For those who don't have the time or desire to read through the recent threads to understand Jon Curry's latest objection to Christianity, let me provide a summary.
The gospel accounts of people seeing miracles, yet sometimes doubting what Jesus said, misunderstanding Him, or being unfaithful in some other manner aren't credible. People wouldn't have been so stupid.
Rather, a much larger number of Christians and non-Christians were so stupid as to believe the gospel accounts (or large segments of the gospel accounts in the case of non-Christians), even though Jesus never even existed. Churches that had just recently been in contact with men like Peter and Paul, and had heard them teach about a non-earthly Jesus radically different from the Jesus of the gospels, accepted the gospels as historical accounts anyway. Despite the negative depictions of people like Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas in the gospels and other early Christian documents, relatives and associates of such men didn't raise any objections that have left any trace in the historical record. Even though relatives and associates of Peter, Paul, James, and many other early Christians knew that the gospel accounts contradicted what Christianity had taught and what the relevant sources had reported for decades, the gospels were successful in deceiving large numbers of people across the world, including the same churches that had been in contact with men like Peter and Paul. The early Christians repeatedly attributed documents to the wrong person, to the point that the large majority of the New Testament is wrongly attributed. Jon Curry even tells us that the Pauline authorship of books like 1 Corinthians and Philemon, accepted even by liberal scholarship, is "suspicious" and that those documents have characteristics that are "dead give aways" of forgery. Etc.
So, to sum up: People couldn't have been as stupid as the gospels suggest. Rather, they were as stupid as Jon Curry's theories suggest.
Well, I can see the logic to that. If I believe things that even liberal scholars disagree with, suddenly this makes the gospel portrayal of the disciples realistic. Now I understand.
ReplyDeleteJon Curry said:
ReplyDelete"Well, I can see the logic to that. If I believe things that even liberal scholars disagree with, suddenly this makes the gospel portrayal of the disciples realistic. Now I understand."
No, that's not what I said.
What does the Jesus myth view have to do with a summary of my "latest objection"? What do my questions about Pauline authorship of I Cor have to do with my "latest objection"? If your supposed summary of my objections includes discussion and critiques of irrelevant other issues what am I to conclude you really are saying? I've repeatedly seen you engage in fallacious reasoning by switchting topics to irrelevant issues. If this isn't what you're saying here, which you've done many times before, than what are you saying?
ReplyDeleteJon Curry said:
ReplyDelete"What does the Jesus myth view have to do with a summary of my 'latest objection'?"
As I explain in my original post, I was writing so that people will "understand Jon Curry's latest objection". Part of what I want people to understand is the inconsistent nature of the objection and the implausibility of the alternative you're offering. That's why the thread has the title that it has.
As I explain in my original post, I was writing so that people will "understand Jon Curry's latest objection". Part of what I want people to understand is the inconsistent nature of the objection and the implausibility of the alternative you're offering. That's why the thread has the title that it has.
ReplyDeleteBut "understanding Jon Curry's latest objection" would have nothing to do with other arguments I've made on other subjects. If my alternative is implausible, this again has nothing to do with understanding my latest objection. This is nothing more than typical fallacious reasoning from you. Rather than explaining what it is I'm saying you are interested in kicking up a bunch of sand to obscure the issue. You're again firing up the fog machine.
Your readers (and you) need a better understanding of the views they critique. They don't need fallacy upon fallacy to distract from an understanding of an objection. For that matter I think you are distracting towards an issue that again you don't understand, and certainly the readers here don't understand it. Perhaps you could help. You want to talk about the Jesus as myth view. Do you know the view? Can you state the three strongest arguments in favor of the Jesus myth view for the benefit of the readers? Or do you not know them? Or would you prefer that the readers not know them?
Jon Curry said:
ReplyDelete"But 'understanding Jon Curry's latest objection' would have nothing to do with other arguments I've made on other subjects."
Only if I was defining my terms as you're defining them and limiting my comments to the subjects you want me to address. Since my first post doesn't limit itself in the manner in which you want me to limit it, and since I told you in my second post that I wasn't so limiting the subject, you're in no position to tell me what I meant to address.
