Steven Carr

NT Wright explains why the Gospels are more reliable than reports of UFO's at Roswell

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/197/story_19743_2.html

'And they incorporate, and are based on, sources both oral and written which go back a lot earlier, sources from the time when not only most of Jesus's followers were still alive and active within the early Christian movement, but when plenty of others--bystanders, opponents, officials--were still around, aware of the new movement as it was growing, and ready to challenge or contradict tales that were gaining currency'

None of this applies to the stories of UFO's at Roswell, where nobody challenges these reports.

If people DID challenge the Roswell UFO stories, they would be retracted instantly, just as the Gospel writers would have torn up any stories about Jesus that the Pharisees challenged.

Joan of Bark

But Roswell stories come from EYEWITNESSES, not from those who lived decades later and got the stories second and third-hand.

Berthold

So what? Roswell wasn't ET anyway.

The Evil One

IMO Roswell, Scientology, Mormonism, and other conspiracy theory/cult types are one of the biggest problems for NT apologists, because they demonstrate beyond doubt that

1) the swift rise and spread of a cult-type movement DOES NOT demonstrate that that cult's claims are basically truthful;
2) legends and myths CAN arise in a period of a handful of years;
3) if sceptics do refute misconceptions concerning cult origins, based on solid contradicting evidence, true believers CAN and DO ignore these refutations and continue to believe;
4) people WILL undergo hardship and even risk death for beliefs that are not based in truth;
5) eyewitness testimony CAN be faked;
6) and finally, that incredible and demonstrably false accounts ARE believed and held as articles of faith by otherwise mostly-normal, non-insane, non-deceptive people.

That pretty much destroys all the apologists' arguments, doesn't it?

Koyaanisqatsi

You know, I've always hated this sophistry. First of all, unless someone from the day took the time to write down on parchment, "I was at the feast of loaves and fishes and it's all bullshit," how could it be known how many people heard these stories and challenged them? Secondly, we know from Paul, at least, that the claim of resurrection was challenged by the Greek converts, forcing Paul to write a whole (contradictory) theological treatise on the bodily ascension and what it means to a "true" follower to reject it or question it. Third, it's not as if these stories were presented in front of any kind of non-biased academic council on "truth claims of the early christian cult;" the stories were told to people who already believed such things as gods unquestionably exist and could perform the kind of miracles Jesus supposedly performed; miracles that were nothing new on the books at that time, including resurecting from the dead. Forth, we know there definitely were people who challenged and contradicted the claims found in the NT; they're commonly called "Jews" and "Pagans," not to mention the "Essenes" and the "Gnostics."

If no one challenged or contradicted the claims, then everybody back then would have been converted the second they heard the stories.

:huh:

But what I hate the most is what claim, exactly, could be "challenged" or contradicted and to what end? "I saw Jesus walk on water." "Prove it." How? "I was a disciple and hung out with Jesus after he resurrected from the grave." "Prove it." How? "There were 500 witnesses." "Really, then what are their names and addresses, because I've got nothing better to do than to leave my livelihood in ruins and spend all my wealth over several months trying to track them all down and interview them extensively for an exclusive expose I'm calling "Lies Of the Jesus Cult" for the Roman Daily Gazette?"



It's quite possibly the most insipid apologetic on the books.

gurugeorge

Excellent points, succinctly made. :notworthy:

Steven Carr

And presumably they were the Bishop of Durham's best shots....

Diogenes the Cynic

This particular apologetic also relies on an unproven assumption that any claim for a physical resurrection existed before 70 CE. I see no reason to grant any stipulation that anyone ever claimed to have personally witnessed such a thing.