Has the claim of "Seven eyewitness accounts" been

[Zzyzx]

.
Has the claim of "Seven eyewitness accounts" been convincingly substantiated?

One of the members has repeatedly referred to his research as demonstrating that there are seven accounts by eyewitnesses to the proposed empty tomb.

Has he demonstrated to your satisfaction that:

1) The accounts are actually from eyewitnesses?

2) The stories about eyewitness accounts are true and accurate?

3) His proposals are taken seriously by scholars and theologians (or debaters on various websites)?

4) There was a tomb and it was empty?

[UFO]

.
Has the claim of "Seven eyewitness accounts" been convincingly substantiated?

One of the members has repeatedly referred to his research as demonstrating that there are seven accounts by eyewitnesses to the proposed empty tomb.

Has he demonstrated to your satisfaction that:

1) The accounts are actually from eyewitnesses?

2) The stories about eyewitness accounts are true and accurate?

3) His proposals are taken seriously by scholars and theologians (or debaters on various websites)?

4) There was a tomb and it was empty?

Eyewitness accounts are suspect at best. Add to this the supernatural activity the bible seems to report on so many times, and the whole situation should be suspect.
It's good to doubt. More people should be skeptical, at least, of things that seem 'too good to be true' like they say.
For me, everyone's claims of first hand knowledge of just about any activity should be considered no more than 50% probably that what they're saying is true and factual in reality. Now that's not to say they don't believe what they saw is the way the describe it.
If you could take a smart phone or tablet back to the year 1490 and show the people, they would likely report to others of magic, witchcraft, god-like abilities and so on. They wouldn't report it as a smary phone or tablet; they'd report if like they interpreted it. Instead of facts, they embelish. I don't see that not being the case at any time in history - even today.

[Korah]

If you could some how prove the gospels are eye witness accounts you sir have done what no other archaeologist has ever been able to do. Please can you point me to the evidence that proves the identities of the anonymous writers of the gospel?

If you want to see what I have already presented here on DC&R, go to Post #7 here http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 62&start=0
where I list the posts at the relevant thread, "How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?"
Or you can look up on this current thread at Post #3 where I give links to where I have presented this in order without hunting for various posts.

[Zzyzx]

.

If you want to see what I have already presented here on DC&R,

Perhaps it is becoming apparent that others are NOT interested in what you present. The poll above indicates unanimous "thumbs down" to your eyewitness claims (zero to eight so far).

That being the case, it might be prudent to attempt to debate other topics without trying to reference your own non-accepted works.

[goodwithoutgod]

oooooh my turn my turn *waves hand high in the air*

I have 7 witnesses that saw the great purple unicorn last night fly over the moon and spray sprinkles of pure magic down upon them. As true believers they were all instantly blessed. The witnesses were Doc, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy and Dopey!

I kid, altho my tongue in cheek reference to a fairy tale may be purposeful

[Zzyzx]

.
The promoter of "Seven written eyewitness accounts" has posted in numerous threads complaining that no one wants to debate his thesis.

I suggest that the poll here indicates WHY there is little interest in debating the topic -- unanimous opinion (nine of nine votes) indicates that the thesis has not been substantiated. The promoter has indicated receiving similar lack of interest elsewhere.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 15 by Zzyzx]

All that this poll and the posts here indicate is that no one has bothered to read about the Thesis and find out whether it might be true. Apathy is not equivalent to disproof. It's almost as if there is no purpose to DC&R, or that its name is ironical.

How could anyone be definitely convinced about something that has not even been discussed yet?

[Zzyzx]

.

All that this poll and the posts here indicate is that no one has bothered to read about the Thesis and find out whether it might be true.

What evidence have you to support the suggestion / contention that "no one has bothered to read?" Many could have read and concluded there is nothing worthy of discussion.

Assuming without evidence in this case is similar to assuming without evidence that bible writers were witnesses. Not everyone is willing to accept opinions as facts or suppositions as truth.

Apathy is not equivalent to disproof.

Likewise, conjecture is not proof

It's almost as if there is no purpose to DC&R, or that its name is ironical.

Some who do not fare well in debate are inclined blame the Forum and its members rather than admitting to themselves that they have not presented convincing or compelling arguments.

How could anyone be definitely convinced about something that has not even been discussed yet?

How much discussion would it take to identify Peter Pan as fiction or fantasy?

I am willing to debate the "Seven written eyewitness accounts" in Head to Head sub-forum with strict adherence to Forum Rules and C&A Guidelines.

I have read your conjectures and consider them bunkum.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by Korah]

All I see in your posts are flagrant self promotionalism. Let's for the sake of argument assume you have a valid hypothesis. It would best, be left to discuss it thusly. Your posts in other threads have needlessly derailed them precisely because your thesis is debatable. You e

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by Korah]

All I see in your posts are flagrant self promotionalism. Let's for the sake of argument assume you have a valid hypothesis. It would best, be left to discuss it thusly. Your posts in other threads have needlessly derailed them precisely because your thesis is debatable. You have to prove your hypothesis everytime you enter into debate using it and the conversations always end up revolving around your thesis and not the topic post.

Now having read your thesis, I have many issues with it. These problems centrally revolve around the reliance on assumptions and presuppositions. This invites confirmation bias and poor scholarship.

Additionally in the threads you have posted in you complain no one read your thesis but that could be a fault on your part. Much of your posts require the reader to hunt and peck through a variety of threads to reach any semblance of a point. As each posts refers back to another pist which refers to another post which refers to another post . This leads people on a wild goose chase that most people do not wosh to participate in. Why don't you simply link your thesis in your signature so people dont have to hunt and peck?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 18 by DanieltheDragon]
Unfortunately, Daniel,
Like most forums, DC&R insists the argument be brought here, not just linked (as I did in Post #4 in this thread). So Post #4 here does also link to where I have presented my case for each of the seven written eyewitness accounts in the thread, "How can we determine which parts of scripture are true?" The seven main posts of mine there are #43, 59, 62, 82, 83, 97 and 101. I knew it would be foolish to present all seven in one extremely long post. They fit in exactly with the title of the thread.

You charge me with derailing threads. Actually I step into threads already derailed by false claims that we know there were no eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus. My Thesis itself arose in reaction against similar New Atheist falsehoods. While it is legitimate to believe and write that no eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus, it is untrue that this is a fact that is known. These people also get tangled up with whether we are talking about a final version of a canonical gospel as against a source within some of them. Most scholars do admit that Q and the Passion Narrative could have been written early enough that an eyewitness could have written them.

As for your idea about a link in my signature block, this website does not have a blog section nor do I have a blog of my own. The neatest connection is to a website that does not allow non-Christians to post. That defeats my purpose to get feedback to help improve the Thesis.