> The opinion that you express here does not impact my reasoning...
It does not surprise that you are unfazed the the peer review process has been widely criticized; just plow ahead, J.
>If there were an academic writing published anywhere that successfully proved Jesus was God, this would be well known and widely reviewed.
What do you mean by "proved"?
You previously stated that such a paper would have to be "unquestionable convincing", but is there anything in the world that is unquestionable convincing? Flat earthers, holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, and etc abound.
Additionally is your "unquestionable convincing" evidence requirement your standard for everything and everyone [including yourself] or it just for things you don't like and viewpoints you don't hold?
Because if it is, and it should be, can you link to a peer-reviewed article that is "unquestionable convincing" in its proof that Jesus is not God? We'll see if there is a double standard at play.............
>This is the case regardless how flawed you think the peer review process is. However flawed it might be, it would still be taking place if such a paper existed.
Huh? Even if the process is flawed you still want to use it?!?!? J, you make no rational sense whatsoever. None.
>...nobody has ever been able to establish the likelihood of Jesus being God through such methods.
It is not true that there are no peer reviewed papers on Jesus' divinity.
Here is a journal for peer-reviewed articles
Here is a peer-reviewed article on The Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus but it includes arguments for Jesus' Divinity
And he wrote a whole book defending Jesus' Divinity But it isn't "a peer-reviewed article" so it doesn't meet your standards.
And none of those are going to meet your fallacious "unquestionable convincing" standard either, but nothing does - and that's kinda the point I guess.
>I was asking what would satisfy you here because from past experience I assume that whatever I say will not be satisfactory.
No, J, You made the claim the that J. Warner Wallace is ridiculous and dishonest and I'm still waiting for you to provide some sort reasoning for this. Where is it? Oh, and I guess I'm going to have to ask that this proof be "unquestionable convincing" since that is your standard.
>I also believe that anyone who actually read the book would never question the fact that Wallace compares the gospels to eye-witnesses. So either you are being pointlessly argumentative over something you actually agree with, or you never read the book.
I have never questioned the fact that Wallace compares the gospels to eye-witnesses but I'm not getting into what J. Warner Wallace wrote in CCC until you show the "unquestionable convincing" evidence or reasoning for your claim that J. Warner Wallace is ridiculous and dishonest.
>So assuming you never read the book
Incorrect assumption, J.
>if you want to go directly to the part where the author compares the gospels to eye-witness evidence, it starts on page 78 under the heading "The Gospel writers as eye-witnesses" and continues until page 85.
And this shows that J. Warner Wallace is ridiculous and dishonest?!?!?
I don't think so.