The case for trust in scripture

Aquinas argued that if the Incarnation did not really happen, then an even more unbelievable miracle happened: the conversion of the world by the biggest lie in history and the moral transformation of lives into unselfishness, detachment from worldly pleasures and radically new heights of holiness by a mere myth.


As has already been pointed out, Christianity need not have come into being as a conspiratorial lie, but rather as a shared illusion.

Nonetheless, one general argument marshalled in favor of Christianity seems to be that, unless Christianity were true, it could not possibly have come into being, either because it has consistently provoked extremely positive effects (e.g., the moral transformation of grevious sinners) that would be otherwise inexplicable, or because it has consistently provoked extremely potent effects (e.g., the conversions of multitudes) that would be otherwise inexplicable; or both.

However, this general argument strikes me as immediately vulnerable to obvious objections.

First, it is questionable whether or not the effects of Christianity have been extremely positive. I concede that they have been extremely positive on occasion (e.g., the life of St. Francis). However, it must also be conceded that the effects of Christianity have, on occasion, been extremely negative too (e.g., the Crusades). At the very least, it would be tendentious to claim that the effects of Christianity have been *uniformly* extremely positive. There is balance sheet to be considered, even if the precise balance can be debated.

Second, it is questionable whether or not the effects of Christianity have been extremely potent. To assert that Christianity has consistently provoked potent effects (and in particular, positive ones) is to make a strong causal claim about it (even if the claim is both complex and vague: is the ultimate agent of causation God or Jesus, Christian men and women, or some combination thereof?). But to make that claim is to assert that no other natural forces or combination of natural forces could possibly suffice to bring about these effects. How sure can anyone be of this? Surely, it is a species of argument from ignorance merely to declare this. Can anyone be certain that there is not in human nature, independent of God, the potential for Christianity to emerge as a collective illusion? Do we know enough of human nature to exclude this possibility? I submit that it would be presumptuous to assume as much. Indeed, there is plenty of collateral evidence that human being are capable of imagining any number of impossible things before breakfast, of misunderstanding the causes of their psychological states, of tending to acquire belief in disincarnate spirits, of linking morality to such beliefs, etc.

(Aside 1: Suppose we concede that the effects of Christianity are inexplicably potent naturalistically, but note that they are not uniformly positive. Would that count as evidence for or against Christianity being true?)

(Aside 2: Suppose an alternative religion to Christianity--like Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam--also had extremely potent and good effects, verging on the otherwise inexplicable, at least according to the intuitions of some. By the same argument, these effects would suggest these religions were true. However, there exist, at the very least, substantial incompatibilities between the tenets of these different religions and Christianity, and indeed, between the tenets of these different religions themselves. How are these incompatibilities to be resolved? Or suppose that Islam gained ground, and Christianity lost it, in terms of numbers. Would that imply that the true values associated with the propositions asserted by one religion or the other would switch?)

Third, there is a strong Darwinian-style argument against the arguments for potency and positivity adduced in favor of Christianity. Suppose, over the course of history, you had N number of self-styled gurus. These would then arguably exhibit a (possibly skewed) Gaussian distribution of success in attaining converts. A few, perhaps the least charismatic with the least receptive audiences, would give up after a week; most would exhibit a degree of success due to their native talents and the enthusiasm of followers, but still only sufficient to found an evanscent cult; but a few, in the positive tail of the distribution, would manage to found a major world religion, because the other manifold conditions necessary for it to take permanent root would be, out of sheer luck, present. So basically, Christianity struck it lucky. There were lots of other losers in the religion race, but we never hear from them, because they are lost in the sands of time. Hence, it isn't the case that the intrinsic merits of Christianity are entirely responsible for whatever potent and positive effects can be justly attributed to it, but rather also, and probably to a huge and unappreciated extent, that the extrinsic conditions were ripe for its emergence, conditions that might have favored another religion, but that happened to favor Christianity.

Thank you so much for outlining the whole of the case. This is brilliant. After the arguments get removed, you will concede that there is no case at all, which is even better still.