You write:
"Your readers (and you) need a better understanding of the views they critique. They don't need fallacy upon fallacy to distract from an understanding of an objection. For that matter I think you are distracting towards an issue that again you don't understand, and certainly the readers here don't understand it. Perhaps you could help. You want to talk about the Jesus as myth view. Do you know the view? Can you state the three strongest arguments in favor of the Jesus myth view for the benefit of the readers? Or do you not know them? Or would you prefer that the readers not know them?"
Your suggestion that I "prefer that the readers not know" is absurd. You've been permitted to post here for months. Nobody has stopped you from posting whatever you may consider "the three strongest arguments". I've repeatedly discussed evidence for Jesus' existence and have repeatedly asked you to address what I've said. You keep leaving the discussions and keep making comments about how you don't think that Jesus' existence is relevant to the particular thread we're in, you haven't studied the issue much, etc.
People who deny Jesus' existence disagree among themselves. They aren't going to identify the same "three strongest arguments". If what you have in mind is a particular article or book by Earl Doherty or somebody else who denies Jesus' existence, then I would repeat what I told you earlier, in another thread that you left without responding to me. A historian of the Revolutionary War can be confident that George Washington existed, even if he's never done research in libraries or on the web to see whether anybody has written any material arguing that Washington didn't exist. A World War II historian doesn't have to read books by Holocaust deniers in order to be confident that the Holocaust occurred. George Bush doesn't have to read books by people who argue that the American government carried out the attacks of September 11 in order to be confident that the attacks were carried out by terrorists instead. I've read some material by people who deny Jesus' existence (mostly G.A. Wells), but even if I hadn't, I know the original sources and modern scholarship well enough to be confident that Jesus existed.
Your suggestion that the people in this forum aren't prepared to discuss the subject unless they've read something like a book by Earl Doherty or an article by G.A. Wells is ridiculous. There are people in this forum who have degrees in fields related to the New Testament or ancient history. They've read more of the original documents than you have, they've read more scholarship on the relevant issues than you have, they're employed in relevant fields, etc. They're in a better position than you're in to judge the existence of Jesus, even if they haven't read any material by people who deny Jesus' existence.
Have you read books or articles in order to be able to identify "the three strongest arguments" for every position you've commented on in this forum? No, you haven't.
Only if I was defining my terms as you're defining them and limiting my comments to the subjects you want me to address.
ReplyDeleteTrue. I think you should define terms in standard ways and I think you should address points in dispute rather than offering red herrings. You wouldn't want to limit yourself to the topic under discussion. You'd rather expand every debate to many different unrelated subjects.
Your suggestion that the people in this forum aren't prepared to discuss the subject unless they've read something like a book by Earl Doherty or an article by G.A. Wells is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. I continually ask people to do it and nobody does. You won't. I continually ask people to reconcile Matthew's claims about what happened with Mary Magdelene and John's. Nobody does. I think it's pretty reasonable to think nobody has a good explanation.
Have you read books or articles in order to be able to identify "the three strongest arguments" for every position you've commented on in this forum? No, you haven't.
Yes I have. I can fairly state the Christian arguments I critique in strong terms. You cannot say the same. You don't know the views you critique as well as I do. You haven't read a single book by a skeptic arguing against Christianity, whereas I've read dozens of books from Christians arguing for Christianity. What is the basis for your claim here?
I have left discussions on Jesus as myth because they are beside the point at issue. I'm willing to debate it if you like, but I'm not going to debate it when we're debating something else. You have not addressed the real meat of the argument which leads me to conclude that you don't know it. Maybe you should read a book by a skeptic instead of reading skeptics piecemeal through the lens of Glen Miller and J.P. Holding. Reading Holding's reviews is not the same as reading the book in its own context.
Jon Curry said:
ReplyDelete"I think you should define terms in standard ways and I think you should address points in dispute rather than offering red herrings. You wouldn't want to limit yourself to the topic under discussion. You'd rather expand every debate to many different unrelated subjects."
I have defined my terms in "standard ways". And I've explained how your inconsistencies are relevant to what we were discussing. You aren't interacting with what I said.
