RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 17, 2015 at 2:22 pm
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2015 at 2:26 pm by Randy Carson.)
(May 17, 2015 at 2:17 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(May 17, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Seriously, is there a Christian scholar whom I could have trotted out that would have maintained my credibility? Be honest.
Blomberg? Hahn? Evans? Licona? Ratziinger? Von Balthasar?
You tell me which Christians you read and respect, and I'll try to include some of their thoughts in my posts, okay?
Look, WLC is a particular problem because he's outed himself as a presuppositionalist multiple times; he's literally said that he will continue to believe in the historical accuracy of the christian bible even if he were to be taken back in time to be an eyewitness to it all not happening. He's said he will continue to believe in spite of all evidence, and has in fact also stated that reason itself should be disregarded where it conflicts with the gospel.
It should be pretty clear why anything that man says, just by dint of these adopted positions, is inherently untrustworthy, and frankly, you shouldn't want those kinds of sentiments to be representative of your argument here either.
You have a link for this, I presume? Or should I just take your word for it? Hey, I'm the first to drop a bad source if it brings my argument into question.
But you didn't suggest any acceptable Christian scholars...
(May 17, 2015 at 2:21 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'll accept that they "believed" it. So what. People believe lots of stupid shit. Belief means nothing.
Great!
That closes off another atheist argument: that the apostles were lying intentionally. Thus, the collusion objection can be marked off the list of legitimate reasons to reject Christianity.
That list is getting shorter and shorter.
What's left, Min?
[/quote]