1 - This can instantly be shown to be a false argument by just applying to every other scripture. If the Koran lies, who invented the lie and for what reason? If the vedas lie... and so on. Nevertheless, we still need to explain where it goes wrong (seing that it goes wrong isn't really enough). Firstly, you are using an outrageously exaggerated synonym for fiction, thus are working on the assumption that anything false has resulted from a lie. When phrased like that, you can see that the assumption is unhelpful to any logical argument, so I'll remove it and thus rephrase what's been said: "If the gospels are false, who made up the falsity, and for what reason? If it was Jesus' apostles, what did they get out of the falsehood?" (also 'a liar always has some selfish motive' is complete and utter rubbish - you tell your children that father christmas exists. You tell your wife she doesn't look fat in a dress. Furthermore, if we take away your falsity=lie assumption from this argument as well, it becomes even more shakey. What was the selfish reason behind people saying the plum pudding model of atoms was correct? No selfish reason, they were just wrong.) Who made up the falsity? Who's to say. Could have been anyone. Oral tradition seems likely. What did Jesus' apostles get out of the falsehood? Firstly, burden of evidence. Who's to say jesus' apostles existed? The only evidence we have is the gospels, which can be disregarded as evidence owing to their other extraordinary claims. (if you're going to argue this, look at hyroglyphs, there are many more examples of egyptian gods and accounts of their doings than there are in the bible. The sole reason we discard the evidence at these points or any points that appear to be related is that they make extraordinary claims. The hyroglyphs that don't and are not related to any religious passage can be trusted on the other hand. This same method MUST be applied to every other document of this sort.) Secondly, if we just talk about first generation christians (though they're hard to pinpoint) what did they get out of it? The same thing christians today get out of it I would have thought. Christianity would have given them a sense of happiness, a sense of meaning, and a sense of knowledge of the divine.

2 - I'm surprised the first question didn't set off any twinges in your head. The answer's pretty obvious. If they knew it was a lie, it's pretty damned certain they wouldn't have suffered torture and death for it. So? Easiest logical conclusion you'll ever make: They didn't know it was a 'lie'. Done. "The enemies of christianity would have needed only one recanting from one of jesus' disciples in order to destroy the upstart religion". Where on earth do you get that crazy idea from? One person moves away from christianity so the whole of christianity is never born? That's just rubbish. By the time christianity was big enough to rationalise attempted extermination by those in charge, it wouldn't have affected it at all for one of their members to walk off. In actuality, there's a reasonable possibility that the recantings would have helped. If you have 10 christians, and they all get tortured, and not one of them loses faith, they all die. Bam, end of christianity. If, however, one recants. He gets allowed to live, and later regains his faith. Christianity lives on! This wouldn't be an especially important event on the large scale, so I can't see recanting having anything to do with the survival of christianity.
"They used many forms of torture and bribery and never succeeded."
Can you present some evidence for this? And I'm going to need a fair bit of evidence to accept such an outrageous claim.

3 - "What force sent Christians to the lion's den with hymns on their lips?" Belief? Religion? What force makes a Muslim so happy to kill himself knowing he's going to heaven? Tis the same one. "What falsehood ever gave millions a moral fortitude?" Who's to say it gives anybody a moral fortitude? When there are moral religious people, immoral religious people, moral atheists and immoral atheists, then how can you see any link at all? "and peace and joy like that?" Just about any other religion in existance. Hinduism makes Hindus happy. Sikhism makes Sikhs happy. "Christianity conquered the world mainly through the force of sanctity and love." You go against every main theory with that. The best reason given for Christianity conquering the world (in my opinion) is Paul of Tarsus who was a scheming fellow who proselytized, making sure to emphasize the appealing aspects of christianity. Namely, heaven. If Christianity didn't have the idea of heaven, then all the love in the world wouldn't have made it spread. "Saints are not liars" Correct, just as Mullah's and Rabbis aren't either. Just as everybody in the world when the plum pudding model of atoms was around wasn't a "liar", they were just wrong. Sincere, but wrong.

