Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - There you go again.

In response to Dismissing The article posted by Migisi:

As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter in that famous 1980 televised debate: "There you go again."

You keep pushing my position to extremes. Look at what's happening. I said initially that portions of the New Testament record have been affirmed by secular sources. You then recast my statement as a claim that there were secular sources covering the "life and miracles" of Jesus Christ. I clarified by simply REPEATING my previous statement - that only PORTIONS of the NT record have been affirmed by secular sources. You then respond that it's a shame that Jesus didn't even get a "dot and tittle by secular historians." Migisi, he DID get a "dot and tittle by secular historians." And that "dot and tittle" affirms PORTIONS of the NT record. That's precisely my point which you are jerking all around - trying to push me to extremes.

Did you read the article I wrote called "Proving Jesus"? In it, I discuss some of the secular or at least non-Christian sources that affirm PORTIONS of Jesus' life and PORTIONS of the New Testament record.

(I have to qualify "secular" because your choices were pretty much Jewish, Christian, or pagan/polytheist. There weren't any full-fledged atheists in the ancient world that I know of. So, if you're holding out for completely secular as in completely atheist/agnostic sources, then that will be a ridiculous standard on your part - but then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you try to impose that).

http://protestantism.suite101.com/articl...

And then here's an article written by a NON-Christian who says that the New Testament is full of error. And yet he too points to historical evidence which confirms at least PART of the NT record concerning Jesus...

http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

Understand that, RIGHT NOW, I'm not arguing a conservative, evangelical position. I'm simply arguing that PORTIONS of the NT are credible and that there is non-biblical evidence to support that contention. That's it. A very moderate argument that even many LIBERAL scholars will agree with. But apparently not you.