Why be good?

[Randy Carson]

Of course you all did. And I really appreciate the fact that no one said a word in advance and let the whole thing play out to the end. That was nice.

I did post three questions to CD a moment ago...care to answer them?

Please feel free to peruse the why would they lie gallery of idiocy which we have encountered many times before you. If you think we were at all surprised by you turning over high card with a pair on the board, here's a pro tip, Randy: We all see the pair on the board.

Oh...of course. You all saw it coming and although you were actually bored by the whole thing, you let it play out all day and then merely feigned anger when I turned over my hole cards? Damn, you guys are good. I never picked any of that up throughout the day or even after I raked your chips.

But seriously, let's deal with the content of your argument here...

Why is what the authors of the gospels wrote about the things they saw any less credible than the things you wrote about (highlighted above for clarity)?

You have yet to demonstrate the following:
1) Who the writers of the gospels were
2) That they saw what they wrote down rather than wrote down oral history
3) That, even if we take 1) and 2) out of the equation and make some ridiculous logical leaps to get where you want us to be, that just because a person believes something and relates that, this makes it true. See Frederic Bartlett's experiments on reconstructve memory. (note: I hesitate to even put this last one in here, because I know you'll skip right over the first two points. Please prove me wrong.)

Yet to demonstrate who the authors were? I know you know that I posted this in the Historical Reliabilty thread, so why would you claim I have not demonstrated this? You may not agree...in which case the burden is now on you to prove why my evidence is wrong, btw...but I demonstrated why the traditional authorship of the gospels is acceptable.

Additionally, while it is a nice bonus to know that the authors really were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it is not a requirement that we know this in order for the content of the gospels to be true. However, John specifically makes the claim that he was the apostle who recorded all the events in that gospel in John 20. Luke tells us very clearly that he has interviewed the witnesses and is making an orderly account. And I discussed Matthew and Mark in the other thread.

So, actually, I'm skipping over the last one after having responded to the first two. Fooled ya!

Alternatively, why should we give you the benefit of the doubt - and take you at your word - but not do the same with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

You shouldn't. If you cared to verify it, you could do so. Makes literally no difference to me. If you were skeptical to the point where any part of my story makes you think I was lying, you are free to investigate and come to your own conclusion. Either way, it is something that you could find out.

How? By coming to your home and asking you face to face? Isn't that what Luke did? By following you around and listening to you tell of your experiences with combat veterans in front of many audiences both large and small? Isn't that what Mark did?

Can you explain what makes YOUR write up of YOUR personal experiences more believable than theirs?

Well, mine doesn't have zombies running around. Mine doesn't have conflicting accounts of Jesus' childhood, birth, death. Mine doesn't have men walking on water or multiplying fish, or magical healing, rising of the dead, a claim to have been written by illiterate lower class peasants from rural Galilee, proven to be pseudepigraphical. I am the primary source for my story.

And as I'm constantly being told here, eyewitness testimony is the WEAKEST form of evidence. So, which is it? Should I believe what you say precisely because your are promising me you are telling the truth? Or should I reject your story because other atheists here believe such testimony to be weak?

You folks, as a group, want to have it both ways. It's either one or the other...and which it is simply depends on the opinion of the atheist with whom I am speaking, apparently.

So, those things. But still, make up your own mind. I will trust that the people who know me will trust my story, and that is all that matters to me.

I wonder if any of the apostles ever went to bed thinking the same thing after a tough day.

---

I BELIEVE YOU because in the absence of evidence to the contrary about your character, your motivations, your mental state, etc., I have no reason to believe that you would lie about something important to you.

Neither did the apostles.

So, do you believe Harry Potter too? There's the same kind of evidence for his existence as there is for the apostles - scripture. It's only your personal opinion to put more stock in the bible.

Has J.K. Rowling ever suggested that she was recording actual history?

---

Two of the four gospels contain passages which show that the author was either an eyewitness or based upon interviews conducted with eyewitnesses.

Based upon interviews conducted with eyewitnesses - I love that. Probably with check, recheck and double check to be on the safe side. Boy, have you got no clue of how authors in the old world went about their business.

And your credentials as a professional historian are...?

But at least we moved away from the eyewitness being the only explanation and we're back to hearsay.

Luke 1
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Gee, Luke was aware of lots of accounts of Jesus. It appears that He got more press than some in this forum care to admit.