In the thread A Euthrypho type dilemma for atheists? (Page 8) in the "Secular Morality" forum. MAS wrote:

Since this claim is more on-topic here in the "Biblical Criticism and Archeology" forum, I'm re-posting it here. Let the fun begin....

The first article MAS linked to is an article by Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank in response to an article here on infidels.org, Critique of New Testament Reliability and "Bias" in NT Development by James Still, who subsequently replied to Glenn Miller in the following two articles:

• A Reply to Glenn Miller's Response to NT Reliability and Bias
• The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller

There are also lots of other articles on this site dealing with the alleged historicity of the Resurrection, including the following:

• Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story (2000) by Richard Carrier
• The Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection: The Debate between Christians and Skeptics by Jeff Lowder
• Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? Debate between Michael Horner and Dan Barker
• A Resurrection Debate by G.A. Wells
• The Search for the Historical Jesus by James Still

I would be interested to see comments on these article by Christians, especically MAS.


[This message has been edited by Kate Long (edited March 11, 2001).]

I went to the quoted link to the article written by Glen.

I am not very well-versed in History so I can't comment on much, but I know a couple things he said were just plain ridiculous:
1.He says Barabbas was put up for, and eventually, released, because he was a "political dissident", and Romans sometimes did this with convinctions that were made on a purely political stance.
This is absurd. The Romans may have practiced a custom of releasing political dissidents, but Barabbas was not a political dissident. He was merely a common theif and murderer.
2.He shows evidence that Pilate would actually be nice because, he had been nice to Jews befofe this, and learned this was the correct thing to do.
But Pilate was supposed to please the Jews. Obviously, the Jews in charge at that time were all Jesus' enemies. According to the Gospels, they even threatened to tell on Pilate if he did not crucify Jesus. The logical thing for Pilate to do would be the exact opposite of what he did - Pilate, in order to please the Jewish leaders and not have them squealing to the higher-ups in Rome, would have had Jesus killed! Yet he just says he "washes his hands" of the whole thing, which is completely contrary to the smart course of action to take (killing Jesus).
3.We see from the article that Cruxifiction was reseved for the crime of sedition. But Jesus was put to death merely for blasphemy (a non-Roman "crime"). Glen goes on to say that Jesus was indeed accused of sedition and therefore, cruxified. But this is completely contrary to his former assertion that Pilate "washed his hands" of the whole thing - if Pilate did that, then why would Jesus be assisted by Roman authority and killed in a way that is used for punishment for a crime against Rome, if Pilate did not convict him of anything!?

The Jews. "Squealing" to the higher ups in Rome...?