tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2543073739768775418..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: A further reply to Arizona AtheistVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82488815537842335552010-11-11T23:18:26.066-07:002010-11-11T23:18:26.066-07:00Mr. Reppert,
I've finally gotten around to th...Mr. Reppert,<br /><br />I've finally gotten around to that website you claim is an example of the OTF. I've replied here: http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2010/11/victor-reppert-and-john-loftus-outsider.htmlArizona Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17377658912951142427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19768662859646115152010-10-30T15:53:27.859-07:002010-10-30T15:53:27.859-07:00Hi Mr. Reppert,
Just wanted to drop you a line an...Hi Mr. Reppert,<br /><br />Just wanted to drop you a line and let you know my reply has been posted.<br /><br />Take care.Arizona Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17377658912951142427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21758095268041746882010-10-30T13:07:38.777-07:002010-10-30T13:07:38.777-07:00Hi Mr. Reppert,
I've responded to your latest...Hi Mr. Reppert,<br /><br />I've responded to your latest post, again as an update at the original.<br /><br />Thanks!Arizona Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17377658912951142427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79595707535251911582010-10-30T11:53:50.595-07:002010-10-30T11:53:50.595-07:00In this particular instance, we are comparing two ...In this particular instance, we are comparing two possible revelations that occurred at a particular time and place. As such, I think that in comparing the two, the historical basis of each revelation is certainly of interest. <br /><br />I think the archaeological evidence, along with other types of evidence, shows that the New Testament has at the very least a significant historical core. I believe that the writers are at least close enough to the events themselves to have interviewed eyewitnesses, and in the case of later Acts, I think it reasonably clear that Luke is an eyewitness.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9600411456019518032010-10-30T10:32:34.804-07:002010-10-30T10:32:34.804-07:00Seems to me historical accuracy can only hold any ...Seems to me historical accuracy can only hold any water if the particular text requires it. Of course, there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether this expectation itself is not spurious. As Walter points out, if the Bhagavad Gita were true, it is true without the need for historical support (not, mind you, in the sense that it has the potential for having historical support that we presently don't have access to; rather, it is the kind of legend where historical support and attestation are simply extraneous to its truth value). <br /><br />That said, I do think attempts by more skeptical parties to play down, or even just play down the potential for, attestation that latter portions of the Christian Bible (and latter portions of the Tanakh) have per archeological and inscriptional evidence is silly. Contrary to other religious texts that are philosophically oriented or take place in the realm of the gods, a central claim of Christianity is that a certain man who was also God physically dwelt among us. <br /><br />This, at face value, certainly seems to suggest a close relationship is intended between history and the claims being made. For I have never understood the attempts of very "liberal" Christian camps that seek to throw out the historical dimension of the Christian religion in favor of affirming the truth of Christianity's overarching principles, when one of those overarching principles <i>is the historical dimension</i>...S.D. Parkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12509228190748592982010-10-30T06:30:30.917-07:002010-10-30T06:30:30.917-07:00"Thus, so far as I can see, evidence does exi..."Thus, so far as I can see, evidence does exist that gives us better reason to believe that the Bible is revelatory than to believe that the Qur'an is."<br /><br />I am still not sure how the historical accuracy of Paul's travels as narrated in Acts, means the bible has a better chance of being an actual revelation from God than the Qur'an? What about the Bhagavad Gita , Avesta, or the Urantia? Where do they stand as divine revelations? Is historical accuracy in their respective narratives the main criteria for determining whether or not they are TRUE revelations from a higher power?Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.com