Jeffrey Gibson

Why do you think it is the case, as you claim it is, that by virtue of their genre, their function, and their intent, Apologia an, apologetic source, and "apologetic literature" from the ancient world are worthless as evidence for the historicity, and as sources for the life, and teaching, and "ministry", of the figure whose teaching, actions, reputation, and ministry they are intent to defend?

Classical scholars do not think so -- as is evident in their use of various Apologia from the ancient world to reconstruct the life and teaching and career/ministry of the figures that are defended within these works when there is no "external non-apologetic source" for that figure, or for the aspects of the life and teaching and career of that figure that the apologetic sources deal with.

So what is it that you know about ancient apologetic works and the genre of Apologia that classical scholars and professional historians don't that allows you to be as certain as you evidently are certain about the worthlessness of "apologetic" sources both as evidence for the historicity, and as source for the teaching and career and biography, of the figure such literature speaks about?

I note with interest that despite my asking these questions before, you've ignored/dodged them altogether. May we now/finally have your answer -- which I hope will be a straight one -- to them?

Jeffrey

aa5874

Well, I guess Classical scholars can reconstruct Apollo and Achilles with Apologia from the ancient world.

The main problem with the NT and Church fathers is that their credibilty is near zero. Frankly, I do not consider much of the NT as Apologia, I think much of it is a pack of lies, with the sole intention of distorting history and leading people astray into thinking that a god called Jesus Christ was on earth in the 1st century.

No non-apologetic writer of antiquity have established that such a figure was ever on earth.

Eusebius in "Church History" claimed Jesus was a God, born of the Holy Ghost, and was living in Judaea with followers all over the world, this is not Apologia, this is a pack of lies.

Church History 1.5

Jeffrey Gibson

No one wrote apologia about them.

Then you have no understanding of what the NT is all about. Not have you ever defined "credibility" or, despite being asked many times, defind (let alone defended) what you criteria are with which you determine which ancient source is credible and which is not.

So why should anyone here accept your claims as valid?

Why would they?

Church History 1.5[/QUOTE]

Wow. You are just as good as Pete is in seeing what you want to see in a text that doesn't say what you claim it says.

In any case, are you going to answer my question about what you know about Apologia that classical scholars do not, or not?

Or are we to expect more dodges of it like the one above?

Jeffrey