Plagiarism in the NT

[RoadRunner79]

Yes, that is the context of the argument.  Not whether someone believed it was true, but knowing if it is or not and maintaining what you know is false under pressure to say otherwise.  So it only applies to those who say they saw the risen Christ.

That's a bit of a stretch. The writers of the gospels could easily have believed they were reporting the facts and just been wrong. The authors weren't the witnesses, and they don't seem to have gotten their information directly from supposed witnesses either. They wrote down the stories they were told, that they already believed. No one had to lie, events being exaggerated after the fact is selected for in retellings because it makes them more memorable.

I don't think people who think they've seen Elvis posthumously are lying (with probably some exceptions). That in no way implies that Elvis has been resurrected, does it? Isn't it more likely that they just saw someone who resembles Elvis? Imagine what it must have been like in the first century when no one even had a photo of Jesus to compare to, and a lot of people had only seen him from a distance?

Or what if Jesus just survived the crucifixion? He was taken down awfully fast, victims were usually left up until they were so rotten they fell off, and he gave up the ghost within hours when most victims would last days. Last ditch rescue attempt to get their messiah off the cross alive by drugging him into unconsciousness? He would certainly have left an empty tomb and had wounds to show after that, and a reason to hightail it off before the Romans caught on that their guy had gotten away.

The authors could have been completely sincere and just wrong about some of the facts, even things central to the religion. Have you seen what we can still get wrong in the age of information and fact-checking? People seriously believe Clinton was running a pedophile ring out of a pizza joint and that she maintains a death squad to knock off anyone who might be politically dangerous to her. There's just no reason to think people were more immune to being taken in by fake news 2,000 years ago than they are now.

What makes you think that the authors where not eye witnesses to the events?   Now I admit, the bible does contain accounts, from before the others where around or which they could not have witnessed.  (which would not make them eyewitnesses to those).  But where not really talking about those.   What information do you base this on, that the authors where not eyewitnesses, or those in close contact with them. 

In your Elvis analogy, I don't find it analogous.  Are these accounts, that 1)  Seen and confirmed that Elvis was dead?   2) Close friends and family having spent enough time with him after his resurrection in close proximity to him to know that it was in fact Elvis?  3) as per the topic that you replied to facing heavy consequences for lying for any of these things. 

As to the crucifixion we have the following:

Death was often hastened by human action. "The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim."[53]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

And there are some who argue, that they where left up to rot, that the Christian account is not accurate but Josephus in the Jewish Wars Book 4 Ch. 5 makes a point, that the Jewish custom was to honor the dead, and bury them before sunset.

And the thing about "fake news", is you need some reason to declare it fake (or at least questionable).