RE: Can't prove the supernatural God
May 25, 2016 at 10:31 am
(This post was last modified: May 25, 2016 at 10:32 am by SofaKingHigh.)
(May 25, 2016 at 10:23 am)SteveII Wrote:(May 25, 2016 at 9:50 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: No, it really doesn't. Whether you call them Paul's letters, the Gospels or group them and call it the bible, it's irrelevant.
The claim is not evidence for the claim. It's the claim.
You seem to think I am arguing that the NT is true because the NT says so. I am not. I am arguing the events the Gospels describe actually happened because I believe the different components of the NT (which are not all Gospels) and other historical context are reliable.
If you still think you are right, then by that standard we could never believe anything that happened in the past on any subject.
So........let me break that down:
You don't believe the NT because the NT says so, you believe what it says was true because of various parts of the NT?
You're not helping yourself here Stevie.
I should just stop this now, because this is more circular than my wife's rather lovely arse.....however, would you care to share the "other historical context (that*) are reliable?" please?
You may refer to me as "Oh High One."