Your comments about reading books are ridiculous, not only because they're false (I have read books by people arguing against Christianity), but also because they're inconsistent with what you've said in the past. In a recent thread, you criticized Steve Hays for only citing books in "an age of television and internet". You wanted him to cite online sources, and you went on to say that you didn't want to read online sources if they're too lengthy. But now you tell us that we should read books, particularly books by people who argue against Jesus' existence.
You're ignoring much of what I said in my last post.
You wanted him to cite online sources, and you went on to say that you didn't want to read online sources if they're too lengthy. But now you tell us that we should read books, particularly books by people who argue against Jesus' existence.
ReplyDeleteYou've got to be kidding. Such gross out of context citations. In the context of the points I was making my claims make perfect sense.
You repeatedly and continually dismiss the mythical position as false and absurd, yet you've never read a single book by a skeptic arguing in favor of the mythical position. I've asked you to tell me which books you've read from skeptics arguing against Christianity on any subject and you've never been able to come up with anything. For you to make such bold claims about the mythical view and yet be so unfamiliar with the argument that you are unable to state the strength of the argument, well I happen to think that that is really ridiculous.
And I would point out that I usually raise the point of your unfamiliarity with skeptical arguments in response to your charges of ignorance on my part. It is my desire to not engage in ad hominem argumentation, but I think it is interesting that though you engage in fallacious reasoning and charge me with ignorance of Christian arguments, the fact of the matter is you are far more ignorant of skeptical arguments than I am of Christian ones.
In the context of my discussion with Steve, Steve was replying to Carrier's question about the widespread nature of visions in Scripture with several books on topics unrelated to Carrier's question. I don't think it is reasonable to expect me to buy several books on unrelated subjects. If he has evidence of widespread visions and dreams as what occurred in Scripture it should be easy to provide such evidence, and I don't think it is reasonable to expect me to buy a dozen books and read in hopes of finding a piece or two of evidence in favor of Steve's claims.
For you to present this as if it demonstrates that I sweepingly think it shouldn't be necessary for me to read books, but it should be necessary for you to read books, well that's the type of misrepresentation I've come to expect from you. The amount of familiarity you should have about a particular argument depends on the claim you are making about that argument. You are making bold claims about the mythical position. You should be familiar with the arguments. I haven't made a single argument against claims regarding near death experiences, so this makes my situation different from yours. If I'm not arguing against what his books claim, why would I be obligated to spend time familiarizing myself with the arguments in the books?
You repeatedly charge me with inconsistency, yet when I show that there is no inconsistency you "leave the conversation." We shall see what happens here.
Jon Curry said:
ReplyDelete"You repeatedly and continually dismiss the mythical position as false and absurd, yet you've never read a single book by a skeptic arguing in favor of the mythical position. I've asked you to tell me which books you've read from skeptics arguing against Christianity on any subject and you've never been able to come up with anything. For you to make such bold claims about the mythical view and yet be so unfamiliar with the argument that you are unable to state the strength of the argument, well I happen to think that that is really ridiculous."
You still aren't interacting with what I've said. As I've explained repeatedly, nobody has to read a book by a person who argues against Jesus' existence in order to make a reliable judgment that the position is absurd, and the same is true regarding other issues in life, like the historicity of the Holocaust and whether the events of September 11 were arranged by the United States government. Books aren't the only sources of knowledge. And it's not as if people who deny Jesus' existence have access to significant, relevant information that other people don't have access to. I've read thousands of pages of early Christian literature and thousands of pages of modern scholarship across the spectrum. I've also read articles by people who deny Jesus' existence and some portions of some of G.A. Wells' books. For you to tell me that I can't justify my conclusions unless I read the entirety of a book by somebody like Earl Doherty or G.A. Wells, neither of whom is an original source and neither of whom has anything comparable to the credentials of other sources I've read more of, is ridiculous. Your claim that I was "unable to state the strength of the argument" is likewise ridiculous, since I explained to you why your request for "the three strongest arguments" was unreasonable. You didn't interact with what I said.
