Is Jesus or Rumour effective today?

[marco]

Many claim that Christ still has a direct influence on them today. They are perhaps influenced by John 6:37, He that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. But he led those that followed him into torture and death; he could not save himself, and found no words to defend himself against the charges brought. He advocated tolerance and peace then lost his temper in the temple. He did not write anything that can be analysed, but leaving it to those that didn't know him he entrusted himself to rumour.


Is it Christ who has influence today, or the multi-national religions that built churches on his bones?

And is the personal Christ who whispers in the night nothing more than the sober voice of conscience and hope? Does it matter?

[marco]

It is only absurd, if it can be demonstrated that there is no, God, which as far as I know has not been demonstrated.

The problem with this line is that we can introduce God anywhere. He becomes the answer to anything, and changes absurdity into mystery. A man is seen with seventeen heads and five tails. Yep, God made it so.

I see nothing that would call into question these men's credibility?

The absurdity of what they claim is sufficient for us to question their credibility. One of the valued reporters, somebody called Matthew, has corpses walking to Jerusalem. I think he's lying here, so why should I accept resurrections when one of the valued reporters is a liar.

The point is, this sort of demonstrates how things work out when you have those who are attempting to conceal what they know to be false. In other words, eventually the stories will begin to unravel, to the point that there will be those who will decide to recant.

Is that how things work? Lies are always discovered, are they? In the case under discussion we're not concerned with a few people telling us lies, then changing their story. The story has been changed again and again and various religions built on whatever version is put forward. Perhaps we will one day know the truth and dismiss the resurrection conclusively. The original plotters are long dead, unfortunately, but the tale they told is still absurd. Here are some offshoots:

(a) Jesus was a good preacher, helped by God (b) Jesus was God himself (c) Something called the Holy Ghost was also God, but still that makes just one God. (d) Jesus was Michael the Archangel. (e) Jesus didn't die on the cross - God let somebody else die for him or God deceived everyone into thinking Jesus was dead.

Which has been exactly my point. In other words, science cannot help us out in this situation, but for some strange reason you continue to appeal to science.

Some simple Arab says he saw a dead body walking. Why do we overturn natural law to accept the word of this individual? Paul reports what he says he heard - as many as 500 saw Jesus risen. Could he count to 500? Paul is the man who heard God shouting from the sky.
A credible witness?

Nature does not need to be overturned in order to believe a resurrection may have occurred. If a resurrection did indeed occur, nature would continue to be nature, and a resurrection would rarely occur, if ever again.

For all we know corpses are conversing in graves as we speak. You are introducing another world into our own on the basis of some testimony of vague individuals whose sanity we know nothing about. It is your privilege to believe what seems utter rubbish but there's no good reason to abandon what we know.

If I am forced to guess an explanation I believe that some reasonably intelligent folk, with Christ, planned for years. Perhaps Christ had a look-alike. His visitation lasted a mere three years but the planning may have taken twice that time, for Christ appeared quite mysteriously, "choosing" simple men to follow him. Simple men are gullible men. Once stories arose of deaf and blind cures (the people weren't deaf or blind at all) then other miracles were added. The entire wonder industry rose up and continued its growth when Jesus vanished to wherever he was taken. He did not ascend to the moon - we can speculate why this story was told. Lies or some sort of clever hypnosis? Was Jesus in control of his simple followers?

Whatever is the natural reason for the legend of Jesus we may never know. Finding a flaw in our guesses does not mean we MUST accept a resurrection. We just need better guesses.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 51 by marco]

The problem with this line is that we can introduce God anywhere. He becomes the answer to anything, and changes absurdity into mystery. A man is seen with seventeen heads and five tails. Yep, God made it so.

Your problem here is the fact that, we are not talking about a claim from someone that, "A man is seen with seventeen heads and five tails" with no other facts, or evidence in support, besides "God did it." Rather, we are speaking about numerous folks claiming there was a resurrection, with an abundance of facts, and evidence in support.

