I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

JP as I suspected all those authors and so called historians and scholars just happen to be Christian.I took the time to google them and honestly I would not waste a moment reading any of those books since they are biased by their preconceived ideas based on their faiths. Blomberg received his MA at Trinity Evangelical in my opinion Christian universities are not even appropriate places to study the scriptures. James Charlesworth is also a Christian and Paul Barnett is a bishop from Australia and Gerd Theissen is a German ordained minister. All of their studies and books combined are just as useless as the N.T. gospels for studying the historicity of Jesus or the historical reliability of the gospels.

Since your reply was a pathetic list of Christian biased authors I will give you a list of Authors as well that can equally refute all of the trash these so called scholars put out.
1.Gospel Fictions by: Randel Helms
2.Jesus in history and myth by: R. Joseph Hoffmann and Gerald A Larue
3.The Orthodox corruption of scripture by: Bart Erhman
4.Jesus interrupted by: Bart Erhman

hell I could do this all day.And don't forget you are the one proposing that your religious founder and beliefs are true and stating them as facts just like any good Christian would do.But the onus to prove these assertions is not on the atheists but on you the believer.

The two first I mentioned may be biased (though that doesn't refute their argument or analysis). The last two are certainly not. In either case, you again failed to address my actual analysis and argument of the late dating, and, if anything, only proven that you are willing to assent to non-mainstream views (mythical Jesus) just to satisfy your own bias. Again, not that it should be a surprise.

Incorrect, sorry. The TAG does not argue for the likelihood or probability of the Christian worldview. The TAG argues that the presuppositions of the Christian worldview and what can be inferred from them is the ONLY source of the preconditions necessary for the intelligibility, or making sense, of human experience. Any other worldview, when internally examined under its own terms, falls apart at some point, by being inconsistent (intrinsically or extrinsically), incoherent, inadequate, etc. The suggestion that the TAG argues for the "more likely" truth of Christianity confuses it with evidentialist apologetics.

True. Thanks for clarifying.

---

You say God isn't made of many parts and therefore is not complex. But to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, etc, etc, etc - you can't just say he's made up of one part...how do you know he's made up of one part?

Because his attributes are separate only in description, not in essence. Whereas my attribute as a human being, of having both a food and a finger, are not only separate in description, but also in essence.

He's complex because he is unlikely to arise from chance alone...

You repeat the fallacy of assigning temporality to a non-temporal being.

or 'just be there' from the beginning or before the beginning without explanation.

Again, not a matter of chance, since chance is the likelihood of a potentiality to become actual, and implies temporality. Also, not addressing actual theistic claims, since God does have an "explanation", in his subsistence as pure actuality, just not an extrinsic cause, since he is not dependent on any extrinsic sufficient set of conditions or causes, since there are none without him, and there can be nothing extrinsic to him except that which relies on him, like impure actuality.