You're also mistaken about what books I've read. I've repeatedly posted messages on this blog about books I've read arguing against Christianity, including in threads you participated in. I mentioned John Crossan's recent book with N.T. Wright on the resurrection, I mentioned Bart Ehrman's recent book on the textual record in a previous thread discussing your claims about the textual record, etc. If you assumed that I hadn't read the books I cited, that's your problem, not mine.
You write:
"It is my desire to not engage in ad hominem argumentation, but I think it is interesting that though you engage in fallacious reasoning and charge me with ignorance of Christian arguments, the fact of the matter is you are far more ignorant of skeptical arguments than I am of Christian ones."
That's a claim you'll need to document, not just assert. Reading a book by Earl Doherty or somebody else who denies Jesus' existence isn't the only means of understanding "skeptical arguments". Considering how ignorant you've demonstrated yourself to be on so many issues related to patristics, the textual record, church history, and other relevant fields, your suggestion that you know more than I do about "skeptical arguments" doesn't have much significance.
You write:
"In the context of my discussion with Steve, Steve was replying to Carrier's question about the widespread nature of visions in Scripture with several books on topics unrelated to Carrier's question."
No, Steve's books were relevant, as I explained to you in that thread. You limited Carrier's comments further than Carrier limited them. And when Steve cited the books, you objected to the book format. You weren't just asking him for material on another topic. You wanted a different format. Later on in that same discussion, you told me that I should give you "online resources". But if online articles and other non-books are insufficient, why would you object to our only citing books, and why would you ask for non-books to be cited?
You've repeatedly cited non-books as your sources, such as Wikipedia articles and articles by Richard Carrier. Did you read any books on the relationship between Horus and Jesus before you cited a Wikipedia article on the subject? Did you read any books on the relationship between Josephus and Luke before you cited Richard Carrier's article on the subject? Did you read any books about Polycarp before you posted your arguments about him? What books on textual criticism did you read before you repeatedly made false claims about the textual record? Not only have you not read books on all of the subjects you've made claims about, but you've also acknowledged that you don't want to read non-books if you think they're too lengthy. You referred to how you only read part of one of my posts before writing a response to it:
"Yes, Jason, well that post of yours comes out to 55 pages as pasted in to Word for me. I'm sure there can only be one reason in your mind why I didn't reply. The fact is I didn't read it all. I read a part of it, hit something that I thought was worth replying to, and did so." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/unreasonable-reasons.html)
You've also referred to how you only read portions of a book by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. You repeatedly make arguments based on non-book sources, you object to non-book sources if you think they're too long (even though they're shorter than books), and you sometimes only read a portion of a non-book source or a book that you consult. Yet, you expect us to read the entirety of a book by a person who denies Jesus' existence. Even if we've read far more relevant material than you have, you tell us that we don't know the subject as well as you do unless we've read the entirety of at least one book by somebody who denies the existence of Jesus.
Using your logic, a World War II historian doesn't know as much about the historicity of the Holocaust as you do if you've read a book by a Holocaust denier and he hasn't. Using your logic, it's acceptable for you to go on to make arguments against that World War II historian based on articles you've read at Wikipedia and web sites that deny the historicity of the Holocaust. It's also acceptable for you to respond to him after listening to only a portion of what he said. But he shouldn't dismiss your position as absurd unless he's read the entirety of at least one book by a Holocaust denier. No matter how many errors you make, no matter how unprepared you are to interact with his arguments, the fact that you've read at least one book from each side of the issue means that you must know the issue better than he does.
Who do you think you're deceiving? Your refusal to interact with me, Steve, and other people here on issues like Jesus' existence isn't a result of our not having read enough. It's a result of your not being prepared for it. Whether we get our information from books written by people who affirm Jesus' existence, from the original documents, from non-books written by people who deny Jesus' existence, or from some other source, what matters most is the quality of the material we present. If we have better arguments than you have, as we do, then criticizing us for not having read the entirety of a book by somebody who denies Jesus' existence doesn't make sense.
You write:
"You repeatedly charge me with inconsistency, yet when I show that there is no inconsistency you 'leave the conversation.' We shall see what happens here."