4 - Who were the naive fools who first believed it? Very very hard to say. The first written accounts are obviously by people who believed it, but evidence from them (take Luke, who starts by saying he's gathering information from what people are saying right at the beginning of his letter) indicates that there was an oral tradition beforehand. Who first believed it is a question that lies back in antiquity, never to be answered. Who first believed Greek myths? Not a clue. Who first believed Islamic myths? Actually we do have some ideas about that one, what with Ali, but when there's talk of 1,000 people fighting for Islam early on, where did they all come from? "There isn't another idea a Jew would be less likely to believe." Again, that's just rubbish. Christianity is a very appealing belief system. All the competing mystery cults of the time, much less appealing, and because of that Jews were less likely to believe them and they've vanished. Jews were less likely to go for polytheisms, so all those cults went away too. What Jews were likely to go for, was the same idea of god, but with an added gift of afterlife. That was exactly what Christianity gave them. "god became... a crucified criminal". Exaggeration here. Whoever reads the bible and concludes that God was a criminal has a screw loose. "god became a man... hardly a myth that naturally arises in the Jewish mind" Correct, sort of. They wouldn't have gone to Christianity instinctively, that's for sure. That's why the evangelism was necessary. After the message is out though, it's very believable.

5 - And of the hundreds of non-canonical books? Who's to say. If the gentiles started the myth, why are so many modern christian books written by Americans? Because news spreads. The myth could have started in the gentiles or in the jews quite easily to leave us with what we have today.

6 - A few points here. Firstly, There's not much evidence, if any at all, that there was a real Jesus. Secondly, the accounts are so vague, that would there have been any eyewitness refutation? If I say "I saw Chris bring someone back from the dead! He's from Texas by the way." Would you come up and say "I know a Chris from Texas, and he never did any such thing!!" No. You'd look stupid, because there are loads of people in Texas called Chris. Likewise, there are accounts of people called Jesus from Nazereth (though not one of them fits the story given in the bible, I might add). Also, I know of no myths attributed to Muhammed. It is common among Muslims to accept that he performed no miracle but passing on the message. "The very earliest times and documents" Oh yeah? They go back to 6600 BC do they? Didn't think so.

7 - That's the most juvenile and blatant appeal to authority I've ever read. It stands to reason that with billions of christians over the past hundreds of years, a few of them are going to be clever. There are clever atheists, clever muslims, clever hindus. There are also unintelligent christians, but I wouldn't cite them as an example of christianity being wrong.

"if the Incarnation did not really happen, then an even more unbelievable miracle happened: the conversion of the world by the biggest lie in history"
How is that a miracle? I bet the percentage of the world that believed rain was somehow connected to a god was bigger than the current percentage of christians (I think it's about 35%, could well be wrong there) If lots of people believe something, it doesn't make it true. This is just a dressed up form of make-believe.

"and the moral transformation of lives into unselfishness" You mean to tell me that before christianity, everybody was selfish and immoral? And after, everyone's unselfish and moral? If so, your argument is laughable.
"detachment from worldly pleasures" Amusing then how the most christian country on earth is such a capitalist's paradise.

8 - WOAH! you just claimed there's historical data for Jesus to have existed and claimed to be god. I NEED TO SEE THIS DATA. I've studied the historicity of Jesus for so long and it's somehow managed to pass me by.

9 - The test used on other ancient documents is this: "if it talks about gods, label it mythology and look at it in a social context" "If it talks about royalty, sort out the bits that talk about royalty's connection with the gods from the bits that talk about royalty's actions and make sure the actions fit with other evidence. If they do, it's reliable." Just as with writings that start talking about what Odin does, the texts should be historically disregarded, apart from when it is of interest where a particular story came from, like Noah's ark, where other cultures have similar myths, attributing them to many gods and spirits.

...

10 - ... Yes, if it didn't speak about mythological beings, it would be taken seriously. The more extraordinary a claim requires a more extraordinary evidence.

