Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

Well you're an atheist so you assumed that I believe because Christianity because it fulfills a "need" that I have. Now it may fulfill a need but I became a Christian because I believe it is true.

Of course it fulfills a need, Seer. If it didn't, you wouldn't even be bothering yourself about it. All of our actions are chosen because they fulfill a need. And embracing a given religious belief happens because we have a need for something that religion offers. Finding it "true" is a necessary pre-requisite to that acceptance, but the need it fills seriously colors that acceptance.

So how does any of this remotely suggest that those beliefs originally were false or made up?

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that the texts accurately reflect the beliefs of the early community. The evidence does not support the claim, "these things actually happened." Since the claims are out of line with experience, science, and other historical narratives, they are most likely untrue. Made up? Well, a community whose beliefs evolve over time is not exactly "making things up" with an intent to deceive. I'm sure most of the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Rastafarians of the world are perfectly honest people holding to things they geninely believe to be true. That doesn't make it so.

How does that answer my point? Are you suggesting that science precludes the supernatural? I'm not sure what you are getting at?

Seer, you don't actually HAVE a point that I can detect, except the unsupportable claim that the NT proves that the events they describe are true.

It is a sideshow to you, but I see the providence of God...

As I said about a slightly different topic, Seer, this is part of the narrative of your religion - so your perspective is understandable. Stepping outside of that narrative, the argument you are making is simply devoid of content.

ETA: My wife and I are heading out to run some errands and see some rivers. BBL

[seer]

Of course it fulfills a need, Seer. If it didn't, you wouldn't even be bothering yourself about it. All of our actions are chosen because they fulfill a need. And embracing a given religious belief happens because we have a need for something that religion offers. Finding it "true" is a necessary pre-requisite to that acceptance, but the need it fills seriously colors that acceptance.

My point was about putting the cart before the horse. Believing it to be true was first. You did not say that I accepted Christianity because I believed it was true, you went directly to need. Thereby suggesting a merely emotional reason for conversion.

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that the texts accurately reflect the beliefs of the early community. The evidence does not support the claim, "these things actually happened." Since the claims are out of line with experience, science, and other historical narratives, they are most likely untrue. Made up? Well, a community whose beliefs evolve over time is not exactly "making things up" with an intent to deceive. I'm sure most of the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Rastafarians of the world are perfectly honest people holding to things they geninely believe to be true. That doesn't make it so.

Again nothing here undermines the idea that the writers put forth that these things actually did happen. And I'm still not sure what you mean by out of line with science. Can you expound.

Seer, you don't actually HAVE a point that I can detect, except the unsupportable claim that the NT proves that the events they describe are true.

Again Carp, you brought in the science thing. Please explain what you mean, what does science have to do with the question of whether the NT writers were honest and accurate concerning their claims.

As I said about a slightly different topic, Seer, this is part of the narrative of your religion - so your perspective is understandable. Stepping outside of that narrative, the argument you are making is simply devoid of content

.

We both have our bias Carp.

[carpedm9587]

My point was about putting the cart before the horse. Believing it to be true was first. You did not say that I accepted Christianity because I believed it was true, you went directly to need. Thereby suggesting a merely emotional reason for conversion.

You would have failed a basic psychology course, Seer. It is amazing what people will believe and find to be true when their need is great enough. If that were not true, the voice of the con artist would be useless. The Mormon Church probably wouldn't exist. Jim Jones would never have succeeded. Indeed, since I believe there is no god, that dynamic explains the existence of pretty much every religion based on a supreme being.

Again nothing here undermines the idea that the writers put forth that these things actually did happen. And I'm still not sure what you mean by out of line with science. Can you expound.

When someone puts forward a claim, like "this is true," one expects them to be able to provide evidence that this claim is actually true. The point, Seer, is that none of the evidence you offer supports that claim adequately. And a great deal of evidence suggests that the claims are NOT true and go beyond what the available information from all disciplines can support.

Again Carp, you brought in the science thing. Please explain what you mean, what does science have to do with the question of whether the NT writers were honest and accurate concerning their claims.

My statement was the you don't have a point that can be detected, Seer. You are making a claim you cannot provide adequate evidence to support. So there is no reason to accept the claim as true.

We both have our bias Carp.

Bias is a human condition. Fortunately, there are ways to mitigate bias by applying the principles of reason and limiting oneself to the conclusions that can be reasonably arrived at from the available evidence. Tass is correct - there is no adequate evidence to come to the conclusions you are putting forward. Ergo - I do not accept your conclusions.

