The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Cyberman]

You didn't actually read the thread but just assumed nobody bothered to address the OP? What was that about juvenile comments again?

[Minimalist]

I have had similar issues that the OP has had on this site. Can people simply address his claim in the original post? The difference between me and the OP is that I am exploring what I believe but he is arguing for what he believes. But either way, there are a lot of juvenile comments and logical fallacies used by the atheists here. Also I didn't take the time to go through all the comments, I am sure that some did address the original post but these threads turn into mad max in no time

It was answered in Post #2.

This is a moron who believes a dead jew came back to life and flew up to heaven because he read it in an old book.

He talks about Homer but Homer speaks of Apollo coming down from Mt Olympus shooting arrows at the Greeks.  Does our catholick pal think that happened, too?  If not, why not?  It's written in an old book.

[abaris]

Also I didn't take the time to go through all the comments, I am sure that some did address the original post but these threads turn into mad max in no time

And therein lies your problem, since the only point when the Randy was adressing history was when writing it into the thread title. Otherwise it's just bible proves bible.

[Randy Carson]

Can you please cite the post # in which I made the claim which you assert that I made?

Here you go:

I probably will. Primarily because while you do not like his presuppositions, you have not formally defeated his arguments. And if I asked to be "honest", I don't think that you can.

Post number 178, in regards to whether or not you'll drop WLC as a reference now that he's been shown to be presupposing his conclusions as a matter of course. You say you'll continue to use him as a source because we haven't proved him wrong, and you don't think we can. It's a little bit of grandstanding that, when I later told you to present those claims so as to put your petty chest beating to the test, you waved it off as irrelevant and refused to do so.

You wrote:

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?

1. How is my original post cowardly?
2. I didn't claim that nobody could defeat WLC's arguments. I said:
a. You haven't
b. I don't think you can, but given the remote possibility that you might actually be some intellectual giant with lots of degrees and published, peer-reviewed papers (like WLC) who is simply slumming in this forum, it is still the case that you haven't bested him with anything you have posted thus far.
3. I'm not "fleeing"; I'm simply not interested in defending WLC (who can defend himself) in a thread which has absolutely nothing to do with WLC.

If robvalue wants to hear an alternative to David Hume, then I provided one. And that's all.

So it was all well and good when you got to massage your ego, but the moment falsifiability was brought into the mix you cut and run; evidently the ego thing was more important than the veracity of the claims... really good look, with regard to the sources you chose.

Do you think that Hitchens, Dawkins, and Ehrman are any less prone to presuppositionalism? Can I dismiss their arguments on that basis?

[Pyrrho]

I have had similar issues that the OP has had on this site. Can people simply address his claim in the original post? The difference between me and the OP is that I am exploring what I believe but he is arguing for what he believes. But either way, there are a lot of juvenile comments and logical fallacies used by the atheists here. Also I didn't take the time to go through all the comments, I am sure that some did address the original post but these threads turn into mad max in no time

It was answered in Post #2.

This is a moron who believes a dead jew came back to life and flew up to heaven because he read it in an old book.

He talks about Homer but Homer speaks of Apollo coming down from Mt Olympus shooting arrows at the Greeks.  Does our catholick pal think that happened, too?  If not, why not?  It's written in an old book.

I think it is more likely that Apollo shot some arrows at the Greeks than that the superstitious nonsense about Jesus is true.  The Greeks were much more civilized than the Jews of the relevant period, and so they are less likely to be suckered by nonsense.  He really should be trying to convince us of the divine inspiration of Homer, and how we should all worship Zeus and Dionysus and Apollo and the rest.  Hell, I am halfway there in the worship of Dionysus, as I am ready to open a bottle of wine for a pious cause.  Or almost any cause.

[Jenny A]

Sorry, but you did no such thing, because you've skirted the essence of the argument, which is that the Bible has been translated into several different languages serially, and then (again, mostly serially) transcribed by hand. Ehrman maps some of the changes in Misquoting Jesus. You'd do well to read it.

The only thing you did to the "Telephone Game" analogy is skirt its point.

Not so, PT.

The gospels and the epistles were written in Greek.

My English translation was made from the Greek and not from some intermediary language(s).

Yes Dear, but Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, not Greek. So that's one translation right there. And there were many retellings of the story before it was ever written down. How far off our version is from the original Greek text ignores the question of how reliable the Greek original was.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Even the Bible says not to pay any attention to Jewish fairy tales. We know that the New Testament is not historically accurate because it contains a lot of scenes in which there were no independent witnesses. Therefore the writers could not have known about those incidents and what was said during those times.

[rexbeccarox]

LOL @ WLC being peer-reviewed

[Minimalist]

Who are his "peers?"  Ken Ham?  Ray Comfort?

[Cyberman]

Peer review in his case means people just stare at him in shock.