The post which led to my banning concerned the work of J. Warner Wallace, a police detective turned minister. Pratt quoted Warner's description of the way in which he managed to resolve the discrepancies between two eyewitness accounts of a robbery in grocery. In a comment, Pratt wrote "if Wallace can figure out what really happened given the diverging details provided by the two witnesses, then we can also figure out what really happened to Jesus." I suggested that perhaps there was a wee bit of difference between determining what happened based on extensively interviewing eyewitnesses shortly after the events and trying to harmonize anonymous accounts based on unknown sources removed an indeterminate number of times in decades of oral transmission from anyone with any first hand knowledge.
As he is wont to do, Bill went first for a straw man:
So Vinny, you are arguing that we can only believe eyewitness accounts where we are able to interview the witnesses immediately after the event occurred? Really? If we followed your methodology for determining the the truth of eyewitness testimony, we would literally have to throw out all written history except for what happened a few weeks ago. Any written testimony that was written by dead people would be right out.After that didn't lead anywhere, Bill went with questioning my motives:
Vinny, what apologists like me say about the historical reliability of the NT documents is not the point. All I do is cite expert testimony from professional scholars who study these topics for a living. Picking on the likes of me is pointless.To which I replied:
Real historians support the facts I cite about the historical reliability of the NT. Your problem is that you do not like what real historians say about the NT, so you attack people like me because I'm an easy target, in your mind.
That's OK. I asked for the abuse when I started this blog and you have been happy to heap it on me.
But you might want to ask yourself why you keep coming back to this blog to rehash the same arguments over and over and over and over. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish.
You clearly have it in for Christian theism and you come around every few weeks or so to remind me. I get it. You hate what I write. You think I'm wrong about everything. Anything I'm missing?
In what sense is Wallace a real historian or a professional scholar? In what sense is he anything more than a hack apologist? What real historian would endorse any of his arguments?
I keep coming back to this blog because you keep misrepresenting the arguments and positions of those who do not share your faith. I keep coming back because you keep portraying apologetic propaganda as legitimate scholarship.
And with that, my comments were banned. Oh well.