[Tassman]

Tass it is not hearsay when you have books written by eye witnesses: the Gospel of John, John 1,2,3, Peter 1,2. Or based on eye witness accounts like Luke and Acts.

There are NO eyewitness accounts of the Jesus story. Bart Ehrman in "Jesus Before the Gospels" argues that the stories about Jesus changed and evolved before they were written down decades after the death of Jesus. And the vaunted Richard Bauckham, author of "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", can say no more than the Gospels were written by those with access to eyewitness testimony of Jesus' first followers i.e. second or third-hand testimony.

And there are no original documents for Caesar's Gallic wars either, yet you would not throw that out.

See previous response re the Gallic Wars.

in the teeth of a worldwide pandemic you still reject the Gospel of hope and embrace the cult of death.

Acknowledging that all living creatures die is hardly whereas believing in life beyond death is clearly delusional.

I'm afraid there is little optimism for such a man.

Indeed, if by "optimism" you mean escapism.

[Tassman]

There are historical persons, places and things in the New Testament that are shown to be accurate.

Well the New Testament was accurate when it said that the temple and Jerusalem and Galilee etc. existed. But there is no evidence that the alleged stupendous events of the Jesus story documented in the NT ever occurred.

Why would there be?

Why?

Tacitus Pliny and Josephus mention Jesus or early Christians.

But 99% of all peoples in those days left no archaeological records.

[seer]

There are NO eyewitness accounts of the Jesus story. Bart Ehrman in "Jesus Before the Gospels" argues that the stories about Jesus changed and evolved before they were written down decades after the death of Jesus. And the vaunted Richard Bauckham, author of "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", can say no more than the Gospels were written by those with access to eyewitness testimony of Jesus' first followers i.e. second or third-hand testimony.

Nonsense Tass, the Gospel of John was an eyewitness, that is what the text says. The letters (not Gospels) 1,2,3 John and 1,2 Peter are eyewitnesses.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the FatherThis is the disciple who is bearing witness about these thingshttps://theologyinmotion.com/2018/04...tness-account/

And how does Ehrman know what was written before the Gospels? What is he referencing? What texts? And by the way Tass Bauckham believes the Gospels were ACCURATE:

[seer]

You would have failed a basic psychology course, Seer. It is amazing what people will believe and find to be true when their need is great enough. If that were not true, the voice of the con artist would be useless. The Mormon Church probably wouldn't exist. Jim Jones would never have succeeded. Indeed, since I believe there is no god, that dynamic explains the existence of pretty much every religion based on a supreme being.

So you are telling me why and how I came to believe? Talk about arrogance!

When someone puts forward a claim, like "this is true," one expects them to be able to provide evidence that this claim is actually true. The point, Seer, is that none of the evidence you offer supports that claim adequately. And a great deal of evidence suggests that the claims are NOT true and go beyond what the available information from all disciplines can support.

Again Carp, what evidence EXACTLY undermines the claims in the New Testament?

My statement was the you don't have a point that can be detected, Seer. You are making a claim you cannot provide adequate evidence to support. So there is no reason to accept the claim as true.

Again, what does science have to do with this - you brought the science thing up. Stop dishonestly trying to shift the argument.

Bias is a human condition. Fortunately, there are ways to mitigate bias by applying the principles of reason and limiting oneself to the conclusions that can be reasonably arrived at from the available evidence. Tass is correct - there is no adequate evidence to come to the conclusions you are putting forward. Ergo - I do not accept your conclusions.

And your conclusion is valid why? Because you hold it?

[carpedm9587]

So you are telling me why and how I came to believe? Talk about arrogance!

Yeah, basically. You are human and subject to human psychological norms. I realize you like to think of yourself as somehow exempt from all that, and in touch with the divine - but you're just another lowly human like the rest of us.

Again Carp, what evidence EXACTLY undermines the claims in the New Testament?

This has been responded to: you are imbuing the claims in the NT with a level of certainty not warranted by the facts before us, claiming they prove what they do not actually prove. You have not shown how they achieve that status, and you are giving them "special treatment" as compared to other historical claims. Ergo, I don't accept your claims.

Again, what does science have to do with this - you brought the science thing up. Stop dishonestly trying to shift the argument.

