Robert K. Stock:
Looks like you would reject the historical existence of Jesus altogether, at least as a single individual who went around teaching among the Jews about the way to God. That is an extreme position, because most critics of the NT, even rabbis, would accept that a mortal man called Jesus did live in Israel about that time. This brings up the question of what is considered reliable historical documentation. Can we believe that Alexander the Great was a real person? Or Socretes? Or the Pharoahs or ancient Chinese rulers?
Midget-Sasquatch:
The lime graves theory is new to me. I'll have to check further into Roman burial customs. Still, it presumes that nobody would have taken possession of the body immediately after the crucifixion. Are you saying that maybe later, when someone went to take possession of the body, it couldn't be found because it had decayed beyond recognition, and so the disciples claimed, "He must have raised from the dead?"
Narkissos:
I've read most of the reference by Mr. Price, including the part where he discusses Paul's reference to the 500 witnesses. It looks to me that he is saying that part was added later, after the Gospels were written because surely, it would have been mentioned. OK, on the surface, I can see the sense in that. But, actually, to me, more than anything, this argues FOR single authorship of each of the Gospel accounts (i.e., four different authors, who may have used outside sources or scribes to write it down) and AGAINST editing and modification later in the church. Otherwise, wouldn't someone have altered the Gospel accounts to include Paul's account? It's entirely possible to me that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John simply did not know of this appearance to the 500 others when they (or the "real" authors) wrote down their accounts. Paul could have found out about this from someone else, or it could have been revealed to him directly by the glorified Jesus or an angel.
This is a bit off-topic now, but I'd like to give my observation of higher criticism. Since there are differences in the accounts, critics say, "These can't be true or inspired because there are contradictions." But if all the accounts matched, people would say, "These aren't reliable; they must have been altered to make them the same." It reminds me of what Jesus said about those who rejected both John the Baptist and him. There's just no pleasing some people.
What kind of documentary evidence would be acceptable?