I spent months replying to you at length. You left many of the threads on Greg Krehbiel's board, and you eventually left the board entirely. You then began posting here several months later. I repeated the pattern of responding to you at length, and you repeated the pattern of frequently leaving threads without replying to my last response. After those patterns had been occurring for more than a year (from the time we began our discussions on Greg Krehbiel's board in the late summer of 2005), I began responding to less of your material. As I told you in an e-mail discussion months ago, and have repeated since then, my primary concern is for other readers, not you. The other readers of these threads don't seem to think much of you or your arguments, and I've already answered so many of your claims at such length, and you keep ignoring such a large portion of what I write in response to you. I don't have much reason to keep replying to you to the extent I did last year and earlier this year.
You say "We shall see what happens here". We've already seen you leave dozens of threads.
You still aren't interacting with what I've said. As I've explained repeatedly, nobody has to read a book by a person who argues against Jesus' existence in order to make a reliable judgment that the position is absurd, and the same is true regarding other issues in life, like the historicity of the Holocaust and whether the events of September 11 were arranged by the United States government.
ReplyDeleteYou aren't interacting with me. I don't deny your claim here and I haven't denied your claim. I'm making a simple claim here. In order to make bold claims about the falsity of an argument you need to be familiar with the argument. A couple of things indicate to me that you aren't familiar with the argument. You haven't read a single book making the argument. You can't state the argument. Certainly you don't have to read books to know the argument, but since you are unable to make the argument (I understand you make excuses for why you shouldn't have to) I think books would help. I think your lack of knowledge on the subject is partly explained by the fact that you haven't read books.
But this is beside the point as well. The point here is your gross misrepresentations and out of context citations of me. Your charge of inconsistency is absurd because it is my position that your obligation to read books depends on the claim you are making. In the one claim I was not saying that the arguments from Steve's books were wrong. So I have no obligation to read them. You are saying that the arguments in Doherty's books and Price's books are wrong. But you don't know the arguments. That's a significant difference.
Let's read on to see if you can figure out the point of my post and respond to it.
No, Steve's books were relevant, as I explained to you in that thread. You limited Carrier's comments further than Carrier limited them.
You can think they're relevant if you want, but I don't think they are. That's what matters. Obviously I'm not going to read books that are irrelevant to what I think the discussion should be about, even if you think they are relevant. Is it your position that Doherty's books and Price's books are irrelevant to the question of Jesus as myth?
And again (that's a phrase I use a lot with you. I repeatedly state my positions and start with "and again) I am not denying the arguments contained in Steve's books. I am not dismissing their positions as absurd and ridiculous. But that is exactly what you are doing about they mythical view.
You've repeatedly cited non-books as your sources, such as Wikipedia articles and articles by Richard Carrier. Did you read any books on the relationship between Horus and Jesus before you cited a Wikipedia article on the subject?
More fallacies and distractions. Have I denied that citing non-books is a problem? Is that the point I'm trying to make here? Looks like you are again talking to the lurkers and not with me, because you're not grasping my point.
Did you read any books about Polycarp before you posted your arguments about him?
First of all, I've done no such thing. Document your claim. Just because you don't like what Wikipedia has to say about Polycarp, this doesn't make Wikipedia wrong. But regardless, this is beside the point. If you simply asserted that the mythical view was false, that would be one thing. But it's more than that. You've repeatedly dismissed it as not just false, but absurd and ridiculous. But you haven't shown that you know the argument. You won't state it (whatever your reasons). You can't claim to have read anything but bits and pieces. You've given no indication that you know it. That's the difference.
If a person dismissed Christianity as false as an initial reaction, without researching it much, that's not all that bad. But if that same person goes on the web, repeatedly dismisses Christianity as false and absurd, and yet that same person will not state the evidential argument for Christianity, and hasn't read a single book by a Christian arguing for Christianity, well I think that's a problem. That is what you are doing.