I did bring up science - as an example of the array of disciplines you are confronting that you have to overcome with your "evidence." And your evidence consists of a small collection of closely-related books for which we have no primary sources, no external corroboration for the events they relate, the events run counter to experience and a wide range of modern disciplines (of which science is only one), we do not have reasonable knowledge of the authors, no additional works by those authors to reference, and none of the authors are known to be witnesses to the events they describe (related to the life of Jesus). What they ARE witnesses to is the life and beliefs of the early church. So if we stay within normal historical analysis, the best we can arrive at is "these were the beliefs about Jesus held by the church that his ministry led to about 3-8 decades after his death."

And your conclusion is valid why? Because you hold it?

I guess that depends on your definition/use of "valid." I come to this conclusion because it fits with the facts I know. When someone provides new facts or shows any of the facts I know to be wrong, my conclusion will probably shift. So far, that has not happened, so my conclusion remains as it is.

[seer]

Yeah, basically. You are human and subject to human psychological norms. I realize you like to think of yourself as somehow exempt from all that, and in touch with the divine - but you're just another lowly human like the rest of us.

What did you just say to rogue: You guys certainly like to insert thoughts and motivations where they do not exist... So it is OK to assume the reason for my conversion, but we don't get to question your motivations? Carp, you really have no shame or consistency.

This has been responded to: you are imbuing the claims in the NT with a level of certainty not warranted by the facts before us, claiming they prove what they do not actually prove. You have not shown how they achieve that status, and you are giving them "special treatment" as compared to other historical claims. Ergo, I don't accept your claims.

No I don't give them special treatment, I treat them no different than let's say Caesar's Gallic Wars. That they are generally honest and generally reliable - until I have good reasons to think otherwise. You on the other hand are giving them special treatment - discounting them without just cause, i.e. a bias against the concept of God or the supernatural.

I did bring up science - as an example of the array of disciplines you are confronting that you have to overcome with your "evidence." And your evidence consists of a small collection of closely-related books for which we have no primary sources, no external corroboration for the events they relate, the events run counter to experience and a wide range of modern disciplines (of which science is only one), we do not have reasonable knowledge of the authors, no additional works by those authors to reference, and none of the authors are known to be witnesses to the events they describe (related to the life of Jesus). What they ARE witnesses to is the life and beliefs of the early church. So if we stay within normal historical analysis, the best we can arrive at is "these were the beliefs about Jesus held by the church that his ministry led to about 3-8 decades after his death."

Nonsense Carp, this early community was populated by the Apostles and disciples of Christ (as Paul said 500 were still alive in his day), and Luke and Acts were based on eyewitness testimony. And a number of the books (as I related to Tass) were penned by eyewitnesses (The Gospel of John, the letters of Peter and John). But none of this has to do with SCIENCE. So again where exactly does the New Testament run afoul of SCIENCE?

I guess that depends on your definition/use of "valid." I come to this conclusion because it fits with the facts I know. When someone provides new facts or shows any of the facts I know to be wrong, my conclusion will probably shift. So far, that has not happened, so my conclusion remains as it is.

Well you have not presented any FACTS as to why the NT is not generally reliable besides your personal biases.

[carpedm9587]

What did you just say to rogue: You guys certainly like to insert thoughts and motivations where they do not exist... So it is OK to assume the reason for my conversion, but we don't get to question your motivations? Carp, you really have no shame or consistency.

Different discussion altogether. We are talking here about psychological forces at work - largely subconscious. That discussion is about conscious choices. You're comparing apples to oranges (again).

No I don't give them special treatment, I treat them no different than let's say Caesar's Gallic Wars. That they are generally honest and generally reliable - until I have good reasons to think otherwise. You on the other hand are giving them special treatment - discounting them without just cause, i.e. a bias against the concept of God or the supernatural.

I said nothing about god or the supernatural. I noted that the presence of historical elements in a document does not establish that all contents of that document are historically accurate. I have noted the simple problem that you are granting these documents a historical treatment that is not granted to any other historical claims. Tass has outlined why rather effectively. Denying what is right in front of you doesn't make it go away, but it does make discussion somewhat pointless.

Nonsense Carp, this early community was populated by the Apostles and disciples of Christ (as Paul said 500 were still alive in his day), and Luke and Acts were based on eyewitness testimony. And a number of the books (as I related to Tass) were penned by eyewitnesses (The Gospel of John, the letters of Peter and John). But none of this has to do with SCIENCE. So again where exactly does the New Testament run afoul of SCIENCE?

