RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 23, 2015 at 8:15 pm
(This post was last modified: May 23, 2015 at 8:27 pm by Randy Carson.)
(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.
We shall see, becca. We shall see.
(May 23, 2015 at 8:08 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: You calling it evidence doesn't make it so.
And vice versa.
Quote:(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."
Gee, if I had appealed to the 2 billion + Christians, the 1.2 billion Muslims, and the 1+ billion Hindus who do believe in a god, you would have accused me of a logical fallacy.
Quote: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?!?
Sounds like you want a thread on the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Quote:Sufficient to a presupposed belief perhaps...
Which doesn't exactly account for the conversions of Jews, Muslims and Atheists who are converted BY reading the Bible, but whatever.
