leroy
Well-Known Member
BUT YOU are unable to quote a single cliamEvery claim you made in the OP.
Just about everybody that responded has pointed this out to you.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
BUT YOU are unable to quote a single cliamEvery claim you made in the OP.
Just about everybody that responded has pointed this out to you.
But in this case the paper that I quoted is from a NT scholar. The best possible authority with regards to stuff related to the NEW TESTAMENT.When you bring a claim concerning something medical for example, and as your "support" you quote a blog post written by a car mechanic, would you then really go to great lengths to dissect this blog post and point out how the car mechanic is wrong concerning the medical claim?
Or would you rather just dismiss it at face value followed by "bring me a paper that is actually written by a medical professional, preferably one that was published in a well respected medical journal"?
I say you would do the latter.
It is what @Subduction Zone is doing here as well.
The "university" is a joke. A bad joke.
But I didn’t quote “a blog post written by a car mechanic”……I quoted a peer reviewd article written by a historian and a new testament scholar.When you bring a claim concerning something medical for example, and as your "support" you quote a blog post written by a car mechanic, would you then really go to great lengths to dissect this blog post and point out how the car mechanic is wrong concerning the medical claim?
Or would you rather just dismiss it at face value followed by "bring me a paper that is actually written by a medical professional, preferably one that was published in a well respected medical journal"?
I say you would do the latter.
It is what @Subduction Zone is doing here as well.
The "university" is a joke. A bad joke.
If I ask you “can you please show to me that most scholars accept evolution (common ancestry) and you provide a poll with thousands of scholars where most of them agree with evolution…what kind of reaction would expect from an honest person?Or would you rather just dismiss it at face value followed by "bring me a paper that is actually written by a medical professional, preferably one that was published in a well respected medical journal"?
.
Not my arbitrary standards. By your own standards. You claimed "NT Scholars". Apologists are not NT Scholars, theologians are not NT Scholars. If you had included those as the "majority" that believe from the start no one would have opposed you. They would also have said "So what?" since biased approval is not worth very much. You failed by the standards that you claimed.
why not?......Apologists are not NT Scholars, theologians are not NT Scholars.
agreesince biased approval is not worth very much
Sorry, but since you used a corrupted source you placed the burden of proof back upon yourself. A theologian may be a scholar, but it is not that likely. And your list also included apologists and I have never seen apologists that are scholars. A corrupted list is of no value.why not?......
Why can’t a man be both a theologian and a NT scholar?
agree
So show that there is a bias. (we are the definition of bias that you shared before.)
I have put effort into refuting @leroy in the past, but he only tends to ignore refutations or just deny them. I laughed when I saw that his source was Liberty University. No need to go further, though others did and even then @leroy could only deny the refutations. That is why I rarely bother with him in that regard. Mere correction is enough.When you bring a claim concerning something medical for example, and as your "support" you quote a blog post written by a car mechanic, would you then really go to great lengths to dissect this blog post and point out how the car mechanic is wrong concerning the medical claim?
Or would you rather just dismiss it at face value followed by "bring me a paper that is actually written by a medical professional, preferably one that was published in a well respected medical journal"?
I say you would do the latter.
It is what @Subduction Zone is doing here as well.
The "university" is a joke. A bad joke.
Oh my! Abject failure. Try not to quote out of context if you want a discussion. There is no debate since you lost that a long time ago.why not?......
Why can’t a man be both a theologian and a NT scholar?
agree
So show that there is a bias. (we are the definition of bias that you shared before.)
The “list” is made out of scholars that have published on the topic in peer reviewed journals. This by definition implies that they have the proper credentials.Sorry, but since you used a corrupted source you placed the burden of proof back upon yourself. A theologian may be a scholar, but it is not that likely. And your list also included apologists and I have never seen apologists that are scholars. A corrupted list is of no value.
Aja you wonOh my! Abject failure. Try not to quote out of context if you want a discussion. There is no debate since you lost that a long time ago.
I have yet to see that claim made. Here is what was said about the soruces:The “list” is made out of scholars that have published on the topic in peer reviewed journals. This by definition implies that they have the proper credentials.
Whether if they are also theologians or apologists seems irrelevant to me.
No, you just lost.Aja you won
congratulations
A specific one no. It was pointed out at that time. This is another game of yours. I can give you the gist of it. Specific examples of non-scholars were given and those you ignored.Can you quote a single refutation that I have ignored?
[/QUOTE]How do you know that? seems to me that you are just guessing.
Really ¿ can you support your claim?
NT scholars like MT wRigth by definition have a degree in history.
The wording of this is very poor. One can not say that the existence of a god is "at least possible". This is incorrect. It puts a huge burden of proof upon Leroy. The existence of a God may be possible. The only way to know if something is "at least possible" is if it occurs occasionally or if there is some evidence for it. No one can seem to find any reliable evidence for a God.1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)
The wording of this is very poor. One can not say that the existence of a god is "at least possible". This is incorrect. It puts a huge burden of proof upon Leroy. The existence of a God may be possible. The only way to know if something is "at least possible" is if it occurs occasionally or if there is some evidence for it. No one can seem to find any reliable evidence for a God.
Maybe, but that is why I explained elsewhere what I mean by “at least possible”The wording of this is very poor
If someone publish a research article on a specific topic then by definition this man has the proper credentials to do so.What do you mean by definition?