(May 20, 2015 at 1:23 am)nicanica123 Wrote:(May 19, 2015 at 4:31 pm)Stimbo Wrote: You didn't actually read the thread but just assumed nobody bothered to address the OP? What was that about juvenile comments again?
Tu quoque fallacy?
No, that would be if he were justifying the other juvenile comments by pointing out yours. He isn't doing that. He's pointing out your hypocrisy in criticizing the immaturity of the comments of others and even in the selfsame post making an immature comment.
(May 20, 2015 at 1:23 am)nicanica123 Wrote: From what I gather, the OP isn't looking to debate the trueness of the NT just the historical reliability of it.
What is the distinction between historical reliability and trueness of an event? If something happened and is reported accurately, the report is both true and historically reliable. If something happened but was reported inaccurately, the report is historically unreliable and untrue.
Is it possible for a report to be historically reliable but at the same time fictional? Is it possible for a report to be historically unreliable but still report something accurately?