Your comments about Sep 11 and Holocaust deniers ignore this point. My point is clear. In some cases a person is obligated to read books, in other cases no. You charge me with inconsistency for holding this view, yet I've shown that it isn't inconsistent at all. I'm waiting for you to respond and defend your charge of inconsistency, but you won't interact with my point. Instead you argue that it isn't always necessary to read books. That's my point. Sometimes it isn't necessary. But other times it is. I don't think you know the argument about Jesus as myth, so I think if you're going to continue to make these claims about how the mythical view is absurd and ridiculous you need to do something about it. Read a book. But if you can show me that you know the argument I would agree that you don't desperately need to read the book, though it would probably help.
Well, I wondered how you'd respond and I have my answer. You will talk about things unrelated to my point and ignore my rebuttal to your charge of inconsistency. I won't say that I'm surprised. Let's see if you do it again.
Jon Curry said:
ReplyDelete"In order to make bold claims about the falsity of an argument you need to be familiar with the argument. A couple of things indicate to me that you aren't familiar with the argument. You haven't read a single book making the argument. You can't state the argument. Certainly you don't have to read books to know the argument, but since you are unable to make the argument (I understand you make excuses for why you shouldn't have to) I think books would help."
Again, what argument are you referring to? I don't have to be able to summarize what G.A. Wells, for example, considers "the three strongest arguments" for his position in order to argue against the concept that Jesus didn't exist. Those who deny Jesus' existence disagree among themselves. They use different arguments. I'm not writing a review of a G.A. Wells book or a book by Earl Doherty. I'm addressing a concept that isn't dependent on any one person's formulation of it. Similarly, a person arguing against Jesus' resurrection shouldn't be expected to be able to summarize N.T. Wright's "three strongest arguments" for the resurrection before arguing against the resurrection. The fact that you associate three particular arguments with somebody like Earl Doherty or G.A. Wells doesn't prove that the people I discussed this issue with in college or on America Online several years ago, for example, used the same three arguments. As I said before, I have read some of what the more popular advocates of the position have written, so I have some familiarity with their claims, but the concept isn't limited to them. In previous discussions with you, I've repeatedly mentioned and interacted with some of the arguments that are used, such as the alleged lack of reference to an earthly Jesus in Paul's letters, alleged pagan influences on early Christianity, and assigning a late date to documents like the gospels and Acts. For you to claim that I "can't state the argument", because I rejected your framing of the discussion around "the three strongest arguments" and the particular authors you've read, doesn't make sense.
You write:
"Your charge of inconsistency is absurd because it is my position that your obligation to read books depends on the claim you are making. In the one claim I was not saying that the arguments from Steve's books were wrong. So I have no obligation to read them. You are saying that the arguments in Doherty's books and Price's books are wrong. But you don't know the arguments."
I've said that the position that Jesus didn't exist is wrong. It doesn't follow that I should read books by Earl Doherty and Robert Price advocating the position. You've argued that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Should I therefore expect you to have read N.T. Wright and Richard Swinburne's books on the subject and to be able to state their "three strongest arguments"?
As for your claim that you "were not saying that the arguments from Steve's books were wrong", here's how you responded to his bibliography:
"We live in an age of television and internet and the only evidence you can offer is a claim that if I hunt down and buy several books I might find that your claims are credible? You could do better than that if in fact divine visions and dreams were credible and widespread." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/unreasonable-reasons.html)
As Steve and I explained to you in that thread, your claim that he was telling you to "buy several books" is fallacious. We also explained that you were mistaken in characterizing his argument as "divine visions and dreams were credible and widespread". In addition to those errors, you said that Steve "could do better than that if in fact divine visions and dreams were credible and widespread". If you didn't intend to cast doubt on the concept that "divine visions and dreams were credible and widespread", then why did you say that Steve could do better if such events were occurring? You went on to write, later in that same thread:
"As far as whether or not I should be obligated to buy books that refute my positions, I think it's pretty obvious that I am not."
Again, nobody said that you were "obligated" to "buy books". But, beyond that, if you didn't perceive the books as being contrary to your position, then why did you refer to them as "books that refute my positions"?
Furthermore, you were writing in defense of some questions Richard Carrier asked. In his question under discussion in this context, Carrier asked, concerning events like the ones described in Acts, "Why isn't this happening now?" He was making the assertion that those things aren't happening. Steve was responding to Carrier's assertion.
