RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 23, 2015 at 8:08 pm
(This post was last modified: May 23, 2015 at 8:09 pm by Ravenshire.)
(May 23, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:You calling it evidence doesn't make it so.(May 23, 2015 at 5:33 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: What you call evidence obviously isn't since it isn't evident to all. Are you really this thick or are you just so lost to reason because you've taken such an unreasonable position?!?
Sure there is. Lots of it.
(May 23, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: It's indirect or circumstantial, but it's sufficient. See my post above regarding Timothy McVeigh.(emphasis is mine)
Clearly. That's why there are billions who fail to believe in your particular brand of fairy tales despite all your "evidence."
You've been going on about the faithfulness of the NT to the originals and completely ignoring the meat of the argument. Is the new testament factually accurate. How 'bout you move on to that?!?
(May 23, 2015 at 7:59 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:(May 23, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Sure there is. Lots of it.
It's indirect or circumstantial, but it's sufficient. See my post above regarding Timothy McVeigh.
Sufficient for what? For convincing you, maybe, but I would venture a guess that you haven't converted anyone here, so, sufficient? Not really.
Sufficient to a presupposed belief perhaps...
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