And you seem to think that this thing being old makes it true? That's just silly. There are old texts that say diseases are caused by spirits and things, but thankfully logic and science do not work by taking the oldest thing to be the most accurate.

You count minor discrepancies to be reinforcing rather than undermining the evidence. That is the very definition of delusion. And there are plenty of books that speak of doctrines different to the ones accepted. It's sometimes a shame that the infancy gospel of thomas was left out of the bible.

11 - "There is no evidence at all of anyone ever opposing the so-called myth of the divine Jesus". Yes there damn well is, I'm doing it now. Or are you working on your insane assumption that only things that are older count? In which case there is no evidence of anybody ever saying that gravity exists.

"First century dating of virtually all of the NT"

...

and?

12 - Correct. In fact, there's a lot of evidence suggesting the complete opposite. A recent discovery at (I'm never going to get this name) Nag Habbadi turned up loads of very very early gnostic texts which suggest the spiritual side of Jesus without the historic man underneath. Jesus in spirit more than Jesus in person.

13 - "The style of gospels is not the style of myth, but that of eyewitness description" These styles are one and the same. I'd like you to point to particular passages in the text you don't feel would have been written were it mythological.
"there are no second-century anachronisms" You really want to hammer in the 'it's old' point don't you? Yes, it's old. So what???

14 - Yes. Also, the claim of Jesus to be God makes sense of how he managed to multiply fish. The claim of Thor to be God makes sense of why he's so tall.

15 - Read up on the synoptic problem. This idea was settled a long time ago. Most probably Luke cited Mark, Q and external source L. Matthew cited Mark, Q and external or oral source M. And John is quite clearly different from the other three. This leaves us with 5 different sources - Mark, John, Q, M and L. And scholarship is happy with saying those are the origins of the gospels. Interestingly, they hardly ever overlap. And the only places where they do, they get it wrong. The inconsistencies you speak about are still there, but the similarities have been taken away.

16 - You've already typed this once. Why type it again? See my response to the first few.

17 - Circular. Because the gospels are true, if you read them with an open mind, you'll conclude that they're true, which means they're true. It's not a particularly spectacular story. Compared to stories that we know man has invented (Mark Dunn, brilliant author) it's really quite boring. Characterisation is very VERY thin, nothing really happens at all, and the ending is predictable. It's just a typical story of good vs. evil, but a very early one that doesn't show as much maturity or literary ability as modern novels.
You've also thrown in another appeal to authority. Well, we've got Sigmund Freud on our side, so neeeh.

18 - I consider Buddha's teachings good and wise, doesn't mean I start following every word he says. There's a very very thick line between trusting someone and being so brain-dead in your following that you become gullible and follow every last thing someone says.

19 - a) Loving, caring, compassionate and passionate about helping. So are most paedophiles. There's no psychological profile for people who lie, because everybody lies! I've already shown why your "lies = selfish" claim is garbage. And you continue the "false = lie" claim here. I wouldn't call David Icke a liar. He's quite compassionate himself. Nevertheless, almost everything he says is complete and utter rubbish.

b) David Icke.

c) ... People aren't likely to believe it, thus it's true? Whatever you do, don't become a lawyer. These arguments are just so bad it's embarassing. If I say "The moon is made of cookie dough!!!!" is it reasonable to argue 'Nobody's ever going to believe that, and he knows nobody will believe it, so he knows his lie won't be successful, so he's not a liar, so it's true!'?
No, that's just logically laughable.

(lunatics bit now)

a) "The lunatic lacks the qualities that shine in Jesus... unpredictable creativity"

I think that says it all. If you read that and agree with it, then there's something wrong with you.

b) "When we meet a lunatic, we are uncomfortable because we feel superior to him" No we don't. If I see a mad man standing in the middle of a road throwing peanut butter at people, I don't feel uncomfortable because I'm superior, I feel uncomfortable because I'm inferior - I'm not armed with peanut butter, and some might hit me at any time. "A lunatic makes you bored" If I'm trapped in a room with a lunatic, that's the last thing I'm going to be. I'll be startled, and constantly slightly frightened.

c) Can't see anything wrong with that. The writers of the new testament probably had a good deal of sanity to write material that's so easy to understand.

d) This is a repeat of one of your earlier points.

e) ¬_¬ Please stop the repetition in order to make your post look longer than the content actually is.