You write:
"Have I denied that citing non-books is a problem?"
I assume that "denied" is supposed to be "said", "written", "argued", or something else along those lines. Apparently, what you're saying is that you haven't suggested that it's a problem to cite non-books.
But I haven't suggested otherwise. I didn't criticize you for arguing that it's unacceptable to cite non-books. Rather, I criticized you for arguing that it's unacceptable for me to cite non-books without also having read at least one book. When I told you that I had read some articles and portions of books by people who deny Jesus' existence, you responded by criticizing me for not having read books. If reading books wasn't necessary, why would you criticize me for not having read books? Here's what you wrote earlier in this thread:
"You haven't read a single book by a skeptic arguing against Christianity, whereas I've read dozens of books from Christians arguing for Christianity....You repeatedly and continually dismiss the mythical position as false and absurd, yet you've never read a single book by a skeptic arguing in favor of the mythical position. I've asked you to tell me which books you've read from skeptics arguing against Christianity on any subject and you've never been able to come up with anything."
To begin with, your claim that I "haven't read a single book by a skeptic arguing against Christianity" was false, as I explained earlier, and it wouldn't be as significant as you've suggested even if it was true. I've read hundreds of pages of articles, for example, by critics of Christianity arguing against the religion. To use just one example I discussed in a recent post, Richard Carrier's article on the date of the nativity is, by itself, nearly 100 pages long, the size of a small book. I also read large amounts of material by skeptics in other formats, I've watched and listened to tapes of debates they've participated in, etc. To frame this issue in the context of books, as you do above, is misleading.
Even as far as books are concerned, as I told you in another thread you left without responding to me, the fact that you've read a book doesn't tell us how well you've read it and applied it. If two people attended Harvard, but one got mostly F's and the other got mostly A's, the fact that they both attended Harvard doesn't suggest that they're at equal standing in terms of their proficiency in the field they studied. It's likewise dubious to cite the number of books read, as if reading 20 books at a beginner or intermediate level is in the same category as reading 20 books at a more advanced level. As I told you when you mentioned that you had consulted Geisler and Howe's book on inerrancy, consulting a work that treats the issues so briefly and with so little specialization isn't in the same category as consulting something like Craig Keener's 1600-page commentary on John's gospel or Anthony Thiselton's 1400-page commentary on 1 Corinthians. This is why I keep emphasizing the quality of argumentation above the quantity of books or other sources that a person has read. I've probably read far more relevant material than you have, both Christian and non-Christian, but the primary issue is quality, not quantity. When you so frequently place people and events in the wrong century, have to consult Wikipedia to get basic information about the church fathers, make so many false and misleading claims about the textual record, keep getting deceived by bad arguments you come across on the web, etc., I don't get the impression that the quantity of books you've read is accompanied by much quality. Telling us that you've read dozens of Christian books seems to be about as significant as telling us that you attended Harvard, without telling us that you got mostly F's in the process. By your own admission, this is the sort of mindset you had when you read those dozens of Christian books:
"I believed for years because I was indoctrinated to believe as a young child, as are many people. I'd sing 'Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.' I'd see as Christians would beg and plead with others to convert and guilt people that didn't tow the line. That has an effect on people. I didn't want to see the inconsistencies and the unrealistic nature of the gospel accounts because like a lot of cultists I was conditioned to not see such things. It's a hard nut to crack. And maybe I'm a little slow." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/12/does-gospel-of-mark-contradict-infancy.html)
If your mindset was so uncritical and cult-like, and you keep making so many mistakes in your arguments in these forums, why should we think much of the fact that you've read dozens of Christian books or the fact that you've read one, two, or however many books by people who deny Jesus' existence?
You write:
"Document your claim. Just because you don't like what Wikipedia has to say about Polycarp, this doesn't make Wikipedia wrong."
The issue is only partly whether Wikipedia was wrong. As far as Wikipedia reports a liberal view of Polycarp, I disagree with it. But Wikipedia also reports the conservative view, and I documented how you had misrepresented what Wikipedia said on the subject. You left the thread without responding:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-wrote-gospel-of-john.html