As an example, the most critical scholars agree,

1. Jesus was crucified

2. His burial in a tomb

3. The discovery his tomb was empty

4. There was indeed a claim of a resurrection which was said to be the cause of the empty tomb

5. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite every predisposition to the contrary

As I said, even the most critical scholars agree on these facts, because they understand the evidence is overwhelming. Moreover, even you yourself have enough understanding to acknowledge the fact that some sort of explanation must, and has to be given, and you have admitted to us that, any explanation would be satisfactory, as long as it does not involve one you do not prefer.

With all this being the case, this surely demonstrates that what we are talking about would in no way come close to comparing to one claiming, "A man is seen with seventeen heads and five tails."

All of this demonstrates, that you indeed do have far more faith and confidence in the Apostles, then I ever could, because you seem to be under the impression that they were able to accomplish this all on their own................. Oh yeah, I forgot about your possibility that, "the magician did it."

So we cannot say, "God may have been involved", but we can certainly suggest, "the magician did it?" Or, "A small boy did it and ran away?" Any answer would seem to suffice for you, no matter how absurd it would be, as long as it is not one you do not prefer. It has nothing to do with what may be true, as opposed to false.

In fact, it really has nothing to do with the "absurd" in the least as far as you are concerned, since your answers are indeed absurd. Rather, you happen to "prefer" one absurdity, over another.

The absurdity of what they claim is sufficient for us to question their credibility.

No, it is sufficient for you. On the other hand, there have been billions of folks with whom, this would not be, "sufficient" because they are not simply satisfied with answers that are more "preferable" to them, no matter how absurd they may be, but are rather more concerned about the answer that seems to best answer all the facts, and evidence involved.

One of the valued reporters, somebody called Matthew, has corpses walking to Jerusalem. I think he's lying here, so why should I accept resurrections when one of the valued reporters is a liar.

Here you go from simply, "thinking he's lying" which would be the correct position, to insisting that "he was lying", and you can in no way demonstrate such a thing.

If you, "think he was lying" and do not believe the reports because of this, then I have no problem at all. However, if you insist he was lying, then you now own the burden to demonstrate your claim. Good luck!

Is that how things work? Lies are always discovered, are they?

No! This is not what I said. I have told many lies, as I am sure most folks have, that have never been discovered. What I was speaking of was, when a group of people get together, and attempt to hold a lie together of such a magnitude as a resurrection, or witnessing some sort of miraculous golden tablets.

So let us compare again. There were numerous folks who claim to have witnessed the golden tablets. There were even more folks who claim to have seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion. We have numerous folks who began to recant there testimony as far as the golden tablets. On the other hand, we do not hear a peep from history concerning any of those who were claiming a resurrection who recanted, and overwhelming evidence that would demonstrate that they continued to proclaim these same things, well into their old age.

Moreover, those who were proclaiming the resurrection, were doing so in the face of persecution which can be demonstrated, and some were even put to death, and imprisoned for what they were claiming.

Now, how does that really compare? Not very well, my friend! Not very well, at all.

In the case under discussion we're not concerned with a few people telling us lies, then changing their story.

Correct! It would be more than a "few."

The story has been changed again and again and various religions built on whatever version is put forward.

But, we are not concerned about, "whatever version is put forward." Rather, we are only concerned about what, the original claimed witnesses put forward.

Perhaps we will one day know the truth and dismiss the resurrection conclusively.

"PERHAPS"..................? According to you I thought we could already know the truth, and the truth would be whatever absurd explanation that would be put forth, as long as it was not the one that we did not prefer?

Or, "perhaps" we will all come to understand the resurrection did in fact take place, and all embrace it as the truth.

Does that sound like any sort of argument to you? If not, then what makes you "think" it is any sort of argument?

The original plotters are long dead, unfortunately, but the tale they told is still absurd.

Right, and moreover consuming your life.

However, I would like to point out that since you seem to insist there must have been "plotters" (i.e. the magician must have done it) you are thereby admitting that something extraordinary happened, that must have some sort of explanation.

