Jac,Jac3510 wrote:Of course not. I am telling you that no reputable scholar in the field of New Testament studies will claim that the New Testament is unreliable. There are plenty of people who find it reliable who don't, in the end, accept it's theological claims. But no one who has looked at the evidence says that it is unreliable. It is, plainly, a stupid claim. If you make it, then I know that you have either never looked at the evidence and so are just speaking out of your bias or I know that you have not looked at it honestly and you are on par with Holocaust deniers. If you're in the former camp, then what you need is an education, and we can talk. If you're in the latter camp, I feel absolutely no need to try to justify my beliefs to such an obviously irrational person. Forget trying to convince you. I wouldn't bother wasting my time with you in that case. Pearls before swine and answering a fool according to his folly and such things.
I wanted run this by you. Just because at first blush someone might take this as a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I ran into this issue on another forum, and the other side was essentially stating that no reputable scholar in this field would state that the bible was historically reliable,and that Jesus was not a true historical figure. In this case, it was a NTS fallacy. When I challenged him on supportive documents, he actually had the audacity to mention Bart Erhman. BE, of course, rejects the theological claims in the Bible, but certainly views the Bible as a reliable, historical document and of course sees Jesus a 100% legit historical figure. I just want to clarify to our skeptic that what you are saying is that there is no reputable scholar in this field of study who rejects the reliability of the Bible as a historical document.
First of all you are again blending your arguments. There is no question that the Bible records Jesus as having performed miracles. Whehter you believe this or not is your choice. Whether or not the Bible is a reliable record of actual figures, times and places in history is not debatable. I wasn't alive during the holocaust and we are less than one generation from losing every eye witness to this event. Let me ask you, will the holocaust become any less real of a historical event?GenericAtheist wrote:The solution you suggest is that I just need to study more and accept that the arguments against God and Jesus have been sufficiently debunked. I see this as akin to asking me to repeat something enough until I believe it. Should God and Jesus not be more obvious? The holocaust is real because you can visit the concentration camps, you can see pictures of the event happening, and there exist people who were there to confirm it. Those who deny the holocaust go to great lengths to try and prove a point that is very poorly supported. Your position is that Jesus had supernatural powers and walked the earth 2,000 years ago. The only writings about those powers are contained within a book where the the contents were essentially voted in by the church. The arguments and evidence for a supernatural Jesus are very similar to the arguments for Mohammad, but those for Mohammad are somehow not convincing. I cannot visit the supernatural Jesus. I cannot find arguments for Jesus that aren't also used for false prophets. The effects of Jesus and a trinitarian God are not testable. Whose position more closely resembles that of a denier?
Comparing the arguments for Jesus and Mohammad are..., well...., not comparable. And as you said, repeating things over and over doesn't make them so.
Your opinion about the church voting in the contents is a terrible distortion. Period. Again, perpetuating that lie over and over doesn't make it suddenly true.