The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

And he's the first witness on the scene, your honor. Next witness...

Matthew: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Seriously, you'd think the original editors of the Bible would have had more sense than to put the testimony of such an transparently sleazy liar into the official version. I'm not saying that theologians are typically people of integrity but, as professional con artists, one would expect them to favor bringing those with more guile into their team. Give Christianity it's due, it's mostly a slick package constructed with minimal material that one must dig into before exposing all the faux history and fraud. This Gospel sticks out a bit.

Hilarious. Does the term "criterion of embarrassment" mean nothing to you? Never mind.

The fact that the gospel written for a Jewish audience was attributed to a hated tax-collector and Roman-collaborator ought to give even the most strident anti-Christians pause. Why do that unless it was TRUE?  So, yeah, it does stick out a bit for that very reason, doesn't it?

Sorry, slick, but you fail big time on that one.

Based on the nature of the Gospel, the target audience were Jews. The book is filled with references to the Old Testament and alleged prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Small wonder that so many Jews remained unconvinced since anyone familiar at all with the OT can immediately spot where the so-called "prophecies" were either fabricated or blatantly distorted.

Suuuurrre they are. But let me get this straight...in addition to your truly questionable knowledge of the New Testament authorship so painfully on display in your previous tirade, now, we're to believe that you are a skilled exegist of Old Testament prophecy, also? You do amaze us so.

We're only two chapters into Matthew before we encounter three whoppers.

(Actually, we're only two gospels into your ramblings, and we've already seen enough whoppers to justify a cease and desist letter from the attorneys at Burger King.   )

1. "Virgin Shall Conceive": This is a reference to Isaiah chapter 7. Now toss out the whole Bethula/Almah debate as a concession to the Christians, the entire chapter is clearly neither a prophecy concerning the messiah nor a reference to anything but the time of Isaiah. Specifically, Isaiah chapter 7 is about the coming war with Syria and Isaiah's assurances that the invaders would not prevail for a young maiden (presented at that time) has conceived and will bear a son, and this shall be a sign that "God (is) with us". By the way, the great prophet Isaiah turned out to be wrong and the Syrians totally prevailed. 
   
2. "Out of Egypt": This was a reference to Exodus, not the future messiah. 
   
3. "Rachael Weeping": The slaughter of the innocents, an atrocity not found in history but is found in the story of Moses, which in turn was lifted from the story of Sargon, was supposedly a fulfillment of a prophecy of Jeremiah. However, the verse in question were about the Babylonian captivity. 
   

You can find better exegesis on any number of websites or in good books. I suggest you try to find some of them.

It goes on and on like this, culminating in the cursory, two verse description of the "Attack of the Zombie Saints", where Matthew glibly asserts that the saints of old rose from the graves and were seen by many. 

As Thomas Paine quipped, had the saints such as Moses or Abraham actually risen from the dead to testify to the living, not a single unconverted soul should have been left in all of Jerusalem. 

Ironically, if such an event had NOT happened, then none of the citizens of Jerusalem would have let Matthew get away with asserting that it had. After all, the gospel was not preached in some obscure village in remote corner of Galilee. The apostles stood up in Jerusalem in the day of Pentecost and proclaimed that Jesus was risen from the dead. Funny how no one ran down to the tomb and produced the body to put an end to the discussion.

Wish I could do that...but you insist on continuing...