The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[robvalue]

54 pages and no one can tell me why I should believe this particular set of "eye witness accounts" of absurd sounding claims over any other ridiculous things that any seemingly otherwise sane person may tell me.

Of course, this is even after giving every advantage possible. To put my sceptic armor on properly, I'd ask for a demonstration that in fact anything at all in the bible is true except what has been independently verified. And that is very little. It's a story book. It starts out like a story book, it reads like a story book. It does nothing to convince me that it's anything else. Story books can have a historical basis, that doesn't make the story true. I don't believe the gospels were eye witness accounts, but really I don't care if they are, because someone can be an "eye witness" then go on to make shit up. It's really not that hard.

I'd ask why I should think these accounts are anything other than fiction, very loosely based on some guy wandering about at the time. Or rather, dead at the time of writing. Especially since they totally resemble something that has been made up. Apart from conceding there may well have been a real person or persons in the middle of the story, I don't believe a word of what is written in the gospels (besides mundane details) because I have no reason to. That is scepticism. It's the same reason christians reject all other religions. It's the same reason muslims reject all other religions. It's the same reason every religion rejects every other religion. They just can't or won't shine that sceptical light on themselves.