That's precisely what it appeared you are doing in taking the word of the scriptures and non-scriptural sources who agree with them.
They wrote something, then you read it and say "yes", then when clips are presented to you discussing some of the problems with doing that from scholarly sources your answer is;
I disagree, you made a vague reference to,
"those who claim to have actually witnesses these events first hand, and whose story checks out by secondary sources?" But did not even give one example of what you are talking about.
Well historians aren't infallible, but they seem to be more reliable than the Bible.
I must stress though that again you are not being very specific here. Could you name one example of where a miraculous event was proven to have happened?
We see many miracles today, so please explain what miracle you would like proof of, and what would prove it.
Also, if a miracle takes place 2000, 4000, 6000, years ago, the persons that would provide the proof are those who did the miracle, and those who witnessed it.
Asking someone who lived centuries after the event to provide proof is similar to asking someone to prove that they ate lettuce last year this same time, which of course as you know, is ridiculous.
Also, if I have a friend that told me their most darkest secret, and you asked me to prove it, that too would be ridiculous, since your lack of knowledge, has nothing to do with the fact that the person chose to tell me.
Likewise, no Christian has to prove what they know. The ones who don't know won't believe even if there was no reason to disbelieve.
What the followers of Christ wrote, is not expected to be believed by all. Just those to whom that is granted.
I hope you see where that leaves your demands. They demanded a sign from Jesus too. Did he give them? No. Why? The scriptures say, they were faithless.
It is evidence that the writers were truthful with respect to the claims that were proven correct. It is unreasonable to extrapolate from the correct claims that the problematic claims must also be true.
So you extrapolating that these are fanciful claims is based on what?
The writers were not only honest. They wrote facts that were later proven to be true, to the critics dismay.
Some of it was presented in the clips posted, here was your answer to them;
Here you go again;
Each and every point made by the experts was valid.
I'm away from my computer now so I'll re-watch the clips to distill some of the finer points later, but some of the finer points made by Ehrman going off the top of my head are,
-The earliest gospel claims to be from what the writer has heard attesting that it was based in oral tradition.
-Later gospels were clearly copied from earlier sources excluding Paul who never knew Jesus during His lifetime.
-The scriptures contain contradiction such as Judas hanging himself vs dying by falling headlong in a field and his guts bursting open.
I have heard the "experts" opinions. What of them? Others have opinions that differ to theirs, and even those that agree, can't agree. So what of it?
The second clip proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Christian ministers are prepared to lie about miracles to promote religion, and since the claims of miracles are non-repeatable we have no reason to assume that earlier miracle claims were anything other than lies told to sell religion.
"Christian" ministers lie all the time. So what's new? What does that have to do with the Bible?
Then attacking the source of the argument as a stiff necked people instead of addressing the argument is irrelevant.
Huh? Not sure what this means.
It shows that Christianity spread through strings attached charity, not through a gradual process of winning over well off OT aware people through scriptural arguments - hence the obvious conclusion that Jesus was not a "scriptural authority".
Evidence please. The evidence shows something else.
Do you see how it goes with evidence? Peple interpret it differently, and we cannot rule out bias in some cases. So where does that leave us, on this argument? Going anywhere?
If you truly believed that then since man (and women) have it in mind to create life there should be no reason to believe it is unattainable for them given the correct natural conditions.
Man can do anything his capabilities allow. It doesn't mean that man can breath underwater, or in outer space, etc. It just means he is capable of anything in his power to accomplish.
Ah semantics, to make something is an act of creation.
I think words and their meaning are important.
Some people don't care, and they use words loosely, and carelessly... for whatever reason. Often, when they don't want to accept truth, or they feel their pride is somhow the most important thing.
Use of the verb “make” tells us that the production processes and the vehicle or clothing designs already existed. The verb “create” usually suggests newness or innovation. Generally, it means to produce something new or to bring something into existence.
Make or Create? - VOA Learning English
So far no "life force" has been detected, just a complex interaction of chemicals.
I'll check that out later, since I don't have much confidence in anything you say.
Experience here, tells me people say things off the top of their head, just because they can say it.
*** ad p. 1062 Life ***
The life of man and animals is dependent, first of all, on the life force started off initially in the first pair, and
secondarily on breath to sustain that life force. Biological science testifies to this fact. This is evident in their separation of the process of death into two classifications: Somatic or systemic death (sometimes called clinical death), which is the absolute cessation of the functions of the brain, the circulatory and the respiratory organs (the body as an organized unit is dead); and death of the tissues (sometimes termed biological death), the entire disappearance of the vital actions of the ultimate structural constituents of the body. So even though the person is dead beyond all human help of resuscitation (somatic death), the life force still lingers in the cells of the body’s tissues until eventually every cell dies completely (death of the tissues).
I'll get back to you on that later.
And humans have proven themselves pretty capable of dictating to God when to provide that "life force" if any. It is unusual that man decides when God is to provide that life force by having sex or by cloning for example. What makes you think that if man found whatever simple chemical conditions lead to the first self replicating molecules that God would be any less happy to provide "life force" (if any) to a recreation of those primitive chemical conditions than God would if man were to simply clone or reproduce?
In my opinion.
"first self replicating"? You mean that myth you believe in.
Interesting that you so readily believe those stories, while dismissing a book that gives more evidence of its truthfulness.
