It is well-known that Christianity has more holes than Swiss cheese. This is why Christians can end up contradicting themselves and inadvertently disproving their own religion while attempting to defend it. Case in point: Ken Temple, while attempting to show that the gospels are reliable “eyewitness” accounts of Jesus’ life, ended up contradicting himself and disproving the gospels:
Notice how Temple tried to get out of the conundrum he was in by simply arguing that since the gospels DO report that the High Priest had “torn his clothes” and accused Jesus of “blasphemy”, despite the fact that he had no reason to, then the gospels MUST be right. In other words, he offers a circular argument for the gospels’ historical reliability.
Let’s use an analogy to show how absurd Temple’s argument is. Recently, the world celebrated the 75th anniversary (May 8) of “VE” day (“Victory in Europe”, marking the surrender of the Nazis to the Allies, including Communist Russia). Now, suppose we found a book purportedly written in the 1940s by an “eyewitness” which claimed that Russia rejected Communism and converted to fascism at the end of World War II. Shortly thereafter, another book written by a different individual is also found and corroborates to some extent the first book, but both are anonymous. Supporters of the books zealously defend their authenticity, despite the overwhelming evidence that Communist Russia not only hated fascism but remained a Communist nation for almost 50 years more. It is well-known that “Communism” and “fascism” were two competing ideologies which sought the destruction of the other, just as it is well-known that saying someone was the “son of God” or the “Messiah” was not regarded as “blasphemy” by 1st-century CE Jews. Yet, believers in the anonymous gospels and the anonymous post-WWII books maintain that the Jews MUST have accused Jesus of blasphemy and that Russia MUST have converted to fascism, respectively, because the books say so. But history says otherwise. Who would you believe?