Chapter 2 — The Skeptics Speak — Part 1

Hello Again Folks:

This is w.here the skeptics get to speak  This is a two parter and from two skeptics.  The first part is Robert’s response and the second part is from another skeptic.  I included the second part because it is a very interesting objection and Robert did not include it in his response.  Without further ado – here is Robert’s response:

Here are some general objections to this portion of Case

First, let us be reminded that, even granting the highly dubious claim the gospels are really authored by whom church tradition said they are, two of the so-called eyewitnesses are indisputably not (Mark and Luke). I realize you’ve argued they are like eyewitnesses, but that doesn’t change the fact they purportedly only spoke to them. To include them in a discussion which “focuses on the eyewitnesses” is a bit…well, dishonest.

Second, these tests are applicable only to the <i>living</i>, because only the living can answer challenges to their testimony, which helps establish veracity. The farcical nature of Strobel’s attempt to set up his book akin to a courtroom proceeding really shines through here. There’s no hostile attorney cross-examining the experts or the “witnesses”. There isn’t even any opposing experts or witnesses!

Third, we have indisputable evidence that the gospels have been “tampered” with. Significant material has been added (e.g., the ending of Mark). Words changed. Verses removed. Grammar modified. Since no gospel originals exist, no one can say what they first said. What’s in contemporary gospels does not mirror what’s in our earliest gospel manuscripts. So much for accuracy…

Fourth, there are many claims left unexamined which bear on the veracity of the alleged eyewitnesses. For example, Blomberg says many apparent contradictions turned out not to be contradictions. But what of those that remain unresolved, such as Jesus’ genealogy or the date of his birth? What of the people, places, and fantastic events that remain unconfirmed, such as the splitting of the temple “from top to bottom,” and the OT characters who rose from the dead and walked around Jerusalem, allegedly seen by numerous people? What do these say about gospel veracity? If the gospels are unbelievable or mistaken on these matters, what others are they unbelievable or mistaken on? Is it Blomberg’s contention that the gospels accurately recorded everything? If not, where are they mistaken, and how does Blomberg determine where the mistakes are?
 

Part two is from Jeffrey Lowder’s review of CFC.  Mr. Lowder points out that Jesus and his disciples lived in an oral society and recent physiological evidence about memory shows it is often not reliable and this casts doubt on the oral tradition.  I shall set those forth in part 2 after responding to Robert’s objections in my next post.

Thanks for reading,

Ron

Advertisement