Again, what we have are second-hand testaments - not testaments from eye witnesses. It is second-hand knowledge and most of the claims within the documents are not supported by any external evidence whatsoever. That undermines your claims "they are true." The best you can achieve is "the people in the mid-late 1st century believed they were true." That is what the documents tell us. Nothing more. For the Gallic wars, we have a host of resources from a variety of sources to give us knowledge of their occurrence. But you again comparing apples to oranges. Our knowledge about the Gaellic wars is about the fact of their occurrence and some of the basic information about what battles were fought and where. You are claiming detailed knowledge of the day-to-day activities of one person, right down to the words they uttered - entire speeches. Your resources simply do not support your claims adequately.

Well you have not presented any FACTS as to why the NT is not generally reliable besides your personal biases.

Actually I have - you just continually ignore them. I'll leave you to go back and re-read my posts. Repeating them is just a waste of my typing time, because you'll most likely ignore them next time too - like you're ignoring the obvious conundrum you're in with regard to Trump where you can:

a) Hold Trump to the same standard you hold Obama and finally have to denounce your beloved leader for playing golf int he midst of a pandemic, or.
b) Exonerate Trump for playing golf in the midst of a pandemic and reveal your double standard.
c) Admit that Obama playing golf was a nonissue you have been holding to for years now to support your political bias.

Let's see - betray Trump - clear Obama - or confess to a double standard. Rock...meet hard place...

No wonder you're ignoring the problem!

[seer]

Different discussion altogether. We are talking here about psychological forces at work - largely subconscious. That discussion is about conscious choices. You're comparing apples to oranges (again).

So there are not subconscious psychological forces at work behind your thoughts and motivations? I officially crown you king of the double standard!

I said nothing about god or the supernatural. I noted that the presence of historical elements in a document does not establish that all contents of that document are historically accurate. I have noted the simple problem that you are granting these documents a historical treatment that is not granted to any other historical claims. Tass has outlined why rather effectively. Denying what is right in front of you doesn't make it go away, but it does make discussion somewhat pointless.

Tass said squat! Even his own reference; Richard Bauckham, disagrees with him on the reliability of the New Testament. As I linked - you can watch it yourself.

Again, what we have are second-hand testaments - not testaments from eye witnesses. It is second-hand knowledge and most of the claims within the documents are not supported by any external evidence whatsoever. That undermines your claims "they are true." The best you can achieve is "the people in the mid-late 1st century believed they were true." That is what the documents tell us. Nothing more. For the Gallic wars, we have a host of resources from a variety of sources to give us knowledge of their occurrence. But you again comparing apples to oranges. Our knowledge about the Gaellic wars is about the fact of their occurrence and some of the basic information about what battles were fought and where. You are claiming detailed knowledge of the day-to-day activities of one person, right down to the words they uttered - entire speeches. Your resources simply do not support your claims adequately.

First that is false: The Gospel of John, the letters of Peter and John were written by eyewitnesses. Luke and Acts were testimonies from eyewitnesses. And logically how much external evidence would there be for a obscure carpenter with a small following in that time and place? Second, you already agree that this was what the early Christian community believed. On what basis do you say that they were wrong? Besides personal bias? And again; none of this has to do with SCIENCE. So again where exactly does the New Testament run afoul of SCIENCE? Why do you keep avoiding this?

Actually I have - you just continually ignore them. I'll leave you to go back and re-read my posts. Repeating them is just a waste of my typing time, because you'll most likely ignore them next time too - like you're ignoring the obvious conundrum you're in with regard to Trump where you can:

No you haven't, you have not given one good reason to assume that what the early Christian believed was wrong.

[carpedm9587]

So there are not subconscious psychological forces at work behind your thoughts and motivations? I officially crown you king of the double standard!

Kindly show me exactly where I made this claim? If you cannot, I officially crown you "king of lying about your debate opponent!

Tass said squat! Even his own reference; Richard Bauckham, disagrees with him on the reliability of the New Testament. As I linked - you can watch it yourself.

Seen it. I never said the NT was unreliable. I said you are claiming it shows more than it actually shows. It is an very reliable source for documenting the beliefs of the early church, 3-7 decades after the death of the person on which the church is based. Using it to claim that it accurately documents the details of Jesus' life is not supportable.

First that is false: The Gospel of John, the letters of Peter and John were written by eyewitnesses.

This cannot be proven, and is highly doubtful. The Gospel of John dates to the end of that century. The most that can safely be said is that it appears to arise from the community/discipline that John the apostle was instrumental in. The same is true of the letters - and they also suffer from the absence of any of the actual letters. All we have are copies of copies of copies...

