The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

Wow. You truly are prescient. Or is it simply that the arguments in favor of Christianity are stock because they have no need of change? Let's go with that.

Third possibility: These arguments have no ability to change because there isn't any new evidence or discoveries that have been unearthed since their formulation and already the greatest Christian minds have spent 2,000 years and all the resources at their disposal so this is the best they can come up with.

Such as it is, this is all you can offer. 

I'm sure if Paul's handkerchief ever did turn up, Christian apologists everywhere would dump these arguments in favor of the hard evidence they now possess. 

Actually, something very much like that has turned up. It's called the Shroud of Turin, and despite the fact that it cannot tell us with certainty that the man on the shroud was Jesus, forensic studies suggest that this man died in a somewhat unusual manner (given that he was crucified) and that these unique details are correspond directly to the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus.

(And for the high schoolers thinking of jumping in at this point: go and read WHY the carbon-14 dating test performed in 1988 was due to flawed sampling.)

Prove that God is a contradiction and you will have proved that God does not exist.

It depends on which god. The abstract notion of "God" as a creator of the cosmos is too much of an undefined being to disprove. Your god is another matter, precisely because of the paradoxes of its defined nature. If you wish to discuss the resurrection, which is the topic of our discussion, it is impossible to prove that it did NOT happen. That is not my job. You need to prove that it did happen.

Actually, in this thread, I'm arguing for the HRotNT. However, you folks are so eager to prove me wrong that you're falling all over yourselves trying to get to the part where I can't prove God. So, the discussion of burden of proof keeps coming up. I've already said I have it.

But if you REALLY want to accomplish something that will immortalize you forever, prove that God does not exist. A few have tried in this thread and others recently, so it's not like nobody WANTS to do it. It's just that no one has.

The filling in part is the crux of your arguments from incredulity. You ascribed "swoon theory" to skeptics, for example. You seem to think I'm responsible for explaining to you how Christianity began or how people might have been convinced that Jesus rose from the dead. I am not. Real skeptics don't get as far as discussing "swoon theory" or any other straw skeptic argument that theists like to bat with their wooden swords. We hear you tell a story and await evidence to believe it to be true. 

No, you don't.

As soon as I write a post, I've barely hit the "Post Reply" button before someone is already responding about why I'm wrong.

And by the way, that's when the Burden of Proof shifts. When evidence is presented, it is on the other party to prove it wrong.

You may not like my evidence. I might be the worst apologist who ever joined this forum. But I have presented evidence. So...

because miracles don't happen ...presupposition much?

And once again, you confuse "skepticism" with "denial". 
I've never seen any reason to believe miracles happen. From the moment I wake to the moment I sleep, the natural universe is all I have ever experienced. All claims of the existence of the supernatural have either been proven not to be true or not proven to be true. Things once explained by the supernatural have since been replaced with natural explanations. Never has a natural explanation been replaced with a proven supernatural one. 
It is therefore within the bounds of rational skepticism to assume we live in a natural universe governed by predictable laws and best understood with science and reason. When you present evidence for miracles, I will consider them. 

Me, too, most days. I think God is like that. But every now and then, God shows up. I'm sorry if you have not had that experience. Maybe you should give him permission to do so. He's generally very conscious of overwhelming your free will by His awesome presence.

And by the way, concerning miracles, if I did have it, would you accept it? No. You have the gospels, and you reject them out of hand. My miracles would get the same treatment. So, don't put yourself forward as some noble, open-minded soul who is just waiting for God. You're not.

If there is a coherent thought in there, I can't find it. An editing problem, perhaps? Try again.

I meant in that one unintelligible sentence. Read what you typed again and see if you can figure it out.

---

A couple of points before I move on.

I haven't had a chance to respond yet to your second response as I need to get on the road...

No worries. We all have more going on than this. Take your time.