(May 25, 2016 at 10:31 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote:(May 25, 2016 at 10:23 am)SteveII Wrote: 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 really can't understand the difference between examining if a series of events happened and the 27 sources that describe these events? Answer the question I asked: then by that standard we could never believe anything that happened in the past on any subject?