I am curious what others think about his reasoning. What would be the motivation to fabricate the New Testament?
Joke right! To further ones personal perspective regardless of what you don't know. This is a joke right?
wow, the writer makes some big claims. First he claims that there is material evidence of Jesus because it's a historical event. Ironically he only states that Christians witnessed this. He also claims that other religions are not based on historic events. Where the writer gets this evidence is beyond me. He only quotes the NT. While I commend the fact that he doubts and questions, he quickly discounts any evidence or ideas outside of Christianity. So in essence, his so called reasoning is very very flawed.
I agree. However, what would the motivation have been for the Christians to make up their evidence for what they knew to be false?
Maybe it wasn't so much an issue of Christians falsifying evidence in order to get others to believe what they believed, but falsifying evidence as a means of getting others to believe what they wanted them to believe whether they themselves actually believed it or not. Religion has always been used as a tool to control the masses.
Every Xtian I meet today makes up lies that are obviously & demonstrably false, and the drivel you linked to is no exception. Every point he makes begins with an unfounded assumption that ignores a huge body of science & history. If this is his or your standard of proof, I have a bridge in Manhattan to sell you, cheap. It's okay, I'm trustworthy. It says so right on the TA blog. What motivation could I have to lie?
What would be the motivation for the earliest followers to have invented the resurrection story? What did they have to gain from spreading that lie?
I substituted them because for there to have been writings, there must have been an oral tradition that preceded the writing, or are you saying the authors were themselves eyewitnesses to the resurrection? The story had to have a beginning, yes? What was the purpose of its genesis if the story at its conception is false?
But who started the story and why? What did they gain from it?
The whole Jesus myth is a repetition of the same things said about numerous other gods that predate Jesus. Go look up Mithras, Horus, and Osirus for starters. There is nothing about Jesus that can't be attributed to an earlier god. Only the names have changed over the centuries.
Hmm... I suppose so, but I'm still wondering why anybody would bother to change the name. What did they have against Horus?
How come Jesus himself would have left nothing in the way of writing? I've always found this odd. The four gospels were written by folks that (likely...) never met Christ. Reality is, one could go as far as to argue Christ himself maybe never even existed at all. Outside of the bible (which doesn't serve as solid evidence) there is very little documentation of his existence from the time he actually/apparently existed. For me this speaks volumes.