Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
You seem to have missed my point. The "reasonable explanations" are addressed in the discussions. They don't stand up.
Isn't it obvious? The details provided in the Bible are not sufficient to identify a place and time where a witness or skeptic would have to be. Let's use one of your own exapmples:
OK, let's assume that I'm a 2nd century Jew with detailed records of carpentry competitions in Tyre throughout the 1st century.

The day of the resurrection. Hmmm. That was... when, exactly?

Do you see the problem here?

Let's suppose Jesus DID compete, during the Passover season in 32 AD. How could this disprove the resurrection?
Because it is true that plenty of modern Christian apologists fail to mention refutations. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to suppose that plenty of ancient Christian sources would have been no better. Only SOME Christian sources preserve and correctly present arguments of opponents.
Thank you for proving my point.
No. Quite apart from the whole issue of the impossiblility of skeptical "eyewitnesses" if the event was fictional, there probably wouldn't BE surviving eyewitnesses after many decades. We're not talking 2 or 3 decades here, but at least 5, and maybe 8 or more.
Can you bring me one of the bodies of the dragons that now inhabit Babylon, or tell me which Egyptian cities speak Caananite? Or maybe you should chat to an inhabitant of a city which would "never again be inhabited", like Tyre?
...Why?

You are still assuming that the events described actually happened. FICTIONAL events can be engineered very easily by the author.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. YOU claimed they were "uneducated".
No, I'm talking about the author of the book. Is there any good reason to believe that he WAS a fisherman from Galilee?
I created a thread specifically to address part of this proof: E/C split from "Is Lack of Evidence a form of Evidence?"

You have yet to respond to it.
...And my new thread, which you ignored. But we are familiar with Christian apologists who insist that skeptics have "misinterpreted" Biblical verses. Apparently, their sole criterion is "I don't like the author's conclusions". Can you provide evidence that Farrel Till has indeed misinterpreted the Gospel of Matthew?

While you're at it:
(emphasis mine)

Please present your evidence that somebody who knew Jesus actually left records, or admit that your statement "which is untrue" is merely dogma.

I also noticed this:
Please explain why YOU use a document that is known to have errors and is not above reproach and use this as the SOLE basis of all your claims...

bfniii

isn't that a claim?

Diogenes the Cynic

No, it's a question.

Rameus

Because Western Civilization suffers from a cultural concussion. We've been assuming the veracity of his historicity for so long that the position is entrenched to the point where it's going to take a small army of Ph.D.'s to properly besiege it.

Rameus

bfniii

To whom?

The problem with your scenario is that you’re assuming that a 2nd century jew would not have or know where to get this information.

Additionally, doesn’t the bible specifically mention the place of the resurrection?

Interesting question. How could He be in two places at once?

Which ones?

Curious. How do we know that first or second century Christians intentionally avoided or maliciously destroyed opposition?

Furthermore, why do you assume that only Christians were able to preserve or not preserve documents? How could Christians have destroyed every single refutation from anywhere and anytime that they wanted to?

I don’t see how this proves your point. I am asking you for specific examples of these alleged failures. So far, you have been unable to provide any contradictions or failed prophecies in the bible that aren’t the product of biblical misinterpretation.

This response seems to have two dichotomous views. Is the response assuming the gospels are fictional or not? If not, that they chronicle an actual event, then I don’t see how someone can assume no eyewitnesses survived five centuries later.

If you are assuming the gospels are fictional, why do you do so? This point is something I have been unable to get a skeptic to answer from the very first page of the thread. What constitutes as evidence? How do we know anything from a first century author is true?

Since Babylon doesn’t exist anymore, it would stand to reason that the first prophecy you cite was fulfilled. The second prophecy has been, at least in part, fulfilled by the spread of Christianity there to Egypt. And the last:

“fulfilled as to the mainland Tyre, under Nebuchadnezzar. The insular Tyre recovered partly, after seventy years (Isaiah 23:17,18), but again suffered under Alexander, then under Antigonus, then under the Saracens at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Now its harbors are choked with sand, precluding all hope of future restoration, "not one entire house is left, and only a few fishermen take shelter in the vaults" [MAUNDRELL]. So accurately has God's word come to pass.� Jamieson, fausset, brown commentary.

So far, any specific mention by you of biblical error has been the product of misinterpretation. Got any others?

Here again we see the assumption that the gospels are fictional without having established such. If they are not fictional, then there is no way authors could have engineered the events of the gospels.

Not they, john. Matthew certainly had the opportunity to have had a prior education.

Why would we not?

I apologize for my tardiness. I am moving into a new house. Please bear with me. I am being asked to take part in 3 other forums so I am getting stretched, but I will make it there asap.

The evolution thread??

What specific instance are you referring to?

Is there a reason or proof that what the bible claims, eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry, is untrue? As I have stated before, I am asking what your version of events is and why anyone should believe it.

We’re still missing these errors……….

how so?

why would it not be the basis of the Christian claims?

bfniii

you state that "skeptics don't make claims" which is itself a claim. then you state that they require proof of other's claims which is another claim thus contradicting your original statement.

my main question is why anyone should take you seriously with this cowardly approach to history. you flippantly advocate an unfalsifiable position, that of criticizing a particular historical narrative without providing an alternate version of events (i.e., "x didn't happen but y did and here's why"). stopping short of providing your own explanation is unscholarly.

Rameus

Isn't that the approach that scientific creationists (read: religious fundamentalists) take in their efforts to bring down the Theory of Evolution? They spend 99% of their time railing against evolution, and 1% of their time articulating an alternative scientific narrative. Flood Geology surely is a well fleshed out theory...

(Flood Geology)
I’m guessing that perhaps Diogenes the Cynic is not providing an alternate historical narrative for the sake of brevity. I am guilty of this myself on a regular basis, as constructing such a narrative can be time consuming. Just a thought.

Rameus

Amaleq13

Welcome to IIDB if nobody has said it already! While I understand your analogy, I strongly suspect that, because it involves a 'hot button' issues like evolution that it is highly likely to create a significant tangent in an already problematic thread. I must ask anyone posting to refrain from contributing to a potentially lethal derailment. If you want to debate evolution/creationism, take it over to that forum. Thanks in advance.

I don't want to speak for Diogenes but he may not have provided it simply because it isn't necessary to do so in order to conclude that an asserted claim is not credible. The notion that one must offer an alternative explanation when concluding that an asserted explanation is not believable is without any basis in logic or reason and is just another way of attempting shift the burden of proof.

Rameus

Thumped_Bible_Head's criticisms were made in the context of historical discussion. In that respect he is quite right. I was merely pointing out to Mr. Thumped_In_Head_With_Bible that although it may not be proper historical manners, some of us are trying to be conservative with our time and as such we don't always articulate lengthy alternative narratives.

Rameus

Diogenes the Cynic

I was trying to make the point that the skeptical position is one that *asks* for proof of assertions rather than making assertions of one's own.
As Amaleq said, it is not necessary to provide "alternative explanations" in order to show that a postulated position is flawed or unproven.

I am making no assertion as to what DID happen, I'm only pointing out that your version of events is unproven at best and contains serious plausibility problems as well.