The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Esquilax]

In post #131, I simply mentioned that Craig had written an extensive article in response to Hume in the event that robvalue wanted to hear an alternative perspective on the supernatural and on Hume specifically.

I have not used Craig to establish the reliability of the NT.

Therefore, what you think of WLC is irrelevant to this thread.

'Nuff said.

So essentially you just wanted to do some cowardly grandstanding, claiming that nobody could defeat WLC's intellectually dishonest presuppositionalist buffoonery, and then flee the moment anybody actually took you up on that challenge. Out of interest, is every overreaching fiat claim you make solely to massage your ego?

I think that it might be, considering you just busted out the utterly insane "the catholic church is infallible, so there, I win, ha ha" argument. Would you mind explaining to us how an infallible organization can change its mind on certain issues, then?

Or, hell, how about you just answer the point you've been hoping we'd all forget about since I made early on in your thread, about how every other historically reliable text has their supernatural claims dismissed as untrue by the same historians making those determinations? Asserting that the bible is historically accurate- and asserting is really all you've done- does not go any way to establishing the truth of the miracle claims within, and if you're just trying to ignore that and special plead for the bible, which is probably the basis of your argument anyway, then you've simply lost.