Here is my response to an apostate named Em:

“I wouldn’t say ‘reject’, I would say highly skeptical about the nature of him.”

I think you have because Christ is our ultimate authority. You are saying he isn’t trustworthy because of your childish excuses. So, a pretend neutrality is not going to make you seem more rational to me.

“Most of the Gnostic’s, and early documents (gospels) are written at least 20-50 years after the fact; to which many of the disciples by this time would have been dead.”

You’ve always had a common habit of saying easily refuted statements. The gnostic gospels are unanimously looked at by scholars as second century works. We also have no reason to suppose the Apostles should’ve died younger.

Dr. Wallace concurs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIYLbQ_oQQ0

“It’s highly unlikely that the disciples wrote a lot of the documents attributed to them for that reason alone. By that time if oral tradition was the way that information was absorbed into a society, through way of the telephone observations, we can conclude that within that short period of 20 years, drastic changes could have been altered within the original message. We see it all the time with Greek, Roman and Pagan mythology of deities sharing personified traits with the people; and through the writings that were written decades after the fact.”

Why? Where did you get that from? Intuition? I think that we have great evidence for traditional authorship. We have both internal and external evidences. Have you ever heard the argument as undesigned coincidences?

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2017/12/06/did-jesus-exist/

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2018/01/06/anonymous-gospels/

This shows you haven’t made yourself even aware of the case we provide for NT reliability. I find it annoying for those who don’t know anything about a subject to speak about it. You decided to speak out of abject ignorance for this subject. Scholars have shown that you are committed to a false analogy:

Bart Ehrman vs Oral Tradition of the Bible (Was the Oral Tradition like the Game Telephone?)

Dr. Darrell Bock – Oral Traditions

The preservation of the NT is nothing like the game of telephone. You cite no examples and you simply parrot nonsense from Jesus mythicism.

“Not to say that he never existed, or that he wasn’t divine, I’m not certain, as I said I’m skeptical. There’s no way of completely knowing, and to add — the argument why would a bunch of men put their backs to a cross, and endure painful deaths for something they know was falsified, there’s no logical reason, but back then people weren’t that logical, as we know, they even thought the Earth was flat, and believed in geocentricism it could’ve been some emotional crutch they truly believed in after being taught by their leader that they loved for a couple of years, it’s possible, not logical, but it’s a proposition.”

I don’t know how many stupid statements you can fit into one paragraph but you surely try your hardest.

i) How do you know we can’t know? Where is your argument? You have a habit of taking everything you say for granted. You actually have to prove your silly claims.

ii) You state that people weren’t logical in the past. I think in your case that it is just a case of chronological snobbery. Ironically it is also your hypocrisy that bugs me most. You aren’t logical and neither are most agnostics. So, if their credibility is faulted for that then so is yours.

iii) Who said they thought the earth was flat? I’ve already provided resources on these claims:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2017/07/09/flattening-out-the-facts/

iv) Your view of the resurrection argument response doesn’t take into account the radical change in the life of Paul and many other facts. Shouldn’t we follow the evidence?

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/04/making-case-for-resurrection.html

But there’s a strong case to point out that Jesus wasn’t omniscient in any regards. He made no mention of a parable in his later words, when referring to Adam and Eve, so it could be very well he believed in it. Which would present an issue, since by scientific evidences standard’s it’s a creation myth. Which would be proven with or without carbon dating, to which it has no bearing on the gospel being valid. The point remains if one part of an entire story is proven false, you have to be even more cautious in believing other elements of the story. Besides dozens of documents telling different versions about a character named ‘Jesus’, and the fact these men died to defend and proclaim, there’s nothing else there.
So because of those ideals, and conflicting ideas, I cannot pretend that I wholeheartedly believe in such a premise. If only there a way to be absolutely certain about historical events, but all of those are taken by faith. To which that is why I’m skeptical, I see both sides of the fence, on the historical realm it seems illogical for dozens of men to write about a man only to have their backs to the cross. But on the scientific fence, it seems illogical for an omniscient being to believe in things that’s been disproven.
Christianity does account for morals, science, observations, and a worldview to ground existence in itself. Though it doesn’t, it doesn’t mean it’s automatically a valid reason to ‘conform’ to it without being absolutely convinced. Christianity is like a four sided shape that accounts for all of the philosophical questions, but there’s more than just the square, there’s the rhombus, there’s the rectangle that can fit that four sided shape. So hopefully that’s a sufficient line of reasoning as to why I can’t just submit, and blindly believe in something like that. After all it’s not any human that can open their eyes to reality, but the creation himself. So the tides will go where they will, in the long run, and truth will come out eventually, hopefully.

Your case rests on the assumption that naive scientific realism is true. I reject that and if you can’t deal with my position on the philosophy of science, then you are begging the question. Ignoring your circular reasoning for the moment we can point out to some have made Christian models. You present dating methods as if they are infallible. The problem is whether we should accept the assumptions that go into dating methods. You haven’t provided a defense of why we should do that.

We don’t take history on “blind faith”. We have evidence for the positions we take. We have even higher authority in the fact that God is the best witness of History. Everything happens according to his plan. Furthermore, you have to take on faith that we are wrong about the resurrection.

Your position is a square circle dictating to me about which shapes there are. I find this a pithy excuse for abandoning Christ. You should be ashamed and repent.