(guru bit)

a) ...
Should I even address that? It's just so bad I doubt anybody will be convinced, and I'll give Christians credit and assume they see that as a filler point.

b) Uses an unhelpful definition of God. The God that man cam become is seperate from the god of creation.

c) ... Is this whole guru section just filler? I've never seen it added to any trilemma before, and it's so abomiably argued I can only assume you put it in as an afterthought. This clearly isn't your area of expertise.

d) No, for the mystics, time and history are ultimately material dimensions. This is exactly the same as Jews see them.

e) Correct, this seperates Judaism from Mystic belief. Unfortunately, in your search for a correct point, you've veered off from your aim, to show that Jesus wasn't a guru, which you still haven't done.

f) "Religion is not a search for God but Gods search for us" I've never spoken to a single faith-head who's agreed with this. All of them are trying to find god. If religion was god's search for us, then surely implicit atheism is what's intended? You wait until god shows up.

g) Firstly, the god in the old testament is awful. If he were my dad, I wouldn't love him for what he's done. Secondly, you make a correct point about will, but completely ignore what you're trying to prove. So what if Jews believe god has a will and gurus believe he doesn't. This has no relation to anything Jesus did.

h) Firstly, Judaism itself has no hell. Secondly, god this section's bad. I mean, the other sections weren't correct but at least they made sense and had clear relation to the point. This section's just nonsensical.

"The above argumentation has shown the inherent flaws in the last four options..."
what? You've listed "II - Jesus never claimed it, and it's a myth" right above it, and never even looked at that possibility? I've just looked back, you didn't look at it at all. Never went near refuting it because you didn't even touch it.

Skipping ahead, because much of the conclusions here are on the assumption of points I've already debunked.

21 a) No rational reason? How's about the same reason you use against unicorns. Give us some evidence already, or correct yourself.

"Peter kreeft & Ronald..." Oops, sorry for giving you the credit of the post. Ah well, everything I've said should still make sense.

===============================
There is no such consensus. The Gospels are mutually inconsistent.
==========================

Well, I might agree that there is no deliberate collusions of testimonies as if witnesses conspired together to get their lies consistent so as to mislead the judge.

There is no indication of this kind of tampered with and fabricated conspiratorial "consistency".

However, I ask you to point out to me your two strongest examples of inconsistency. Don't give me your weaker examples first, saving your stronger examples for latter. I want to see up front your one or two stongest examples ,ThousandYoung.

Also, I don't want you to sit back and wait for someone else to jump in and answer for you, distracting me from YOUR claim.

So, specifically to you, ThousandYoung - give me your one of two strongest examples of this incosistency in the four Gospels. I am not interested in your secondary, auxilary, or "back up" examples.

For those who are interested in these matters, I want to introduce to you René Girard, French historian, literary critic, and philosopher of social science. His work belongs to the tradition of anthropological philosophy.

He explains the fundamental difference between the traditional myths on the one hand and the Gospel on the other by using his thesis of mimetic violence and his thesis of the scapegoatmechanism. He claims that myths are trying to hide the truth about man while the Gospel is revealing it.

Very interesting indeed.


General information about René Girard and his work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard


*********************************************************

Welcome to the TARP Grant Project Homepage

Sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, the Metanexus Institute, and the Travis Research Institute of Fuller Graduate School of Psychology, this two year project brings together some of the world’s most prominent scientists, philosophers, and religious scholars in an attempt to explore current theories of human imitation and their converging implications for contemporary psychosocial, religious, and scientific thought.

http://www.mimetictheory.org/

*********************************************************

^ I really do doubt that any atheist orders the contradictions they know in the bible by strength, if they know of any at all of by heart. That being said, I frequently cite 2samuel 21:19 "Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath" against the other account, and 2samuel 23:8 "Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time." against "the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time." in 1 chronicles 11:11

Unless you wanted one pertaining to Jesus directly as the original poster does, in which case I'll ask you these two questions - was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? and when was Jesus born?

