The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Minimalist]

I don't know that you are going to get much scientific credibility from that one.





When they can't grasp the basics I don't hold out much hope.

[JesusHChrist]

Was a Chihuahua's great granddad a wolf? We've never seen a wolf turn into a Chihuahua now have we?

There hasn't been enough time in all of the world for wolves to turn into Chihuahua!

[downbeatplumb]

---

No they are not.

How do you know this?

This was about the supernatural. The question was along the lines of is any supernatural thing possible.

Now my answer of no is down to the supernatural being things like miracles and ghosts etc or to put it another way "impossible things" so the question I hear is "is it possible for an impossible thing to happen" to which the answer is of course no.

Supernatural is a word used to explain why they believe in stupid shit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You didn't actually read the thread but just assumed nobody bothered to address the OP? What was that about juvenile comments again?

Tu quoque fallacy?

No, that would be if he were justifying the other juvenile comments by pointing out yours. He isn't doing that. He's pointing out your hypocrisy in criticizing the immaturity of the comments of others and even in the selfsame post making an immature comment.

From what I gather, the OP isn't looking to debate the trueness of the NT just the historical reliability of it.

What is the distinction between historical reliability and trueness of an event? If something happened and is reported accurately, the report is both true and historically reliable. If something happened but was reported inaccurately, the report is historically unreliable and untrue.

Is it possible for a report to be historically reliable but at the same time fictional? Is it possible for a report to be historically unreliable but still report something accurately?

[Esquilax]

1. How is my original post cowardly?

You made some big grandstanding claim about how you didn't think we could sufficiently rebut WLC's arguments, and then when someone took you up on that you immediately began making excuses for why you wouldn't. It's basically you antagonizing other people about how you could beat them up, and then making excuses for why you won't fight the moment anyone stands up to test that. It's cowardly; you're happy to make grand claims in the safety of an unfalsifiable bubble, but all that bravado dries up the second someone steps up to the plate.

2. I didn't claim that nobody could defeat WLC's arguments. I said:
a. You haven't

You haven't presented any, but you sure as hell did run away as fast as you could when I asked you to.

b. I don't think you can, but given the remote possibility that you might actually be some intellectual giant with lots of degrees and published, peer-reviewed papers (like WLC) who is simply slumming in this forum, it is still the case that you haven't bested him with anything you have posted thus far.

Yeah, WLC isn't exactly an intellectual giant: a bunch of degrees in theology and so on are about as mentally intensive as a bachelor in Hobbit studies, and philosophical journals don't exactly peer review anything either, or at least not to the degree that one would consider it as rigorous as a real peer reviewed paper. I know that hugely overstressing whatever case you happen to espouse is your favorite thing to do, but you've officially outdone yourself and entered some kind of hyperbole nirvana when you call William Lane Craig, a philosopher who begins his entire position by stating that nothing will ever change his mind, an "intellectual giant."

The fact that you consider a professional philosopher who begins by undercutting the basis of philosophy to be this towering avatar of perspicacity says a lot about you, though. The Dunning-Kruger effect by proxy.

3. I'm not "fleeing"; I'm simply not interested in defending WLC (who can defend himself) in a thread which has absolutely nothing to do with WLC.

Then maybe you shouldn't have indulged in that base self-aggrandizement, hmm? You're not interested in defending WLC, that much is clear and has been from the beginning, that's why I called what you're doing cowardly. You had no interest in defending what you said, just in stroking your own ego; the highly self serving nature of your claims is the thing that's objectionable, here.

Do you think that Hitchens, Dawkins, and Ehrman are any less prone to presuppositionalism? Can I dismiss their arguments on that basis?

Okay, now you're just being dishonest: none of the people you just listed are on record as stating that they'll ignore any evidence or argument that doesn't confirm what they already believe. WLC is. You do not get to pretend the two groups are remotely equivalent, and the fact that you tried to just shines a spotlight on the flailing desperation of your need to never admit when you're wrong.

[Cyberman]

Yeah, there's a reason Thunderf00t christened him "William 'Two Citations' Craig".

[Ravenshire]

Is it too much to hope that our Randy Catholic has given up?

[Pyrrho]

Is it too much to hope that our Randy Catholic has given up?

Yes.  It would be surprising if he gave up before being banned.

[Minimalist]

He's probably been summoned by the pope for consultations.  You know catholics are not allowed to think for themselves.

[Spooky]

Honestly guy I feel like you're trying too hard.