The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Esquilax]

It's Never Too Soon For Urban Legends
Urban legends can spring up in no time and persist despite their outrageous claims and evidence to the contrary. 

"But the early believers saw Jesus days after he died on the cross", you object.

One word: Elvis.

Well, I have to admit something...I didn't see this the first time around. I got so caught up in the whole "David Koresh proves the apostles were nuts" thing, that I complete missed this even GREATER stupidity.

Elvis?

Just out of curiosity, did Priscilla claim to see him? Or his manager? How about any of the boys in the band? No?

Jesus was seen by the Eleven he had chosen along with his own mother, Mary Magdalene and others who had traveled with him, eaten with him, listened to him...for THREE YEARS. Did I mention his mother?

So, you actually want to compare the credibility of these witnesses of Jesus with those who claim to have seen Elvis, eh?

<looooooong slow whistle>

Well, I'll say this: the King was sighted after his death alright, and there's a lotta grace in His promised land, but He sure as heck ain't Elvis.

(Man, this kinda stuff gives atheists a bad name.)

See you next time.

Thankya, ma'am...thankya vera much. LOL!

I love it: you're so engaged in grandstanding and telling everyone else how stupid this argument is, that you completely ignored the point of it. It's amazing. Maybe if you toned down the ego a little you might understand the things you talk about before you open your mouth.

When you make a direct comparison between Jesus and Elvis, and then conclude that the two situations are nothing alike and therefore the argument is wrong, you miss the fact that the argument was not about the similarities between the content of the two narratives. The point was that legends like the two of them can form very quickly independent of whether or not they are factual. It is, in fact, somewhat common, less so now that we have better ways of capturing and recording every moment of the day, but that's not an issue for Jesus or Elvis, now is it? The claim that X, Y, and Z persons saw a certain character after their death is not, in itself, amazing that it exists, nor is it verifiable just because it does exist. They're both mere second hand claims that an event was witnessed, the Elvis claims even have better evidence for them since we can at least verify who some of the claimants were, maybe even speak to them, and yet you privilege the claim with worse evidence over the other.

Moreover, it's kinda funny that you think Jesus comes out better than Elvis just in terms of the narrative itself, phrasing the fact that Elivs was seen by people without the overriding ulterior motive that Jesus' witnesses had as a weakness rather than a strength. Wow, golly gee, you mean the people who had already committed and staked their reputations on the idea that Jesus was the son of god just so happened to see the one thing that would confirm what they already believed in such a way that nobody else could confirm it? Wow, how utterly and totally convenient for them!

Well, I mean, maybe. Can't forget that the claim itself is second hand, despite your baseless protestations to the contrary, and written by equally biased christian authors decades after the fact. That feels like it's kinda important, and another area where the Elvis story is stronger, since that one was at least covered at the time that it happened, by first hand witnesses.

But hey, maybe if you keep rambling on about how dumb the argument is, nobody will stop to think about it, and you can slip another completely unsupported assertion by us all!