It is sort of like you understand with the critical scholars,

1. Jesus was crucified

2. His burial in a tomb

3. The discovery his tomb was empty

4. There was indeed a claim of a resurrection which was said to be the cause of the empty tomb

5. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite every predisposition to the contrary

However, you have not in any way demonstrated that the reports of a resurrection would be false. Rather, all you have done is to demonstrate to us that, this answer is not one that you would prefer.

But the problem is, what you would prefer, does not demonstrate a thing, just as the many Christians who would prefer a resurrection to be the case, does not demonstrate a thing. However, what you continue to demonstrate is that there is very good, and solid evidence to support a resurrection.

Because you see, all these explanations you would prefer, turn out to be just as absurd. The problem comes in when one is satisfied with simply throwing any explanation out there, without really thinking through all that would have to be involved, because when one really begins to think through these other "so called" scenarios that would be preferable, they become just as absurd, if not even more absurd, than the resurrection.

Here are some offshoots:

(a) Jesus was a good preacher, helped by God (b) Jesus was God himself (c) Something called the Holy Ghost was also God, but still that makes just one God. (d) Jesus was Michael the Archangel. (e) Jesus didn't die on the cross - God let somebody else die for him or God deceived everyone into thinking Jesus was dead.

My friend the "offshoots" matter none at all. The question is not in the least as to what many others may have done, and have began to teach as far as what is contained in the Bible. Rather, all that really matters is if what they proclaim, is actually proclaimed by those you refer to as the, "original plotters."

Some simple Arab says he saw a dead body walking.

The problem here, as it continues to be is, it is not as simple as you make it out to be, and you demonstrate as much, by insisting there must, and has to be another explanation for these extraordinary events. If it were as simple as you say here, there would be no reason in the world for you to continue to argue about it. But the fact that you do, demonstrates that it is not that simple.

Why do we overturn natural law to accept the word of this individual?

My friend, if the evidence supports such a thing, and all other explanations fail to answer the questions, then there is no question at this point that there is very good, and solid reasons to believe in the explanations that passes all the tests to explain the events.

Moreover, and again, "natural law" does not have to be overturned, because as we see, natural law continues as it always has, in that as far as I know, there has not been another claim in which a resurrection best explains all the facts involved.

Paul reports what he says he heard - as many as 500 saw Jesus risen. Could he count to 500? Paul is the man who heard God shouting from the sky.
A credible witness?

You continue to fail to see the point. It has nothing to do with Paul, as far as Paul being a credible witness. The question here is, would Paul, and the rest of this bunch be able to orchestrate all the facts, and evidence in such a way as to support a resurrection, in the face of persecution, and in the face of those whom we know would have been very much opposed, and continue to do so, well into their life?

This is why I continue to say that, "you have far more faith in these folks than I ever would." Moreover, when you begin to suggest that maybe it was not these men, but maybe others behind the scene who may have orchestrated all these things, it then begins to be, even more absurd, and demonstrates clearly that there must be very good, and solid reasons to believe the resurrection, otherwise there would be no reason for those to come up with such absurd alternatives, which certainly demonstrates, desperation.

For all we know corpses are conversing in graves as we speak.

You can continue to throw the absurd out there, but it continues to fail. Because you see, we have no facts, or evidence to suggest that there may be, "corpses conversing in graves." However, we do have very good, and solid evidence to support a resurrection, and you continue to demonstrate this, the more we converse.

You are introducing another world into our own on the basis of some testimony of vague individuals whose sanity we know nothing about.

What we do know is, folks who have "sanity" problems, usually are not able to work together in order to orchestrate all the facts, and evidence, such as we have for the resurrection, and to continue on with these things well into their life. This is not how, insanity works.

Rather, this would seem to have to involve those with well trained minds, discipline, and many years of planning, as you suggest below.

Moreover, we would have to suggest that all of these folks were insane, which then begins to become absurd. Next, if we admit that we "know nothing of their sanity", then we admit that they could have been, perfectly sane. The question becomes, could all these folks being insane, pull all these things off, which has lasted so long, and continues to consume folks such as yourself?

It is your privilege to believe what seems utter rubbish but there's no good reason to abandon what we know.

