- 31 Mar 2018 19:43
#14901524
1. The authors themselves were not eyewitnesses to the things they wrote about
2. They were written over 4 decades after the events they purportedly described
3. They were based upon oral traditions and hence subject to the unreliability of human memory
4. They each had a clear theological bias and apologetic agenda
5. They each contained many identifiably fictitious literary forms
6. They were inconsistent with each other, except where one gospel plagiarizes the other
7. They were at odds with known historical facts
8. They had virtually no support from independent sources
9. They testified to events which in ordinary circumstances we would regard as unlikely in the extreme
2. They were written over 4 decades after the events they purportedly described
3. They were based upon oral traditions and hence subject to the unreliability of human memory
4. They each had a clear theological bias and apologetic agenda
5. They each contained many identifiably fictitious literary forms
6. They were inconsistent with each other, except where one gospel plagiarizes the other
7. They were at odds with known historical facts
8. They had virtually no support from independent sources
9. They testified to events which in ordinary circumstances we would regard as unlikely in the extreme