Hi Gareth, wow an actual conversation, a rare treat! Thanks for your response too.

" It's not a trivial point to argue that the "eyewitnesses" that I previously quoted endured imprisonment and death for the faith that they were advocating."

From Buddist monks burning themselves to death in protest at the supression of their faith to Islamic terrorist blowing themselves up with 'Allah Akbar' on their lips human beings seem predisposed to die for contridictory faith in alarming numbers, when the final Cathar stronghold was taken by Catholic Crusaders in the Albigensian Crusade history reports that not one of those captures took up the offer of 'Convert or Burn' and all chose a horrific death. That fact that martyrdom became an increasing problem in the early centuries of the church long after any possible eyewitness could have still been alive tends to support the point of view that the majority weren't basing their decisions on first hand witnessing of the proported events. We're a pretty strange species when all's said and done.

" For those atheists who occasionally argue that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", surely this is exactly the sort of evidence that they seek."

I'm afraid not, you still can't use the bible to prove the bible. It's often quoted that 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', and this is true but does come with caveats. Firstly, absence of evidence certainly is not evidence for presence. Secondly, we have to assess (and it is admittedly not a perfect process) how likely it is that the events claimed would have left other evidence and the simple fact is that many of the events of the bible are highly public and dramatic and should have gotten a mention elsewhere, both the Romans and Jews maintained very good histories.

We have a pretty clear picture of how the four gospels developed from an earlier lost 'Q' manuscript and we can see developement of the story, so even if we assume that they are based on a single testimony it is still a single uncorroberated story teller not four individuals. Many of the 'unique' events also appear in other, previous, myths. The virgin birth, death, three days in the tomb and resurection appear in other stories of greek and Roman gods and demigods. Mithras is said to have turned water into wine iirc. One can only assume that the laws of physics and nature were suspended on a fairly regular basis until this time, or that it is more likely that we're dealing with another ernestly recorded myth.

Even the physically possible elements of the story pose problems, the method of the census is unlike any other before or since, doesn't match any recorded method and is totally impractical. Quirinius did indeed hold a census, but after Herod's death (Herod is succeeded by his son also Herod, but the younger H is specifically identified as a different individual in the bible). The slaughter of the innocents is not mentioned contemporously anywhere outside the bible despite wiping out a generation and the passover festival in which Barabas is freed so Christ can die in his place is manufactured out of whole cloth, presumably to cast blame on the Jews. Other historical and geographical errors also abound but I think I've more than laboured the point!

I'm off now, but I'll try and log on again at some point. Have a good evening/weekend!

OK, Derek - "Why?" Why would your god, having a perfectly good spiritual world to dance around in, need to create a separate, physical, temporal world in the first place - was he/she/it/they bored? Why, having done that, did "he" tell us a load of codswallop about how "he" had done it, and let us think that was the absolute truth until, 2500 years later, we began to find out stuff that completely contradicted the story. Why did "he" need to "send his only begotten son" to die horribly to save us from "sin" - was that the only way "he" could think of to save us from something he'd made up in the first place. And why, having presumably (if "he" created us) did he give us questioning, rational minds, which serve us very well in all other areas of our lives, and then tell us that when it came to "him" we mustn't use them.

oops, I see Roh has already pointed that out.
It is the massive "god-shaped hole" in all religious assertions.

As an aside, while it doesn't invalidate the article in and of itself I think it is indicative of the sloppy thinking involvedin it's writing that after explicitly saying that religion asks 'Why' questions Mr Burke illustrates it with a question formulated to begin 'What...'.

This entire article is very nicely demolished by Carolyn Porco's much better submission to this same series.