responding to common objections to bible part 6 final.

[total relism]

#17 is about Jesus.

I asked you to prove the existence of a "god", and if you could prove the existence of said "god", prove that this "god" is the "god" you happen to believe in..

What part of that was hard to understand?

See, nothing else you writes is worth anything unless you can prove these two thingys...

Wrapping tinfoil around our helmets much, are we?

Oooooh, mustn't forget to go tribesman on you!!

I think we both know your running from your original bold claim you made on this thread that you could not back up. I will do a thread as i have said many times on evidence for god, it will not convince you as you will ignore or interpret different. Could you make a comment regarding my op?.


Red Herring Fallacy
A#red herring fallacy#is where someone tries to divert your attention away from the subject or argument by introducing a new topic. This is a defense technique often employed when the person realizes you have a logical and sound argument forming. This can even develop as an unconscious technique employed by one who wishes to protect their beliefs from any scrutiny, truly a strong self delusion

True, so far as it goes, but it is not the flow that is the issue...



Bolded are the immediately problematic sections. I am sure you can see why: for Josephus to have written the bolded phrases would be like you writing a history of Christianity and including a passage on Muhammad with the words: 'There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet'. Now, as you point out, and I agree, this does not necessarily render the rest of the testimonium immediately invalid. But it does have an effect on the overall trustworthiness of the section. In my own research, for example, I must deal with scholars who reject the validity of Livy's First Decade as a historical source at all, on the basis that there are some obvious errors. I do not completely agree with this position either, but it is defensible.



I cannot give specifics re: Lincoln. He was your example, not mine, and I know very little about the American Civil War period. Regarding Caesar, a rough list would amount to: Caesar's Gallic War and Civil War; Cicero's Letters to Atticus, his friends, his Brother Quintus and Brutus; numerous speeches of Cicero (all contemporary); Nicolaus of Damascus' Life of Augustus; Velleius Paterculus' Roman History; Plutarch's Life of Caesar; Suetonius' Life of Caesar; Appian's Civil Wars; Dio's Roman History, and many later/briefer accounts. These are all independent records, they do not result from the same broad textual movement, and a large number of texts are actually originate within his lifetime (ie: his own works).

Again, I am not saying that the NT is not a valid source for Jesus' life, but it does represent a single hagiographical tradition, begun after his death. If you are seeking to independently verify its suggestions, you rely on an external source supporting it. For example, Josephus, Suetonius or Tacitus, but each of these has its problems, raised by Sigurd. Once more, the weight of evidence supports the existence of Jesus, but the comparisons which you are making are overstated.




True, but without resorting to tu quoque, but possible motives are worth considering. Since your original point involved numerous citations of 1960s scholars claiming 'non-Christians' found what they expected, I merely wished to point out that such a point works both ways. Even without ascribing intent, one must consider confirmation bias...



What? It was an anecdote...



But both had a Christian upbringing and were/are devout. Without the context of each quotation you cannot demonstrate their support for your position.



But once again had a strongly Christian upbringing and would not criticise the fundamental existence of Jesus, despite the controversy...



Liberal politics does not make one a non-traditional Christian.

I dont disagree with you on first two sections. If this was sig position i would not object, i told him i am ok with what you have said many times. But he than goes to claim josphus as a whole [at times he did others not] is unreliable, than claims only evangelicals accept the unfolded part,to witch i disagree as being false. I would assume [dont know] that mostly or even maybe all that accept it in whole with bolded,may very well be evangelicals only,but not making it false,though i would not agree. Still i would rather defend that passage in full,compared to the view josphus as a whole is fraud.




Lincoln was bart ehrmans, i just went with it. I did not know that about Caesar if true,how many documents total would you say that is?. How many from his timeperiod or within a few hundred years of his life?.


when the nt was written,it was not a single collection, that happened hundreds of years later. The nt comes from multiple people and "traditions", peter,paul,mark,john,james,judas,luke,matt etc. So the nt is really a collection of multiple people/transitions that all are within short time period of jesus, that are confirmed by outside documents,such as Josephus with john the baptist,pilot,james the brother of Jesus,archaeology etc.

ok i can maybe agree with you, show me the multiple lines of documents about Caesar from roman and non roman sources within his time period and well compare.




and a great point it was. I just want to say tho, that craig was atheist,until he and a group of scholars looked into the evidence for the resurrection of jesus. So even if one is conservative christian,that does not mean he was born that way [none are] he was forced by the evidence to do so. Just like ehrman rejects bible lost faith because of translation of bible, so i take him seriously.




provide for this was all
"Needless to say I advised them to use extreme caution with such material and suggested that more recent scholarship might be more accurate."

i guess i take that back,giving a warning is a good idea on this,my bad.



that is why i references the debates with him on my other thread, were his views he can make clear in context for all to see. There really good debates if your interested in biblical translation.



good point



nothing to do with politics,but worldview. Though liberal is used in politics as well.