Lord, Lunatic, or Liar - False Dichotomy?

[Outis]

Even if it is weak, it is there and we have no good reason to reject it

Actually, we have considerable reason to reject that the Gospel testimony is testimony of an eyewitness, much less an apostle.

Dude WTH do you mean by unauthored?

That should probably be "unattributed" or "anonymous."

[Quantum Weirdness]

Actually, we have considerable reason to reject that the Gospel testimony is testimony of an eyewitness, much less an apostle..

Uhhuh. What is it exactly?

That should probably be "unattributed" or "anonymous."

Fair enough.

[Outis]

Uhhuh. What is it exactly?

I've discussed some of this with you already. Robrecht (spelling?) has touched on the topic. From what I've seen, you ... don't seem to be nearly so interested in the evidence as in throwing up counter-arguments, even though the counter-arguments don't support your position. So far, all evidence I've presented has been responded to with stuff like "Yeah, but what about THIS counter-argument," while seemingly (based on the fact that you've had to repeatedly ask about things I've posted) never reading my posts.

I'll discuss anything with anybody, and no, I'm not perfect when it comes to replying to counter-arguments. But before I go through a whole bunch of stuff, I'd like to at least have some vague hope that if I bring up some evidence, the person I speak to is at least willing to consider it.

[Quantum Weirdness]

I've discussed some of this with you already. Robrecht (spelling?) has touched on the topic. From what I've seen, you ... don't seem to be nearly so interested in the evidence as in throwing up counter-arguments, even though the counter-arguments don't support your position. So far, all evidence I've presented has been responded to with stuff like "Yeah, but what about THIS counter-argument," while seemingly (based on the fact that you've had to repeatedly ask about things I've posted) never reading my posts.

I'll discuss anything with anybody, and no, I'm not perfect when it comes to replying to counter-arguments. But before I go through a whole bunch of stuff, I'd like to at least have some vague hope that if I bring up some evidence, the person I speak to is at least willing to consider it.

Wait, I throw up counter arguments to counter your points. (and how don't they support me?)
Ok and for the sake of this discussion, I will assume Markan priority.

[Outis]

Wait, I throw up counter arguments to counter your points. (and how don't they support me?)
Ok and for the sake of this discussion, I will assume Markan priority.

I'll start a new thread--but I'm not asking you to assume anything. Just examine the evidence for its own sake.

[Paprika]

The trilemma does ignore the Gospel writers. Brandon's suggestion also ignores an important possibility to consider.

What if the Gospel writers told the truth to the best of their ability or knowledge, but were simply _wrong_?

Do see this post.

[Geraldo]

Do see this post.

Why ?

[Outis]

Do see this post.

I am aware of Lewis's intent. I'm also aware that many apologists who use the trilemma do not work within those same constraints. "What the parents allow in moderation, the children indulge to excess."

[Doug Shaver]

we have no good reason to reject it

Is such a reason even possible, in your judgment? Can you give an example of some fact that, if it were discovered, would be a good reason to doubt that the gospels contain eyewitness testimony by the apostles?

[Quantum Weirdness]

Is such a reason even possible, in your judgment? Can you give an example of some fact that, if it were discovered, would be a good reason to doubt that the gospels contain eyewitness testimony by the apostles?

-Different people attested to have written the Gospels (the tradition should be fairly strong)
-Facts inconsistent with the Gospels being authored by their traditional authors (e.g. do we have data supposing that the author of Matt was not a Jew?). These should outweigh the facts in favor of traditional authorship.
-

[Quantum Weirdness]

I'll start a new thread--but I'm not asking you to assume anything. Just examine the evidence for its own sake.

Alrite I won't assume anything. And this should be nice.

[Doug Shaver]

Can you give an example of some fact that, if it were discovered, would be a good reason to doubt that the gospels contain eyewitness testimony by the apostles?

-Different people attested to have written the Gospels (the tradition should be fairly strong)

Interesting. So, if we have one source saying that an eyewitness wrote it, we should believe that an eyewitness wrote it, but if we have two sources, and one says somebody else wrote it, we should not believe that an eyewitness wrote it?

[Quantum Weirdness]

Interesting. So, if we have one source saying that an eyewitness wrote it, we should believe that an eyewitness wrote it, but if we have two sources, and one says somebody else wrote it, we should not believe that an eyewitness wrote it?

No we should check the strength of the tradition. This not only includes numbers of testimonies in support of a view but also where they likely got their information from and how close they are to the original date of being penned.

[Doug Shaver]

Can you give an example of some fact that, if it were discovered, would be a good reason to doubt that the gospels contain eyewitness testimony by the apostles?

-Different people attested to have written the Gospels (the tradition should be fairly strong)

Interesting. So, if we have one source saying that an eyewitness wrote it, we should believe that an eyewitness wrote it, but if we have two sources, and one says somebody else wrote it, we should not believe that an eyewitness wrote it?

No we should check the strength of the tradition.

Well, then, you didn't really answer my question. Let's try it again: What fact, if it were discovered, would be a good reason to doubt that the gospels contain eyewitness testimony by the apostles?