Colloquium On Violence & Religion (COV&R)

Official website for exploration, criticism, and development of René Girard‘s Mimetic Theory

http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/

Originally posted by vistesd
Okay, while I’m still here, I’m just going to make some comments on this portion, and then let you guys carry on (while I read along)—

[b](a) Judaism is an exoteric religion of collective observance of a public law and belief in a public book.

This is not entirely correct, and ignores the entire Oral Torah, whose beginnings pre-date Jesus (probably ...[text shortened]... about Judaism or Buddhism, say, ought to be taken with a large dose of (purgative) salt.[/b]

Bottom line: these guys may well have some authority to speak about (at least their understanding) of Christianity. Anything they say about Judaism or Buddhism, say, ought to be taken with a large dose of (purgative) salt.

I thought you'd have some choice words for that section, vistesd. Agreed. I questioned whether I should include the Judaism versus Eastern mysticism stuff, but decided to in order to test their claims against your expertise. Overall, though, how does their argument that Christ was not a misinterpreted mystic hold up in light of your reservations?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===============================
There is no such consensus. The Gospels are mutually inconsistent.
==========================

Well, I might agree that there is no deliberate collusions of testimonies as if witnesses conspired together to get their lies consistent so as to mislead the judge.

There is no indication of this kind of tampered w ...[text shortened]... he four Gospels. I am not interested in your secondary, auxilary, or "back up" examples.[/b]

That's a reasonable challenge. OK. I don't exactly spend my time analyzing the Gospels for the "strongest" inconsistencies, but I'll offer something up.

First of all, though - I'm not going to copy-paste. I'll argue with my own brain and my own words, supported by others' ideas and research. Please show me the same respect, ok?

Originally posted by doodinthemood
^ I really do doubt that any atheist orders the contradictions they know in the bible by strength, if they know of any at all of by heart. That being said, I frequently cite 2samuel 21:19 "Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath" against the other account, and 2samuel 23:8 "Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hund these two questions - was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? and when was Jesus born?

2 Samuel is not one of the Gospels. Neither is Acts. The Gospels are consistent that Jesus was not the first.

"When was Jesus born"?

Why don't we start with that. According to Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, it was in the days of Herod, who died in 4 BCE. However according to Luke 2:2, it was when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, which did not occur until ten years later.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/jesus_born.html

I'll offer up one of my own in a bit. There's your two.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If your first point is so fundamentally flawed I wont go much further than that. It is a common claim but even the most basic analysis shows that it is flawed to its core. In fact it is so easy to see the flaws that one can almost claim the the writer of (1) is a liar.

a. There are differences between the gospels lying, the writers of the gospels lying thus could easily be reporting on other peoples lies, people we know nothing whatsoever about.

a. There are differences between the gospels lying, the writers of the gospels lying (through the gospels), the gospels being wrong, the gospels being misinterpreted by people today, the writers of the gospels never intending their works to be accurate etc etc. Your point (1) assumes all the above to be equivalent.

I don't see the difference between, "the gospels lying," "the writers of the gospels lying," "the writers of the gospels never intending their works to be accurate," and, "the gospels being wrong." If the gospels lie, it holds that the gospels are also wrong, and that the authors of the gospels are liars; further, if the authors of the gospels are liars, it is also safe to assume that they never intended their works to be accurate.

I do see the difference between the gospels being a lie and the contention that the gospels have been misinterpreted by modern day Christians. The resurrection of Christ from the dead, for instance, some claim was originally meant to be interpreted figuratively. Gnostics believed this, but the earliest documents, including the four gospels and the writings of various believers in the early church, attest that the resurrection was considered a literal event from the start. There were many witnesses; at one time five hundred witnessed the resurrected Christ (1 Cor 15:6).

