Common Gripe From Christian Apologists

[POI]

Below, is another example of a gripe I often ultimately encounter when debating Christians:

Here is additional evidence skeptics place a higher bar on anything the Bible claims to be true compared to extra-Biblical claims

Well, there is a reason for this....

In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible:

- Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias? YES
- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims which defy naturalism? YES

This means this publication is then set on higher alert. This is one of the reasons why the Biblical account is not just another line of evidence, and is instead scene with higher levels of scrutiny. IMHO, the Bible is one of the OG's of 'fake news'. But sure, sometimes even 'fake news' can have nuggets or kernels or truth within them, which is why Bible believers can debate some "facts" or "plausible considerations", in some cases.

For example, people are growing tired of all legacy media, or what many refer to as 'fake news'. Newer platforms are now being created, in the hopes of providing more objective, unopinionated, and/or unslanted reporting. But maybe this is not ultimately possible?

For debate: Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above apparent violation(s) to the historical method? Or, is it instead reasonable to, in a sense, "throw the baby out with the bath water?" Meaning, just discard all of it? Or is it somewhere in the middle? And if it is somewhere in the middle, how do we know where exactly to draw the proverbial line?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #60]

Okay, I was fully ready to move on to the other thread, but if you would like to continue here we will. You say "I have already debunked what you have stated above" which is a false statement, and that "it's not going to go very well for you". Well, I stand by the statements above and am willing to stay right here on this thread in order to determine how well it will go. As stated above, and elsewhere, the unfalsifiable claim argument was intended to be confined to science, and this argument you repeat from others has been defeated.

Now, we can stay here and continue this debate over the falsifiable claim, or we can move on to another point you simply repeat from others and take on that debate, or we can move on to the other thread you refer to, in which I have already started a response. The one thing I am not going to do is to move back and forth.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #61]

I designed a topic, just for you. All your arguments seem to ultimately funnel down to the same 'ol resurrection argument(s) anyways. Hence, let's just go to where you always have, and always do go. The topic created seems to encapsulate your core repeated argument(s). Let's vet them out. It is a one-stop-shop topic to rationally test your 'views'. You can start with question 1). We can fully explore that one and then move on to question 2) after 1) has been exhausted.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #62]

I have just gone back to read my first response on this thread, and I responded to every point in the OP. I cannot help the fact that the resurrection is the main point in what has been called the Bible, and I cannot help the fact that it really does not matter if the rest of the Bible is found to be unreliable. I also cannot help the fact that if it can be demonstrated to be unreasonable to believe the resurrection then "the whole house of cards comes crumbling down." I cannot help the fact that true belief in the resurrection is based upon real historical events which can be and has been examined. In other words, the belief in the resurrection is not a matter of faith but is rather a matter of analyzing the evidence. The point I am making is, it really does not matter the subject of the OP you create as far as debating Christianity, because in the end it is all going to come down to the resurrection, and this should be evident to any thinking person.

I also cannot help that the arguments you simply repeat which you have heard from others either do not matter, or do not apply. I decided to take on one point at a time in order to demonstrate this to be the case, which would keep the posts shorter in length, and now that I have debunked the falsifiable claim argument, you do not even attempt to defend or concede, but rather insist we move on to another thread. I have agreed to move on to this next thread, and I can assure you that you will get a break from me for at least a few days, but you continue to respond here, even after we agree to move on. I mean, do you want to move on? Or would you like to stay here and defend more of your arguments?

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #63]

Sheesh! Post 62 stands. Thanks

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #63]

Sheesh! Post 62 stands. Thanks

Great! See you on the other thread in a few days.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #63]

Sheesh! Post 62 stands. Thanks

Great! See you on the other thread in a few days.

In an effort for focus, can we agree to address the first question until exhaustion, before we decide (whether or not) we even need to address the second?

[RBD]

[Replying to POI in post #58]

My friend let's get away from the analogies and stick to the real thing. Because you see, since we have the real thing analogies are not needed. We know for a fact that Jesus was crucified and buried, and we also know there were those just days later who were claiming to have witnessed him alive after the crucifixion. We then go on to assume that these folks could not possibly be reporting the truth, until we apply the historical method and we discover that this would not even be possible. Again, even the critical scholars who would love to be able to make the case that this would be a possibility are forced to acknowledge that it would be impossible. The fact of the matter is it does not take a scholar to understand this would be impossible, because all one would have to do is to sit down and determine what all would have to be involved in order for it to be possible for the resurrection story to have been made up, and it does not take very long at all to understand just how impossible it would be.

Okay, then you move on. Since we know the story was not made up,

The conclusion is not necessarily proven. Believing by firsthand testimony, is not the same as knowing firsthand by experience. And in fact, the Bible itself says that such things are not meant to be physically proven by sight, but rather believed from the heart:

2Co 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight:

Jhn 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

However, the point is legitimate to a degree: Can the firsthand witnesses be believed, if not proven true with our own eyes. That's when it becomes a matter of character witness, in addition to testimonial evidence. In courts of law, the character of the witness is taken into account. A known fraud, thief, adulterer, etc...does not make for a good personal witness.

And so, it's not only the believability of the testimony about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but also the character of the ones recording it. Which is not just one but many, who all agree on the same thing. That would therefore include how they lived, and also the character of the things they write. Are the writings responsible and wise, or superficial and foolish?

I.e. just as the unseen things of the Bible are made believable by the unerring things that can be proven, so also is the testimony of the writers made believable by the character of their writings and lives.

Are the writers of Jesus' resurrection believable? What is their character? And if their lives and writings are honorable, wise, and good, then their testimony can certainly be believed, else we must accuse the apostles themselves of being frauds, or at best deluded fools.

The character of the writings and their writings allow for no in-between lip service.