reasonable.atheist,
1. I was trying to give you a plausible reasoning for why the
Gospel accounts differ in their reporting. Weak argument or not,
the point is that it is hardly logical to reject the Bible based on
such differences that can be easily explained. So long as a logical
explanation exists, you have no case. Remember, I only need to
demonstrate the reasonableness of belief.
2. Since when did I agree that any part of the Bible was
fabricated? I was only saying that there is controversy over
whether certain passages were in the original, and EVEN if we
should remove them just for the sake of argument that there is no
damage done to any core doctrines of the faith. So should those
verses be there? It's up to you to judge since we only have
recourse to extant manuscripts. One side will say go with the
earliest manuscripts, another side will say go with the majority
texts.
3. You commit the fallacy of appeal to majority. So what if few
now believe in Biblical inerrancy? Truth is NEVER determined by
numbers. I am sure you are reasonable to see that. The Bible
predicts that in the last days the love of many will grow cold and
there will be a great apostasy. What then? A prediction of Bible
prophecy or simply because few belief means it is false?
4. If you prefer theft theory to resurrection theory despite the
weakness and flaws in your theft theory, then you are simply being
ARBITRARY. I have no quarrel with that. It's your choice. But still
it will only be because you hold to naturalism. Why would you
assume that because I believe in the resurrection of Jesus it would
mean that any missing body necessitates a resurrection? That's a
distortion of my beliefs again. You clearly ignores the fact that
there are many good reasons to believe that Jesus resurrected. All
your naturalistic theories to do away with the resurrection have
been tried and found wanting.
5. I also know I am going into re-runs and not gonna convince
you. Like I said before, I see people coming here clearly with the
intention to engage in Bible-bashing and I am trying to give a
reason for the hope that is in me. I try to give a REASONABLE
defense. It may not please everyone but that's besides the point.
Even apostle Paul when he preached to the Greeks in Athens did not
have everyone coming for altar call. SOME believed, MANY scoffed,
and SOME asked that he speak to them again.
"Rejecting" is such a strong word, isn't it? For me, sure, the
biblical account of the resurrection could be
true, but it is rather unlikely. Instead, it is substantially more
likely that the naturalistic explanation of the missing tomb holds.
This is what it comes down to:
-----------
Which of these is more plausible?
(a) Despite differences in the gospel narratives about tomb
visitors, earthquakes, and angels, the biblical accounts of the
resurrection in the gospels are all consistent with each other and
all accurate. The authors just decided to focus on different
details.
OR
(b) The fact that important details in the different gospels
differ show that, at best, the resurrection account has to be taken
with caution. At worst, entities like talking angels -- present in
only two of the four gospels -- are fanciful recreations by certain
gospel authors.
-----------
Which of these is more plausible?
(a) The fact that the Gospel of Mark had a new ending added by an
unknown author several years after the original authorship does not
meaningfully diminish the reliability of the bible as the inerrant
word of God. The bible's account of events, including the
resurrection, should be taken as fact.
OR
(b) The fact that the Gospel of Mark had a new ending added by
an unknown author several years after the original authorship
suggests again that the bible is the work of man. At best, the
resurrection account has to be taken with caution. At worst, some
of the more fanciful narratives have to be taken as fiction.
-----------
Which of these is more plausible?
(a) Jesus rising from the dead is the most plausible explanation of
the missing body, given the presence of Roman guards, the large
covering rock, the account of eyewitnesses who saw Jesus back among
the living, and so on.
OR
(b) A miracle is, by definition, the rarest of events -- if in fact
it ever occurs. It should only be considered therefore when all
plausible naturalistic explanations have been exhausted. In this
case, the missing tomb can be plausibly explained by a theft,
whether by guards or disciples. Jesus' supposed re-appearances
(missing in the original ending of Mark) can also be adequately
explained by mass hysteria (e.g. see Monkey-Man reports in Delhi in
2001).
-----------
In each of these cases, I think (b) is the more plausible
answer. Are the (a) answers possible? Yes, but for me, they are far
less likely given the evidence.
