The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Jenny A]

Why not?  Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  

Carl Sagan.

To whom I reply, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Let that sink in.

That's not even relevant.  I'm not attempting to prove there was no resurrection, merely stating that there is insufficient evidence to believe that there was one.  To prove something is at minimum, to show that it is more likely than not.  Resurrection is extraordiarily unlikely, and therefore, no amount of eyewitness testimony would ever be sufficient to make it more likely than not as it will always remain more likely that the witness is lying or mistaken.  You don't even have eyewitness evidence.  

---

Were I to accept god on earth, miracles, and the resurrection on that basis I'd have no reason not to believe in UFO abductions, ghosts, big foot, Nessy, ESP, Mormonism, and a variety of other things that I'm pretty sure you don't believe in either.  I don't believe in Christianity for the same reason you don't believe in those things.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that we are agnostic about those things, because we simply don't know for sure whether they exist or not?

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.  Atheists come in gnostic and agnostic. Agnostics to no believe there is no god, the lack belief in god. Atheism includes the unproven position.  And yes that is my position concerning god and the items mentioned above.  That does not, however, mean I think them even remotely likely.

Which is not to say I think the gospels are pure fabrication.  I'm pretty sure a man named Jesus, lived, was born in Galilee (not Bethlehem) to a woman named Mary, was baptized by John the Baptist, preached, and was crucified.  I'm also sure his mother was not a virgin and did not think she had born the son of god (ask me why and I'll show you the gospel text).

Please show me.  

I'm so very glad you asked.  Mark, as we both know, if the first of the gospels in the Bible to be written.  Mark does not include a birth story.  It starts instead with Jesus preaching.  That it is only in later gospels that the virgin birth is mentioned is suggestive.  But when Jesus does begin preaching in Mark, people accuse him of being possessed by the devil.  And his family, think he has taken leave of his senses.

Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat.  When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”

 Mark 3:20-21

If Mary had been a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, and been told by an angel that he was to be the son of god, would she have thought he was crazy when he started preaching?  I don't think so.