We can sit here and simply call what each of us believe, "rubbish" because I will assure you that I believe what you proclaim to be just that. However, it demonstrates nothing, which demonstrates that it is better to stick to the facts.

If I am forced to guess an explanation I believe that some reasonably intelligent folk, with Christ, planned for years. Perhaps Christ had a look-alike. His visitation lasted a mere three years but the planning may have taken twice that time, for Christ appeared quite mysteriously, "choosing" simple men to follow him. Simple men are gullible men. Once stories arose of deaf and blind cures (the people weren't deaf or blind at all) then other miracles were added. The entire wonder industry rose up and continued its growth when Jesus vanished to wherever he was taken. He did not ascend to the moon - we can speculate why this story was told. Lies or some sort of clever hypnosis? Was Jesus in control of his simple followers?

If I were you, I really do not believe I would use the word, "absurd" again, and this sort of demonstrates, that it is far better to stick to the facts we have, instead of simply throwing out "guesses" that is even more absurd than if these folks were reporting the truth. Your explanation here is more absurd than many of the Elvis sightings. GOOD GRIEF!

Whatever is the natural reason for the legend of Jesus we may never know. Finding a flaw in our guesses does not mean we MUST accept a resurrection. We just need better guesses.

You are certainly correct that you "need better guesses", which continues to demonstrate that there is very good, and solid reasons to believe a resurrection took place, because it is certainly a far better explanation, than your,"guesses."

To end here, while I like you, would prefer not to believe in the resurrection, the more we converse, the more I am convinced that I am correct to continue to believe, there is very good reasons to come to the conclusions I have.

[marco]

As I said, even the most critical scholars agree on these facts,

We're not disputing facts, just their interpretation.

..... Oh yeah, I forgot about your possibility that, "the magician did it."

Unfortunately you are denied the right to be ironic in this way since you yourself are claiming magic. There was some deception, coupled perhaps with exaggeration. Because Jim says a corpse rose from the dead is no reason to believe Jim. As for my "faith" in the reporters I have none: they were simple men, duped, deceived or starry eyed about explanations. Jesus wasn't recognised when people saw him : conclusion, it wasn't Jesus. Your conclusion seems to be it MUST have been Jesus, because later they DID recognise him.

Any answer would seem to suffice for you, no matter how absurd it would be

This is amusing. I am on the side that condemns absurd claims. You think that because the Church built a huge institution on the myth of Jesus, it MUST be true, for here we are discussing it 2000 years on. To deny the truth - you think - is absurd. The truth is that many claims have been built on the figure of Jesus. Of course we can build an institution on a lie. Billions believe Muhammad spoke to God and got his Koran from heaven. Is that less remarkable?

However, if you insist he was lying, then you now own the burden to demonstrate your claim. Good luck!

Will a wry smile suffice? Corpses of "holy" man rose up and walked. And you say: "Prove that did not happen." We are indeed in what you like to call fantasy land. Walking corpses - possible. Church built on myth - absurdity.

What I was speaking of was, when a group of people get together, and attempt to hold a lie together of such a magnitude as a resurrection, or witnessing some sort of miraculous golden tablets.

But nobody's claiming this. They may well have sincerely believed. So what?

On the other hand, we do not hear a peep from history concerning any of those who were claiming a resurrection who recanted, and overwhelming evidence that would demonstrate that they continued to proclaim these same things, well into their old age.

This is silly - dead people do not speak. Years after Jesus died stories were written about him. He had a miracle birth with angels singing and later he raised his pal from the dead.... and much more. Importantly the Roman state eventually accepted Christian superstitions. We are dealing with the strength of human politics.

Moreover, those who were proclaiming the resurrection, were doing so in the face of persecution which can be demonstrated, and some were even put to death, and imprisoned for what they were claiming.

Do you know their names and what they claimed? It is true Rome suppressed early Christianity as a pernicious superstition opposed to Roman customs. Christians were given the chance to recant: some did, some didn't. Catholic and Protestants likewise went to their deaths for their opposing beliefs. Truth has nothing to do with it. Nowadays Muslims blow themselves up, so persuaded are they. And you are upholding martyrdom as proof that the martyr is upholding truth.