Consider:

"But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have"" (Luke 24:37-39).

"He, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses" (Acts 2:31-32).

"God has made the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead." ~ Clement of Rome (c. 96)

"For I know that after His resurrection also, He was still possessed of flesh. And I believe that He is so now." ~ Ignatius (c. 105)

"It was in the flesh that Christ was raised from the dead. For the very same body that fell in death, and which lay in the sepulcher, did rise again." ~ Tertullian (c. 197)

b. Martyrdom is often a selfish act especially amongst theists. Martyrdom is often very attractive to those who believe in a reward for the act. Most of the Christian martyrs in question were killed for maintaining their beliefs something they probably did for entirely selfish reasons (fear of hell).

Where is your proof for this view? The NT shows that those who died for their faith did so against their will and for love of the Truth (Jesus Christ). In the Christian faith martyrdom is not a requirement. These people died because they refused to deny their Lord, nothing more. It would be impossible for anyone who knows Christ as Lord to deny Him before men. Far from a selfish act, dying for Christ's sake is a triumph of faith over the self. I don't see any basis for your claim.

c. The writers of the gospels lying is not equivalent to them not believing in Christianity. It is quite clear to any reasonable person that the writers made up or modified parts of the gospels in order to put forward a theological point. For them to go on to martyrdom is expected.

Again, a baseless claim. What evidence do you have that proves the gospel authors made up or modified parts of gospels?

d. Claim (1) would logically lead to complete trust in every snippet of writing by every martyr past and present (Muslims included) an obviously stupid claim.

Claim (1) is not addressing whether the gospel is true or not, but whether the authors lied or not, therefore claim (1) is in fact not asserting that every martyr throughout history is trustworthy. Indeed it is possible to die for something mistakenly believed to be true. But claim (1) is only asserting that the apostles would not have died for something they knew wasn't true.

e. The Gospels were written by different people (and in some cases added to at a later date) and we actually do not know whether any of the writers were martyred. Even if we did know about one or two of the writers martyrdom it would be an error to extend any conclusions to all of them.
Also as they clearly coppied from each other it would be essential to know about the martyrdom of whoever put down the initial 'root lie'.

More baseless claims.

"Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity. For he had taught righteousness to the whole world, and he came to the extreme limit of the west. He finally suffered martyrdom under the prefects." ~ Clement of Rome (c. 96)

"Peter endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, he departed to the place of glory due to him." ~ Clement of Rome (c. 96)

f. None of the gospel writers were witness to the events in question and thus could easily be reporting on other peoples lies, people we know nothing whatsoever about.

You don't know that none of the gospel writers were witness to the events in question, therefore your assertion is pure speculation.

I have to admit that I'm not too blown away by the quality of the contradictions I'm finding. Unless, of course, you are so convinced of the Bible's perfection that you think there are no mistakes caused by human error and carelessness. Those are what I attribute most of the contradictions I'm finding, like "Were there angels or men at the tomb, and one or two"? Well, maybe one guy thought they were angels and the other did not, and one guy forgot to mention or left out the second guy...pfft.

Here's one. Did Mary Magdaline recognize Jesus? Did he even appear to her? Matthew 28:9, John 20:14 and Like 24:23 all say different things.

The gospels might simply be errors you know. They don't have to be lies.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's a reasonable challenge. OK. I don't exactly spend my time analyzing the Gospels for the "strongest" inconsistencies, but I'll offer something up.

First of all, though - I'm not going to copy-paste. I'll argue with my own brain and my own words, supported by others' ideas and research. Please show me the same respect, ok?

Point out to me where I have copied and pasted ?

This is a false charge which I don't appreciate.

I think many of us repeat things which we have studied or read from other sources. I do sometimes. But I rarely copy and paste paragraphs from other documents.

So, you will find it very difficult to find anything on this forum that I simply copied and pasted into the comment spot. And I have been using the forum for over a year, maybe more.