Replies

If the Bible contains multiple, independent accounts from each of the witnesses (or even a good sampling thereof),

It does. What is more key is that said witnesses were alive while the message was being delivered and could have easily been disproved by simply going to the named witness and cross examining them.

I might find it more credible than if it's simply the telling of a story that claims a plethora of witnesses, even if said story is repeated four times.

There are multiple witnesses telling the same story multiple ways.

Of course, witness accounts across multiple sources would be even better than a single compliation that was edited after the fact.

The bible is hardly a single compilation that was edited after the fact. There are just enough slight differences between reports of events to raise questions ---just like real life. There are also events which are down right embarrassing to those telling the story that make editing improbable. Why for example would Peter want to let the story stand about his denial of Christ if he was probably the only one to know what happened after ? Why would the men let it be reported that Jesus first appeared to women rather than to his disciples. There are way too many similar questions along the same lines to make one very skeptical it was edited for a single purpose.

What is more key is that said witnesses were alive while the message was being delivered and could have easily been disproved by simply going to the named witness and cross examining them.

Really? Could you name some of these witnesses?

There are multiple witnesses telling the same story multiple ways.

Right, but there are only four 'witness accounts' (set to paper well after the fact).

The bible is hardly a single compilation that was edited after the fact.

By 'editing' I mean the selective omission of variants on stories that didn't quite correspond with what the Council of Nicea wanted.

There are just enough slight differences between reports of events to raise questions ---just like real life.

Yes. And such questions throw the credibility of the claims into doubt -- just like in real life.

There are also events which are down right embarrassing to those telling the story that make editing improbable. Why for example would Peter want to let the story stand about his denial of Christ if he was probably the only one to know what happened after ?

What, exactly, is 'embarassing' about this?

Why would the men let it be reported that Jesus first appeared to women rather than to his disciples.

Because that's how the story goes.

There are way too many similar questions along the same lines to make one very skeptical it was edited for a single purpose.

Only if you assume that all that you see is all that there ever was, which is not the case.

Some people i.e Dimenso, think that no rational person can believe in God. I know it would not be right and I really should pray for him/her, however, I would like to see these resolved people standing before the Throne of God saying "But my Genius I.Q. said that you didn't exist". They can deny him all they want but God has the final say.