Post: #13

The Gospel accounts make the claim they are eyewitness documentation of what happened during the 3 years of Jesus's ministry.

You or no one else have provided any evidence why those eyewitness claims are unreliable and not to be trusted.

Unless, George you can bring forth evidence why those accounts can not be relied on, your claim is nothing but noise.

Bring forth your evidence, or there is no need for me to continue...

Post: #14

Your gospel accounts don't really hold water. Here is a good overview of the current thought on the Gospels:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Gospels

The gospels may make the claim that they are eyewitness accounts, but if the validity of the gospels can not be validate, why should we believe this as fact? You can't use the holy text to validate the holy text... lol.

"G"

Post: #15

lmao! Are you saying that the "claim" that the bible has never been proven has never been proven? G says there is no evidence that the bible is a valid historical document, and you believe that there is no proof that there is no proof that the bible is not a valid historical document. lol

Post: #16

ALl you did was provide more claims that the Bible can't be relied on...where's the proof?

"The gospels may make the claim that they are eyewitness accounts, but if the validity of the gospels can not be validate, why should we believe this as fact? You can't use the holy text to validate the holy text... lol."

I'll respond to this George then I'm done, you're LOL is mocking.

If we had four people that were eyewitness to a murder. They all testified the same story of what they saw with their own eyes, we'd have no reason not to beleive them.

All you're doing is saying we shouldn't believe them!

Why NOT?

You don't answer that.

So what, its only a Holy Text because God had His Hand in on it.

YOU NEED TO SHOW WHY THOSE HUMAN WRITERS EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS CAN NOT BE RELIED ON.

YOU and no one else have ever done that. There have been plenty who've tried, but their arguments never hold up under scrutiny.

---

8Ball,
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

So let me explain it to you slowly. The Gospel are 4 written eyewitness accounts of what happened some 2000+ years ago.

If you're claiming those accounts sholuld no be relied on as being accurate, that's fine, but show me what proof you have that those accounts can't be relied on. Otherwise your claim is empty and all you're doing is making noise.

This post was last modified: Jul 14, 2008 11:30 AM by EdTwo.

Post: #17

I'm saying we shouldn't believe them because of the textual criticism that is provided at the link I gave you. That links sites sources for it's material and provides evidences to support that the gospel accounts can not be relied on for accuracy. I'm not sure where you are missing it.

Also, bow out if you want. LOL isn't mockery, it's ridicule.

"G"

Post: #18

George,

If you think that link provides strong evidence of why the writers of the Gospel writers are unreliable.
Take a point or two out of it, and we'll debate those points. I'm not going to debate a ton of claims all at once, so pick a couple that you think are valid.