what ancient people "knew", or anyone else even in the modern day for that matter. What was really going through the mind of David Koresh in his last days? Or Jim Jones? 

Right. Peter was just like that Koresh fellow. James, too. And John was a dead ringer for Jim Jones. Thaddeus. Bartholomew. Andrew. Simon. Jude. Matthew. Oh, and Thomas...he was slow to come to the party, wasn't he? But he did. Along with Philip.

Viewed that way, that's amazing. Most of the cults that you mentioned had only one certifiably psychotic leader, but Christianity got stuck with Eleven right from the get-go.

Oh, and Paul. He hated Christians. Until he became one. Go figure.

And Luke, and Timothy, Titus, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus...well, the list of mentally disturbed is just endless, isn't it?

And all of this is to accept at face value that these early Christian founders, who knew and spoke with Jesus, actually did die for their beliefs, that they were offered the chance to renounce their beliefs and chose death instead. How do we know this? The folklore says so? You use folklore to prove mythology?

Nope. Just facts. Historical evidence. Stuff like that.

If that's all, my next post will go step-by-step to show why:

1. They weren't witnesses.
2. Their testimony wasn't reliable.
3. We do know of alterations to the Gospels.
4. They can't get their story straight.

See you next time.

Should be a hoot.

---

[quote='Randy Carson' pid='951429' dateline='1432568170']
A couple of points before I move on.