Luke and Acts were testimonies from eyewitnesses.

Again - this cannot be shown to be true. They draw from previous sources (e.g., the Q source) and it may well be that some of the sources on which they draw were written by eyewitnesses, but all we have is the variant strains present in the synoptics - not the sources themselves. So what you have is "best guess."

And logically how much external evidence would there be for a obscure carpenter with a small following in that time and place?

That is not my problem. It is absolutely the case that there may not be much evidence for such an obscure person at the start of their life. That's the problem with history - sometimes the information is simply lost. Historians know this and speak in terms of probabilities and levels of confidence, always ready for the next piece of information to fall that will add detail or even reverse previous beliefs. It is your level of certainty in the events based on these texts that is the problem. You go way beyond what the sources make possible to conclude with reasonable certainty.

Second, you already agree that this was what the early Christian community believed.

That is a safe conclusion from the available evidence.

On what basis do you say that they were wrong? Besides personal bias?

I didn't say they were wrong. Seer - you really need to pay attention. The phrase "your conclusions are not adequately substantiated" is not the same as "you are wrong." They are not equivalent statements. If you want to discuss/debate, you need to respond to what I actually said - and not what you have turned it into. And hopefully bias is not a factor here. My personal test for it is "am I applying the same standard across the board for what I do and do not accept as true?"

And again; none of this has to do with SCIENCE. So again where exactly does the New Testament run afoul of SCIENCE? Why do you keep avoiding this?

Because you are trying to haul the discussion in a direction that is tangential to the point - picking out one discipline from all of the disciplines at play so you can pound on the usual science vs. faith, natural vs. supernatural drum. My comments were about the broad range of disciplines that suggest you are asserting a degree of certainty about your biblical texts that are not justified. Your attempt to divert the discussion is noted - but I'm not going to let you spin off on a tangent because the discussion at hand is not one you can respond to.

No you haven't, you have no given one good reason to assume that what the early Christian believed was wrong.

I never said they were "wrong." I never made any claim except "you have not adequately defended your position that the NT is an accurate historical record of the events it describes." I have explained why I hold this position. If you want to address the issue at hand, address what I am actually saying - not what you are trying to turn it into.

[seer]

Kindly show me exactly where I made this claim? If you cannot, I officially crown you "king of lying about your debate opponent!

Carp you claimed to know my motivation for my conversion - "need." I said that was not the case, you doubled down and said you basically understood my motivation better than me, understood my psychology better than me. Then you get your back up when rogue does the same to you. No, that is a clear double standard no matter how you couch it. Just admit it and move on.

Seen it. I never said the NT was unreliable. I said you are claiming it shows more than it actually shows. It is an very reliable source for documenting the beliefs of the early church, 3-7 decades after the death of the person on which the church is based. Using it to claim that it accurately documents the details of Jesus' life is not supportable.

OK, so you know of nothing to say that their understanding was actually WRONG.

This cannot be proven, and is highly doubtful. The Gospel of John dates to the end of that century. The most that can safely be said is that it appears to arise from the community/discipline that John the apostle was instrumental in. The same is true of the letters - and they also suffer from the absence of any of the actual letters. All we have are copies of copies of copies...

Yes and we have copies of copies for most ancient documents, no originals, so.

That is a safe conclusion from the available evidence.

And we have no evidence that they were wrong in their beliefs.

I didn't say they were wrong. Seer - you really need to pay attention. The phrase "your conclusions are not adequately substantiated" is not the same as "you are wrong." They are not equivalent statements. If you want to discuss/debate, you need to respond to what I actually said - and not what you have turned it into. And hopefully bias is not a factor here. My personal test for it is "am I applying the same standard across the board for what I do and do not accept as true?"

Again, you agree that was what the early Christians believed (a community populated by the actual Apostle and disciples of Christ BTW). So what is your evidence that they were wrong in their understanding?

Because you are trying to haul the discussion in a direction that is tangential to the point - picking out one discipline from all of the disciplines at play so you can pound on the usual science vs. faith, natural vs. supernatural drum. My comments were about the broad range of disciplines that suggest you are asserting a degree of certainty about your biblical texts that are not justified. Your attempt to divert the discussion is noted - but I'm not going to let you spin off on a tangent because the discussion at hand is not one you can respond to.

Hey Carp, I did not bring in the science thing YOU DID. Why are you avoiding the question?

I never said they were "wrong." I never made any claim except "you have not adequately defended your position that the NT is an accurate historical record of the events it describes." I have explained why I hold this position. If you want to address the issue at hand, address what I am actually saying - not what you are trying to turn it into.

