Christianity is Probably False

Thanks Defense of Contention 1 It appears Con attempts to sidestep the issue by appealing to semantics. Con has shrugged off the old testament, but the agreed definition includes the bible. Con saying only attacks on the new testament would be valid, however this is semantics. The definition agreed upon does not allow for this. Con must concede that his first point is false, because in round 1, when I was specifying the BOP I said Chest will be defending and attempting to show the literal and absolute truth of the Bible Thus, Con is engaging in semantics and is attempting to go against the agreed BOP. He has broken the rules of the debate. Anyway, Con commits a bare assertion fallacy. He claims the OT is just historical narrative with no evidence to support it. It is much more intuitive and likely to think of it as literal. But if Con wants to reject Joshua as just an historical narrative, then he must also reject the New Testament. 2 Timothy 3:16 states All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: This would be false, a historical narrative is from the writers POV. It is subject to error not useful for correction or reproof. Con tries to sidestep the agreed debate rules. Invalidating his rebuttals Defense ofContention 2: Historical Error. Con makes several historical errors here. I’ll go through them each, showing how my argument still stands. Augustus issued multiple censuses and taxations throughout his reign, there were also many more local censuses and taxations at the local level. Therefore it is quite probable that Herod was alive during one of them. Con claims it is quite probable that Herod was alive during a census. However, he has not demonstrated that. He just asserted it. Why is it probable that some hidden, unknown, undocumented census happened. It is an ad hoc, which makes it less plausible that some census was forgotten. There couldn’t have been a census in Judaea before 6 A.D., because Judaea wasn’t in direct Roman control [1]. Historian Richard Carrier also writes To conduct a census in contravention of such an alliance would have been a notable event indeed, mentioned in many other places as the peculiar event it would have been--and that's even if it didn't start an outright war, as almost happened when the Romans finally did conduct a census in Judaea in 6 A.D. Why, after all, would Rome want a census of a territory it was not taxing directly? Not only was such a thing never done at any time in the history of Rome, it would have served no practical purpose. According to A.N. Sherwin-White, Horst Braunert's study of the subject "disproves conclusively the notion of a Roman census before the creation of the province" while also demonstrating that a census was "a necessary consequence of the establishment of direct provincial government." And as we saw above, Josephus confirms a census at the beginning of Quirinius' reign, just when we would expect it. [ibid] So it is highly unlikely that there would be a census before 6 A.D. in Judea. It’s clear this claim is historically flawed and falls apart quickly under examination, so what of his others? Luke did not claim that Quirinius was a “governor” in the formal sense, but rather as one with authority. A “hegemon”(ruling officer/procurator) rather than a “legatus”(governor). This wouldn’t fix anything if true. There still couldn't have been a census before 6 A.D. Anyway, Quirinius between 6 B.C. and 1 B.C. was fighting in a war in Asia [2]. So, why in the world would you date a census in Judea by referring to a “hegemon” who is fighting a war in Asia? Why not the legate in Syria? Quirinius would have absolutely nothing to do with Judea or a census. This would make scripture absurd if true. Furthermore Carrier says “....just because Quirinius was probably assigned a Syrian legion to fight bandits on the mountain border between Galatia and Cilicia, it does not follow that he had any kind of command in Syria. To the contrary, he was in the province of Galatia, not Syria, and by special command of Augustus.”[3] Con’s response here fails too. The census Josephus talked about may have happened later. The very problem with the census is that it happened too late. Claiming it could have happened later helps me, not Con. Ultimately, in this section, Con misconstrues history. His rebuttals are full of historical error that fall apart quickly. It is probable that this is indeed a real contradiction. When we examine all relevant facts, we see Carrier is right in claiming that this is an “irreconcilable contradiction” [1] http://infidels.org... [2] http://infidels.org... [3] http://infidels.org...