Record few Americans believe in Biblical inerrancy.

[John V]

It isn't Wikipedia; rather, it's the authoritative sources that the Wiki article cites and references.

Which you haven't read.

[Jehanne]

Not true:

Census of Quirinius

The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.[1] The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-5),[2] but Luke places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE.[3] No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge,[4] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.[5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

[Neo-Scholastic]

"In the name of" or "according to" are both way of ascribing authority to a text, not necessarily its authorship. It's like when a low feudalistic official says, "You are hereby summoned in the name of His Majesty, the King." The low official is claiming the King's authority for whatever he is about to say.

The Gospel of Peter claims, explicitly, to have been written by the Apostle Peter; do you accept that as being authentic?

I was thinking of Mathew, Mark, and John, not those that directly indicate authorship. Peter is a case in which the authority and the authorship are the same. The same for Luke and Acts. John could have been written by committee, for all I know, but is traditionally taken as containing John's account of events.

[Jehanne]

So, you accept the non-canonical Gospel of Peter?

[GrandizerII]

Not true:

Census of Quirinius

The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.[1] The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-5),[2] but Luke places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE.[3] No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge,[4] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.[5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

It is clear the author of Matthew and the author of Luke had to build their respective nativity stories almost from scratch (through unverified reports) as prior written materials on the birth and childhood of Jesus seemed to have been lacking and/or nonexistent. It seems also they were not aware of each others works, hence the outright contradictory nativity stories.

[vulcanlogician]

Logic fails in other instances. I could logically conclude that disabled people are a drain on society and should be eliminated. In that case I defer to emotion and faith, which tells me otherwise.

Logic and reason can lead you to conclude otherwise as well. Remember our first debate? It was all about how I thought that you could arrive at moral conclusions through logic. Besides, there are two non sequiturs in your statement:

1. It does not follow that just because people are disabled that they are a drain on society.

2. It does not follow that people who are a drain on society should be eliminated.

Some kind of emotion or prejudice (or logic which you didn't include) is required to get to the conclusion that X should be eliminated.

Regarding the physical, we tend to rely on observation and science rather than logic.

Logic is what prompts us to value science and observation in the first place. (I can elaborate this point if need be.) There is no instinctive mechanism of the brain which makes us respect the findings of science, we do so because it is logical to do so-- ie. there are good reasons to.

A rabbit's foot isn't analogous to conscious lifestyle choices aimed at producing a desired effect.

Neither is religion. Compare:

"There is an invisible man in the sky, and I'm going to quit heroin."

with

"There is no invisible man in the sky, and I'm going to quit heroin."

1. We don't know the percentages of Biblical scholars' positions on any issue. People pretending we do are, well, pretending. 

They are citing credible sources, and you kind of being dickish by refuting them out of hand. It's a bit too much to ask them to research all of it themselves when it takes hours and hours, not to mention a wealth of resources to do so with significant findings.

So, to publish articles and books, they need to invent new ways of looking at it. A book or article concluding that the conventional wisdom of the past 2,000 years is correct is less likely to be published than one challenging the conventional wisdom.

This is called "publication bias" and it is the direct result of the way academic journals work. There is a movement in philosophy to put a stop to this mode of research, and I support it. Flash in the pan scholarship is being hoisted above genuine boring-as-shit academics, and it's wrong. That being said, it rarely leads to false information. But it does emphasize the wrong things.

[Angrboda]

Speaking of the question of when Christ was born, our very own Deist Paladin has created a series of videos on how the various gospels contradict each other with respect to the timeline of Jesus' life.  In an earlier incarnation of the series, he also explored supposed solutions to the discrepancies.  Probably good source material if you're going to argue with an inerrantist.

---

---

Original video series (shorter): [amoff]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBufxLab5ns[/amoff]

[vorlon13]

And they can do it while carrying and simultaneously not carrying someone else's burdens !!!

After your copout on Thu/Fri and the other bits of your copypasta that we've refuted and you've been silent on, do you really think you're being taken seriously at this point?

You're up against holy Scripture and Bart Ehrman there.

Go exalt in the Word or something. Passover was a big hairy deal then as now, that the four Gospels narrow down the crucifixion(s) to just Ash Wednesday, and/or Maundy Thursday, and/or Good Friday (depending on how the Holy Spirit wants to permutate you and possibilities)(and in the same year, Praise Jesus!) is something you should be damn grateful for, not whining that Bart Ehrman pulled the veil from your little Salvation scheme fro the rest of the Word to see.

Shit, the fucking Mormons believe FAR wackier stuff than Jesus getting crucified 2 or 3 times . . .

Be fun if you could pretend to be a Scientologist for a day or two and give us your best shot on Xenu and the atomic soul eating volcanoes.

[Fireball]

After your copout on Thu/Fri and the other bits of your copypasta that we've refuted and you've been silent on, do you really think you're being taken seriously at this point?

You're up against holy Scripture and Bart Ehrman there.

Go exalt in the Word or something.  Passover was a big hairy deal then as now, that the four Gospels narrow down the crucifixion(s) to just Ash Wednesday, and/or Maundy Thursday, and/or Good Friday (depending on how the Holy Spirit wants to permutate you and possibilities)(and in the same year, Praise Jesus!) is something you should be damn grateful for, not whining that Bart Ehrman pulled the veil from your little Salvation scheme fro the rest of the Word to see.

Shit, the fucking Mormons believe FAR wackier stuff than Jesus getting crucified 2 or 3 times . . .

Be fun if you could pretend to be a Scientologist for a day or two and give us your best shot on Xenu and the atomic soul eating volcanoes.

Um...crucifiction. None of the christ punchers here will agree with this, though.

[vorlon13]

Tough to really crucify a fictional personage, I 'spose . . .