There can’t be evidence. It is faith, corroborated by testimonials.
I’m just making a distinction between what I referred to as “traditionally Christian” versus other.
What’s wrong with stating the traditional view re: the concept of divine inspiration, when that’s what this thread is about?
I never dismiss out-of-hand. If he says he’s got good evidence, I will take a good look at it.
Even the contents of ‘the bible’ is not agreed to between Catholics who have 73 books in their bibles and Protestants, who have 66 books in their bibles.
Testimony is a type of evidence.
Just establishing that your definition of “Traditionally Christian” means “Christians that follow my beliefs and traditions”.
I’m a believer, a Christian, and I’ve been studying the bible for decades. I think I know what he means by ‘evidence’, but I’m pretty sure it’s not evidence. But I’ll let him speak. I’ll look, too.
It is yet to be established what EscAlaMike means by “good evidence”.
Right, but it’s the type of evidence that one can choose to believe, or not. Testimony certainly is not fact accepted by most all people, like the earth is round (okay, oblate spheroid).
Forget the flat earthers, here.
We’ve been down this road before. A rabbit trail like that might get shut down by a mod.
I believe the evidence supports the apostolic authorship of the Gospels during the first century, and I believe that they were written as biographies, not embellishments. Brant Pitre makes very good arguments to this effect.
I’ve read competing arguments from scholars like Bart Ehrman, and don’t find them convincing.
So it is okay to state that there is good evidence, but it becomes troublesome for you when it comes to presenting it?
Disappointed…but not surprised.
LOL, ok then.
I’m not the arbiter of truth. I follow “traditional Christianity” because I believe it to be true. It’s not true because I follow it. It’s not the least bit dependent on me.
There was a time when I didn’t follow traditional Christianity, and I would have said that traditional Christianity was corrupt and possibly evil.
I’m not a scholar myself. All I can do is read other people’s arguments and make a judgment.
I have some books at home. I’m not at home right now. Maybe this evening I can find you some citations.
All religions are followed by people, and led by people, and thus are inherently flawed by the human condition — greed, power, corruption, and sex and drugs and rock-and-roll. 
I’m sorry, but without evidence all I’ve got to go on is that you believe what you believe when it come to Christianity, and thus define it according to those beliefs. There is no dictionary definition of “Traditional Christianity” that aligns with the definition that you have provided.
And other people that follow other sects pretty much do the same, and most of them do not consider themselves to be non-traditional 15th or 16th century Johnny-Come-Latelys.
Well sure, the term “traditional Christianity” could mean very different things to different people.
When I say “traditional Christianity” I am referring to the deposit of faith that has been handed down from the Apostles from the 1st Century and preserved in the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Protestant Reformation and all of its products are a deviation from “traditional Christianity”.
There is such a thing as “traditional Protestant Christianity”, though that can be imprecise as well, but that’s not what I mean.
Maybe so. Maybe they need to be more critical of what they believe and why.
So when you say “Traditional” you actually mean “Catholic”.
Why not just use the term “Catholic”…unless this is to establish that, if it isn’t of your particular sect, it can’t be traditional?
Holy snap.