“Reverned Phillip Brown" Defends the Bible

Since you had a problem with the phase “conclusive evidence”, lets narrow the debate down to:

Be it resolved: There is no historical evidence for any of the Hebrew Bible’s (Old Testament’s) Israelite personalities named in the New Testament.

(This would include among others, the Patriarchs, Moses, the Prophets, King David and King Solomon; all believed to have existed by Jesus.)  

Now your criticisms of John's Blog and the list of your rules each followed by my response: 

"I have recently realized that the reason I have not got anywhere with you on this blog is because there are no rules to comment paradigms or any boundaries what so ever. Loudest voice wins on this blog.

So here is the challenge, if you are up to it (which I doubt). And if you really are serious about finding truth or just want to blog and trying and promote books and atheism then I suggest you take me on.

If you or anyone of this blog can adhere to these rules I will engage and show how your are wrong. The rules are...

1      1. My comments are meant to express my point of view. Not anything to do with my job, religious affliction or anything outside my personal academic preference.

Reply:  This is a given fact, but somewhat skewed rule as your background makes you what you are and who I’ll be debating, but more importantly, why you want to debate me.   By this statement, I assume you are worried that a poor performance might hurt the very Biblical faith you hope to defend.   I accept this rule.

       2. Comments should be brief (preferably under 100 words), polite, constructive and informed.

Reply:  This is fine with me.  I trust you are fully aware of the burden of proof you have taken on.    I accept this rule.

       3. Comments, which, are simply attacks on myself, or are done in bad taste, or use rude language, or are possibly defamatory, will not be responded too.

Reply: The use of theology as apologetic proof is a proof of religion and not a proof of the historicity of the Bible.  Apart from this, I accept this rule. 

       4. You must state your full name and city or state or country and occupation for met to respond.

Reply:  My personal address and information is well known to any who has read my Google Profile, Facebook Page or Disqus Profile.   I expect the same from you.  Fact is, other than your name, Reverend Phillip Brown (which may or may not be a pseudonym), I can find nothing about your address or any other personal information on your location or about you . . . fair is fair.   You must agree to your own rule.

5.  I may reply to some of your comments but will not be able to respond to all to avoid avalanche blogging. I will give you (John Loftus) final call as the blog holder to call which comment [1 to 2] or which post [ 1 to 2] I should best answer. I will  only do one at a time. And will take my time.

Reply:  This debate should be topic focused.   Any comments or questions readers inject will be allowed to stand, but it will be up to us whether or not they will be addressed.  (I will not address or respond to religious dogmatic / doctrinal apologetic arguments.)  As stated, I accept this rule.  

If you agree to your own rules, then after your response to Rule 4, I'll allow you the opening statement.