Except that you know quite well that there are sources that have been provided numerous times in the past.  It is equally bothersome to have to repeat information simply to avoid red herring arguments from the critic who is quite aware of the evidence.

The reality is that early scripture manuscripts (100-200 AD) are supported by a degree of contemporaneous historical writing that validate the writer and authenticates it.  Meanwhile critics have no evidence to support their view so they rely on form critical analysis.  they comb through the writing to tease out anything that might support their prejudice.  Such things as variations in writing style or changes in emphasis from one letter to the next.  Then they proclaim victory when their conclusions match the presuppositions driving them. 

I didn't know how I would announce this, but noted Biblical Scholar and Christian Bart Erhman has become an agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

This guy has one of the most impressive resume's for Biblical scholarship I've seen.


Now I see why Xians are so opposed to scholarship. This guy went as deep as anyone into real Xianity and came out an agnostic.

BTW, its because of typical atheist reasons: problem of evil, etc.

He also points out that the best eyewitness that Jesus existed was Paul. Paul met Jesus' brother... or so he says.
That's it. That's all the contemporary evidence of Jesus' existence.

Ehrman is coming out with a book on the problem of Evil and the Bible early next year.  I am sure RF and Co. are already gearing up for the personal attacks and apologetics.

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Problem-Answer-Important-Question-Why/dp/0061173975/ref=sr_1_12/103-7440983-8763054?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193845959&sr=1-12

Everyone is agnostic (Don't know if a god or gods exist).  The fact that a prominent Theist is no longer a Theist is of more than passing interest for people who follow this topic.  I'm sorry this simple fact puts your panties in a twist.

Yes, one has a God belief, one lacks it. We all don't know.




edit: btw, I notice that you accept that one of the Premiere Biblical Scholars of our time has 'converted' to agnosticism. I applaud you on observing fact.  A rare treat for us "Baldar Watchers".

And yet they can't offer anything that would resemble the most liberal notion of evidence.

i know people BELIEVE things. Some people believe they are Napoleon or Cleopatra incarnate.  People believe all sorts of things.

It's not "knowing", in any sense of the word that is knowable.

If you accept that it is, Andrea Yates, a Suicide bomber or hindu mystic is telling the truth, too.

I don't reject that Andrea Yates' life had changed... quite dramatically. As did Moses' when he ordered the killing of helpless women and children.

No. Not if you can't make clear to me the difference. 

No. They must demostrate that it is 1)Knowable 2)Authentic 3) Verifiable  (btw, I thought we agreed that a person would be known by their works.  What difference does it make if Hitler believed Jews to be the salt of the Earth and wonderful folk?)

Especially if they are going to kill my child in front of me.

Would you ask for anything different? I dare say you do - or do you accept that Andrea Yates or the 9-11 maniacs were telling the truth.... or don't you distinguish?

  the god of Abraham commanded the killing of women and children. No, not with bombs, they didn't have them then.  He commanded it in a much more brutal manner - by sword and by tearing the temple down above their heads.

I'm sure if your child was in the building you would simply pass it off as God's Will and move on.

Such Faith you have!

 

A good example is barney's previous post.  Where I said that ordering Andrea or Islamic militants to kill [in today's situations] is not consistant with biblical doctrine, somehow barney took that to mean that God would never exercise his providence over life and death in other very different circumstances.  Of course his understanding is flawed. 

He acknowledges that he isn't in a position to be able to tell what someone else knows or believes but in the next breath goes on to say he is sure about what belief I would offer for particular events.

Can we draw any valid conclusions from barney's explanations other than the ones Baldar suggests?  I think perhaps not.

Barney I want to thank you for once again supporting Reasoned Faiths post just prior to yours.  You constantly prove our points without even realizing it.

While all RF has is the Bible and of course his own innate sense of goodness, what does Barney have other than his own innate sense of illogic and his constant abuse of historical facts (which he always gets wrong), his constant abuse of scripture (which he always gets wrong), his constant abuse of google (using words he doesn't know the definition of).  Wow, its amazing the boy doesn't go to bed shamed by his intellect every night.

Consider how barney makes constant errors.  He calls himself an "independent" observer when referring the flood.  One asks, how is barney independent of his bigotry?  Well he isn't.  How is it he claims to observe the flood?  Well he didn't.  And yet here he is the "independent observer".  A legend in his own mind.  Of course he cannot reconcile his "independent observation".  He lives in constant error, there can be no reconciliation when one seems to be wrong every step of the way.