[marco]

But, we are not concerned about, "whatever version is put forward." Rather, we are only concerned about what, the original claimed witnesses put forward.

Unfortunately the anonymous reporters were not witnesses, but reporting what they had heard.

It is sort of like you understand with the critical scholars,

1. Jesus was crucified 2. His burial in a tomb 3. The discovery his tomb was empty

There is nothing extraordinary in this. You will recall that in the 19th century "resurrectionists" dug up graves to steal corpses for medical research. We don't conclude heaven was involved.

4. There was indeed a claim of a resurrection which was said to be the cause of the empty tomb

And what did the authorities claim on the contrary? Did this supposition have wide acceptance? The myth grew over the years until Jesus became God eventually.

5. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite every predisposition to the contrary

Yes, well of course this is REALLY conclusive. Have you heard of groups today committing mass suicide for their religious beliefs? Jesus picked his pals from the simple classes. It is such a pity we didn't have an Aristotle among them to explain things. The best we have is Tom who thought risen corpses would retain old wounds. All plausible stuff. I don't know what "every predisposition to the contrary" could mean. If anything they were "predisposed" towards believing in miracles.

However, what you continue to demonstrate is that there is very good, and solid evidence to support a resurrection.

We occupy different worlds then, since I have demonstrated no such thing, nor have you.

Because you see, all these explanations you would prefer, turn out to be just as absurd. [/quote}


(a) false tales of miracles (b) Jesus was called divine, a god (c) Church built on this

Where is the absurdity in this explanation.


(a) Man incarnated from God lived near Jerusalem (b) cured people by letting them touch him (c) died and walked around for a few weeks before rising into the sky

And of course this is NOT absurd. It needs no explanation.

My friend, if the evidence supports such a thing, and all other explanations fail to answer the questions, then there is no question at this point that there is very good, and solid reasons to believe in the explanations that passes all the tests to explain the events.

The only reason I can see for "accepting" a miraculous explanation for an empty tomb is because it is pleasing. You think it is impossible for reporters, many years after Christ died, to have exaggerated and misinterpreted, or to have been deceived by those who gave them their tales. Human deception, human misunderstanding - or miracle? What a tough choice!

The question here is, would Paul, and the rest of this bunch be able to orchestrate all the facts, and evidence in such a way as to support a resurrection, in the face of persecution, and in the face of those whom we know would have been very much opposed, and continue to do so, well into their life?

How does persecution change anything? I don't doubt they believed. But thousands around them did NOT. The authorities did not.

What we do know is, folks who have "sanity" problems, usually are not able to work together in order to orchestrate all the facts, and evidence, such as we have for the resurrection, and to continue on with these things well into their life. This is not how, insanity works.

They did not "work together". They simply believed Christ was a miracle worker, where many others, alive at the time, did not. The tales of miracles were written down many years after the actor had gone. There was nothing to orchestrate- just claims of a wonder man. Later he became a god, because the tales grew.

Moreover, we would have to suggest that all of these folks were insane,

No, they were simple folk in an age of gods and superstitions. And remember, we have stories not from witnesses but from people who heard things. Our info comes from anonymous sources. There's no need to suggest insanity - people were all too willing to believe in wonders.

the more we converse, the more I am convinced that I am correct to continue to believe, there is very good reasons to come to the conclusions I have.

Then I am happy to have given you that satisfaction, though a little perplexed that I may have sold you, all unwittingly by my ineptitude, some untruths. I've not been able to say exactly what deception was involved or where Christ's body was taken to, so I suppose we must just accept he had bed and breakfast in Galilee, after dying, and then instead of a plane he flew by his own miraculous resources to the upper areas of Earth's atmosphere, for reasons as yet unknown. Yuri Gagarin says he didn't spot him in orbit, so perhaps his was a hyperbolic path towards the outer regions of our universe. All very, very plausible - unlike the absurdity that it was made up or a piece of deception. Enjoyable conversation - Go well.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 53 by marco]

We're not disputing facts, just their interpretation.

