Jack the Bodiless

Given your ongoing failure to visit any of the three spinoff threads from this one (all created specifically for you), your ability to present plausible explanations of these is in question...
I certainly hope you never get called for jury service. A suspect's alibi is valid for all time? If CCTV shows him in a mall on Christmas Eve 2001, he can't have committed a murder on Christmas Eve 2003?

I get the impression you've entirely lost touch with the arguments on this thread.
Already addressed by others here.
Except that they DON'T make any such claims, and there is no evidence that they EVER made any such claims. And if they NEVER made any such claims: how would our hypothetical skeptic proceed?
The creationist ones fail to cite transitional fossils, and (in many cases) blatantly ignore the many, many articles in which scientists explain the very simple fact that evolution does NOT contradict thermodynamics.

As for apologists: well, obviously that varies from one apologist to another.
The Christians of medieval Europe had a quaint custom of setting fire to many of the books (and, indeed, many of the people) identified as non-Christian. They certainly didn't admit them into the monasteries, where the copying was done.
I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but you do seem to have a reading comprehension problem here.

The fate of the Gospel of Mary is clear, undeniable, absolute proof that Christians did NOT, in fact, copy every book they had access to.

Now, if you're saying that you DO have a perfect, complete copy of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene in your possession: many people will be very interested.
Nope. they haggled and voted to decide the canon.

Nag Hammadi was a dump for books rejected from the canon.
You seem to have lost the thread of the argument again. We're talking about the SKEPTICAL eyewitnesses: the people who were there and saw nothing. These are the people our hypothetical Jew is looking for.

Why would anyone pass on a story about NOT seeing Jesus walk on the water at Galilee, if we're assuming that the story that he DID wasn't circulating until decades later?

I'm pretty sure that I did NOT see Osama Bin Laden walk across the Red Sea when I was in the area a few years ago. Should I have passed that on, just in case somebody decades in the future claims that he did?
Why are you not addressing this on the correct thread?

Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to WIN (he lost), and he was supposed to DESTROY Tyre (he didn't), so that it would remain UNINHABITED (it isn't). Even Ezekiel knew that the prophecy failed, that's why he claimed that God offered Nebuchadnezzar victory over Egypt as compensation for the Tyre fiasco!

Now, if you want to discuss this further: do it on the correct thread!

And it might be wise not to accuse people of "misinterpretation" when you cannot cite any specific example of a clear misinterpretation of the text. "I don't like that interpretation" doesn't mean that your opponent is necessarily mistaken, expecially if you're the one using a "figurative" interpretation without justification.
Covered on one of the spinoff threads: Shredding the Gospels
You seem to be "drifting" again. Why should YOU (or any other Christian) use it as the basis of YOUR claims?

In other words: why be a Christian at all? Or, if you like: why not be a "liberal" Christian? Why cling to the doctrine of inerrancy?

bfniii

there is certainly nothing wrong with asking for proof of something. however, in order for you to do so, you already have some a priori belief to be disloged from. otherwise, you would never have a reason to ask the question in the first place. you may not have articulated your version, but it is there by default. if you claim that is incorrect, then you are taking an agnostic approach and simply state there isn't enough facts to ever know for sure. logically, there is no middle ground because you either believe it can be known or not. if not, agnostic. if so, you have a belief. you have yet to successfully refute this logical position.

amaleq may say that all day, but that does nothing to refute the logical impossibility of it. until that happens, the skeptical position is getting misrepresented here.

bfniii

it has been made clear in this thread that what you refer to is not a form of evidence.

two problems here
1. lack of evidence - from whom? in what form?
2. one - to whom does this refer

how did you hear about the story if none survives? the answer is, it does survive.

how are they a problem?

i have addressed this in other posts. it is a riduculous assertion that the christians and only the christians controlled every document everywhere.

what is independent?

what makes you certain?

i do. where do we go from here?

what is your perception of reality?

why?

there is a substantial amount of subjectivity in this post.

Amaleq13

I'll accept whatever curse is appropriate for violating my Dogma vow because this is simply too ridiculous for me to ignore.

False. Requiring evidence to support a claim results from nothing more than a desire to avoid accepting a false claim as true. No prior belief about the claim is necessary.

False. "I don't know" is not the same as "No answer is possible." Even taking the position you describe above, however, does not preclude you from identifying a given explanation as unbelievable.

There is nothing "logically impossible" about the following statement:

"I don't know what actually happened, if anything, but I do find your explanation to be unbelievable."

More relevant to your general argument is the fact that, even if the person does have a specific idea about what happened, they are under no logical obligation to offer it before, during or after their consideration of your explanation. In other words, there is nothing "logically impossible" about simply stating:

"I do not find your explanation to be believable."

Contrary to your repeated insistance, there is no logical requirement for an opposing explanation when one is critically examining an offered claim.

Sparrow

I think it’s time to close this thread. For 13 pages and nearly 100 posts, bfniii has:

- maintained that a document should be assumed to be true unless proven false
- maintained that one must postulate an alternate set of events to prove another set of events false
- failed to provide substantiation for his for his claims
- attempted to refute others claims with little more than sentence fragments such as ‘how so’, ‘not everyone believes this’ or ‘so say some’

Since no progress is being made, I think this thread has served its purpose and needs closure after bfniii has made a final post.

Diogenes the Cynic

The mods concur (well, at least two of us do). We will give bfniii a little time to make a final post and this lock this monster up.

Amaleq13

Make that "three" but I defer to the opinion(s) of those mods who have not been regular participants.

I would also encourage bfniii to participate in the thread you recently started: Shredding the Gospels

There he will find the burden appropriately placed on a claimant other than himself.

Jack the Bodiless

I concur (mostly: though I doubt that bfniii has anything to contribute to a "final post"). I'd also like to add that bfniii has:

-maintained that a document should be assumed to be entirely true despite parts of it being proven false, failed to address those disproofs, and continued to ask for disproofs despite being given ample opportunity to address those already given.

In addition to Shredding the Gospels, I will repost the links to:

E/C split from "Is Lack of Evidence a form of Evidence?"

Biblical Errors split from "Lack of Evidence..." thread

Diogenes the Cynic

We've given bfniii a day to make a final post. That's long enough. Any response bfniii would like to make can be made in any of the above linked threads. I'm putting a fork in this one.