OK, so again you have no evidence that they were wrong. Good.

[carpedm9587]

Carp you claimed to know my motivation for my conversion - "need." I said that was not the case, you doubled down and said you basically understood my motivation better than me, understood my psychology better than me. Then you get your back up when rogue does the same to you. No, that is a clear double standard no matter how you couch it. Just admit it and move on.

So you avoided the question. Where did I claim that there were no subsconcious forces acting on me? If you cannot provide the reference, and continue to put forward the claim, I have to conclude you are intentionally lying about my statements.

OK, so you know of nothing to say that their understanding was actually WRONG.

I have said nothing about them being wrong or right - that was your addition to the discussion. I said your assertions about their claims being correct cannot be supported with the available evidence.

Yes and we have copies of copies for most ancient documents, no originals, so.

Not true of all ancient documents, but true of many. So historians refer to their level of confidence about the accuracy of reconstructed originals when all they have are copies. They always acknowledge room for error in the reconstruction. The same is true of the NT reconstructions.

And we have no evidence that they were wrong in their beliefs.

Oh I find a great deal of evidence that they were wrong, Seer, but it is not evidence you will find compelling because of your worldview. But that is irrelevant - the point being made is that your claim that they were right is not adequately supported.

Again, you agree that was what the early Christians believed (a community populated by the actual Apostle and disciples of Christ BTW). So what is your evidence that they were wrong in their understanding?

I did not make that claim, so I am not going to defend it.

Hey Carp, I did not bring in the science thing YOU DID. Why are you avoiding the question?

For the reasons I have already explained. I am defending the position "you do not have adequate evidence to justify your claim that the 'NT accurately relates the events of the life of Jesus.' " Any other claim, whether or not I actually believe it, is irrelevant and a tangent. I won't let you sidetrack the discussion.

OK, so again you have no evidence that they were wrong. Good.

I did not say that either. I have substantial evidence they were wrong - but I am not arguing that point. I have no interest in arguing that point because it will go in the same circles it always has with you. I am arguing ONLY the claim, "you do not have adequate evidence to justify your claim that the 'NT accurately relates the events of the life of Jesus.' " I'll respond to arguments concerning that claim and only that claim.

If you're interested in discussing that claim, I'll respond. But I won;t be responding further to attempted sidetracks.

[seer]

So you avoided the question. Where did I claim that there were no subsconcious forces acting on me? If you cannot provide the reference, and continue to put forward the claim, I have to conclude you are intentionally lying about my statements.

I never said you said there were no subconscious forces acting on you. I asked the question. Remember, again, you brought this whole subconscious thing in to question my claim about my motivation for conversion. So do I get to use the subconscious thing to question your motives? Yes or no?

I have said nothing about them being wrong or right - that was your addition to the discussion. I said your assertions about their claims being correct cannot be supported with the available evidence.

Not true of all ancient documents, but true of many. So historians refer to their level of confidence about the accuracy of reconstructed originals when all they have are copies. They always acknowledge room for error in the reconstruction. The same is true of the NT reconstructions.

Oh I find a great deal of evidence that they were wrong, Seer, but it is not evidence you will find compelling because of your worldview. But that is irrelevant - the point being made is that your claim that they were right is not adequately supported.

Good, so we agree that these things were what the early Christians believed. It is also a fact that this early community was populated by Apostles and Disciples (followers of Christ while he was on earth). So why shouldn't I take these at face value? Perhaps you would like to preset your evidence that they were wrong. Since you are claiming that now.

For the reasons I have already explained. I am defending the position "you do not have adequate evidence to justify your claim that the 'NT accurately relates the events of the life of Jesus.' " Any other claim, whether or not I actually believe it, is irrelevant and a tangent. I won't let you sidetrack the discussion.

Then why did you bring the science thing up in the first place. And now you will not defend it? That seems like a dishonest debating tactic to me.

I did not say that either. I have substantial evidence they were wrong - but I am not arguing that point. I have no interest in arguing that point because it will go in the same circles it always has with you. I am arguing ONLY the claim, "you do not have adequate evidence to justify your claim that the 'NT accurately relates the events of the life of Jesus.' " I'll respond to arguments concerning that claim and only that claim.

If you're interested in discussing that claim, I'll respond. But I won;t be responding further to attempted sidetracks.

And I'm defending the position that there is no good reason not to take the New Testament as generally reliable.