Exactly my point! In other words, you are not disputing the fact that there were some sort of extraordinary events which occurred some 2000 years ago which continues to consume the better part of your life.

Because you see, you claim to have no idea what happen to the body of Jesus, but what you do know is the fact that the something indeed happened to the body, and you act as if this would not have been an extraordinary event?

I mean think of all that would have to be involved. First, we know there were those who were expecting just that, to the point they went to the trouble to have guards at the tomb. And even though we have reports of what happen from right there at that time, with no other reports to the contrary, we have to take the word of you, some 2000 years later that, there was no resurrection and something else had to happen to the body, even though we cannot imagine what that would possibly be?

This means, either the Apostles were involved in such a heist, which would be extremely extraordinary for such men, as you admit, or someone else behind the scene would have been responsible, with reasons we cannot know, but the Apostles just so happen to take advantage of the situation, and somehow get together in order to come up with these stories of the life of Jesus, which tie into Jesus being crucified, buried, and resurrected.

If it was the Apostles who were indeed in on the heist of the body, this would mean that these ordinary men who had just seen their leader crucified as a criminal, did not take any time to grieve, but somehow were able to get together in a very short period of time, to come up with a scheme to dispose of the body right under the nose of those who wanted Jesus crucified, on top of somehow coming up with all these stories which tie into the life of Jesus, knowing full well that what they were doing could only cause them much grief, which we know that it did.

All of this would be incredible, but let us begin to think of an event that these men would have no control over whatsoever.

We know for a fact that Paul was extremely opposed to this movement to begin with, so much so, that he was traveling about with the exact intention of putting a stop to it, by dragging Christians off, and even going to the extent of consenting to their death.

And then, out of nowhere, this same Paul who was so opposed to these claims, just so happens to not only convert to Christianity, but to also become it's biggest champion, who now, instead of traveling around in order to stop the movement, he goes on these painful missionary journeys, in order to champion the movement, and these events seem to simply fall out of the sky, which is the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time.

We know these things about Paul, because it just so happens that there was this guy named Luke, who we know beyond doubt traveled around with Paul on all these journeys, and just so happened to decide to sit down to write not one, but two, very long, and detailed letters to an individual named Theophilus, because he thought it important to get this information to this friend.

I am just scratching the surface here, and we are to suppose, all these events just so happened to come about which would have bolstered this movement, which did not have a chance, could not possibly happen as reported, because it is simply not the most preferable answer to you?

I mean lets think about it. You have no choice but to acknowledge all these facts, and you admit you have no idea how this all would have occurred, and you even admit there is fault to be found in your "guesses", and yet we are to ignore all these reports, along with all these other events that seem to, "just so happen", simply because it is not the answer that would be, "preferable?" Again, this sounds no different than the many Christians whose only defense seems to be "this is what I have been taught all my life, and I would "prefer" to continue to believe it, as opposed to actually thinking through all these things." In other words, we should all go with what we "prefer?"

And again, whether you understand, or admit it, or not, you are making a terrific argument that there are very good, and solid reasons to believe a resurrection may have occurred.

Notice that I am not saying that your arguments demonstrate a resurrection did occur, but rather that your arguments clearly demonstrate that there are very good reasons to come to the conclusion that a resurrection very well may have occurred, in that you acknowledge all the facts involved, and acknowledge the fact that all you can do is to guess, and go on to acknowledge that your guesses have problems, which simply means we "need better guesses", which leaves the fact that there is very good evidence, facts, and reasons to believe a resurrection occurred, because you admit there is no other plausible explanation, which means that until you come up with a plausible explanation, then there would be reasons to believe the reports we have.

I would also point out that, claiming there are very good reasons to believe the reports, is not the same as saying the reports, must, and have to be true. I am not making the argument that the reports must, and have to be true, but rather there is very good reasons to believe the reports.

