The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

Derail your thread..you offered it up?  I just wanted to make sure that the text was, in fact, the bible.  So....

The Bible is truth because it is inspired, and we can know that it is inspired because and infallible Catholic Church says so, and we know that the Catholic Church is infallible NOT because an inspired text so but because 

....wait for it, wait for it....the bible says so.


What was different about that?

because we're not approaching the Bible  as an inspired text at that point but merely as an historically accurate book.

It's called a spiral argument. 

[Ravenshire]

Derail your thread..you offered it up?  I just wanted to make sure that the text was, in fact, the bible.  So....


....wait for it, wait for it....the bible says so.


What was different about that?

because we're not approaching the Bible  as an inspired text at that point but merely as an historically accurate book.

It's called a spiral argument. 

You've yet to demonstrate that the buy-bull is historically accurate and in fact, your argument has been that the buy-bulls of today are faithful reproductions of the originals (and you haven't even managed to make a good argument for that), not that the originals were anything more than the "Harry Potter" books of the era. You'll have an incredibly tough time selling that collection of faery stories as anything remotely approaching an accurate historical text.

[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.

[Minimalist]

You've yet to demonstrate that the buy-bull is historically accurate

For that matter he is yet to even cite a piece of historical information in the buy-bull which could be evaluated for historicity.  

[Pyrrho]

You've yet to demonstrate that the buy-bull is historically accurate

For that matter he is yet to even cite a piece of historical information in the buy-bull which could be evaluated for historicity.  

You must have seen this type of argument before.  The argument from excessive verbiage, leading to numbness of the mind.  Look at how many posts there have been, and the lack of progress.

[The Grand Nudger]

Derail your thread..you offered it up?  I just wanted to make sure that the text was, in fact, the bible.  So....


....wait for it, wait for it....the bible says so.


What was different about that?

because we're not approaching the Bible  as an inspired text at that point but merely as an historically accurate book.

It's called a spiral argument. 

I don't know, I think that you probably could have stated it better, because that was pretty rough, amigo.  Now, it just seems as though you're deflecting...?  So, let me get this straight, the reason that you know the bible is true..then, is not the reason that you gave before?  When you said:

The Bible is truth because it is inspired

?

Is there, now, a different reason that you accept that "the bible is truth"? Care to share? -and, if you please..this time...start with your actual reasons..so we can avoid all of this in the future?

[Cyberman]

He's just going round in his spiral one more time, that's all.

Before he starts his descent.

[robvalue]

The bible is inerrant huh? Quite clearly, it is not. It is flat out wrong about lots of things. It's self contradictory. It contains obviously ripped-off stories from previous mythologies. It's full of magical claims that no Christian would take seriously is it didn't happen to be their special book. Also, even Christian scholars admit the bible has forgeries in it.

I was hoping you had really paused for thought when I challenged you before. My challenge was simple: give an objective reason why I should just believe what someone else believes about supernatural events, considering I wouldn't believe my own wife backed up by hundreds of other people. I would believe they believed what they were saying, but as you have said yourself, belief is not fact. When it comes to supernatural claims regarding things that no one has ever demonstrated to even be possible, let alone exist, just taking someone at their word is to abandon all critical thinking. I'm not claiming they are wrong, I'm claiming there is not adequate reason to believe they are right. This is the gap you have to bridge, no matter how much you try and big up the people saying it. You tried a false equivocation, I called you on it. But if you do want to have another attempt, by all means be my guest.

Like I said, everything else is irrelevant, I'm willing to concede all your other arguments about how reliable the witnesses are to make it easier for you. Do you have another argument? Why should I believe them? I fully accept you are convinced, that's not the issue. And I'm not saying they are lying. I will concede that they think they are telling the truth, for the sake of argument. What is more likely: that they are mistaken, which people are every day even when they are convinced they are right; or that unprecedented supernatural events occurred? I'm not saying they didn't experience anything, I'm saying their interpretation and memory of the events cannot just be accepted as true because they think it is.

I ask you this: if ten of your most trusted friends in the whole world came to you and told you they had all been together and were visited by God, and God said Christianity is wrong and you need to become Muslims, would you believe them? Assume they are totally convincing and answer any questions you may have about the experience to your satisfaction. Would you convert to Islam based solely on that?

[DeistPaladin]

Heh...Pliny's letter and the Emperor's replies suggest that news of the Christians had come to the attention of highest levels of the Roman government.

So much for the Legend theory.

Um, no. Pliny's letter to the Emperor suggests that Christian sects existed in the second century. It also suggests that Pliny was trying to figure out who these Christians were. It doesn't support the Christian story that just 50 years earlier, these Christians were blamed for burning down the capital and persecuted by the then emperor Nero. 

As for the Swoon Theory being a Christian argument...yeah, we've been trying to explain away that whole resurrection thing for 2,000 years. It makes it so hard to win converts with THAT hanging over our heads. 

You really need to distinguish between actual skeptics vs. faux skeptics. It isn't skeptics who come up with "liar" or "lunatic" as an alternative to "Lord". This is what Christians come up with as supposedly the only alternatives to the desired conclusion. 

Here's how it works:

1. Start with the desired conclusion.
2. Create a false dilemma as "the only alternative" or, if you must, more than one.
3. Use logical fallacies to rule out "the only alternative" or "only alternatives".
4. Use the argument from incredulity to say that since you've dismissed "the only alternatives", then the desired conclusion must be true.

It can be useful when making step 2 to utilize unfounded assumptions. For example, when coming up with alternatives to the resurrection of Jesus, you can simply assume that Jesus existed, that he was crucified per the story, that he seemed to die on the cross and was buried and that he was seen among his followers in the days that followed. At this point, Christian apologists pretending to be skeptics (ala Lee Strobel) will start asking nerf ball questions like "Well, maybe Jesus survived the cross and was only thought to be dead?"

Real skeptics don't do this, as you might have been able to learn from your experiences here.

It is not the job of the skeptic to come up with alternatives to the story of the resurrection. It is the job of the believer to prove the resurrection to be true. 

Hope this helps.

[Silver]

It's called a spiral argument. 

There's no such thing.