You have not only failed to demonstrate there would be no reason to believe the reports, the fact of the matter is, your arguments actually support the case that there would in fact be reasons to believe the reports, since you admit there is no other plausible answer. Moreover, the reason you give for the reports being false, would only be because it would not be the "preferable" answer as far as you are concerned, which again is no different than a Christian who would prefer to believe the reports were true.

The thing is, when one really sits down to think of what other possibilities there may be to explain the events, they, like you, will come to the conclusion that there are too many road blocks, and in order to make these other scenarios work, they become just as absurd as the reports of a resurrection, so that it becomes absurd to think we can decide the correct answer by attempting to determine which answer would be least absurd, which causes folks such as yourself to simply go with what is, "preferable."

Unfortunately you are denied the right to be ironic in this way since you yourself are claiming magic.

This is SO, SO, comical, because I have not claimed anything close to "magic." This demonstrates one who cannot keep up with the conversation, and what they have said themselves, as opposed to what others have said.

Because you see, it would have been you who claimed "magic" would have been responsible, when you said, "the magician did it" which demonstrates you acknowledge the facts involved, and have to come up with any sort of answer, no matter how absurd it may be to give some sort of answer, and according to you, any answer would suffice, as long as it is not the answer you do not prefer.

One the other hand, I have not appealed to "magic" in any way, nor have I attempted to give an explanation for the events. Rather, all I have done is to appeal to the reports, facts, evidence, and reasons we have, which demonstrates there are reasons to believe the reports. The point is, I am not attempting to explain how we have the facts, evidence, and reasons we have, but am rather allowing the reports to explain them, and thus far you have given us no reasons to believe the reports may be false.

There was some deception, coupled perhaps with exaggeration.

Okay, this is your explanation, but where are the facts, and evidence to back up this explanation, because as we have seen above, these ideas have no facts, and evidence, and do not fare very well once one really begins to think about them, which takes us back to simply choosing the option that is the most preferable, which you have admitted that you have done.

Because Jim says a corpse rose from the dead is no reason to believe Jim.

You are exactly correct! But I do not know who Jim is, but I do know for a fact there were 12 Apostles, and I also know that we can know beyond doubt they were claiming a resurrection, because it can be demonstrated beyond doubt, that the resurrection is not a claim that came later, which we will demonstrate as we move along.

Moreover, these men not only claimed a resurrection, they also left other facts, and evidence behind which support a resurrection, which was not their intent, but was rather simply the by product of their lives.

So now that we have, "Jim" pushed aside, (whomever he may be) we can see this is just another absurd attempt to defend what you would prefer to believe.

As for my "faith" in the reporters I have none

Sure you do! If one of your possibilities would involve these reporters being in on the deception, then you have great faith in them, in the fact that they would not have taken time to grieve the fact that their leader was crucified right before their eyes, but rather jump right into action, and not only did they come up with a scheme to dispose of the body, they actually pulled it off, and not only do they do all of this in a very short period of time, we have overwhelming evidence that they continued on with this deception well into their lives.

I could continue on, but with just what we have above, I don't care who you are, to believe such things, would require having a tremendous amount of faith in the abilities of these reporters.

Now if you examine all the above, and you do not have this can of faith in these reporters, then we can take this possibility off the list. However, this means your list is getting shorter, and you are running out of options, which is exactly my point. But as long as you continue to have this as an option, you demonstrate a tremendous amount of faith in these men, which I do not possess.

they were simple men

Not if they pulled off the above! Again, if this is not an option, then can you confirm that you do not believe this could be a possibility, and we can take it off your list, and acknowledge that you do not have this much faith in them, and we can then move on to the other options you may have?

they were simple men, duped, deceived or starry eyed about explanations.

You continue to accuse these men of such things, but you never share with us any facts, evidence, or reasons to believe this, when I have pointed out that at least one of these men acknowledged exactly what you are saying here, and goes on to ensure his audience, that he, and the others were "eyewitnesses" which would rule out what you say above.

Of course I am not suggesting that this is evidence that what the author reports would be true, but it does demonstrate that the author was well aware of these things, and wanted to ensure his audience that what they report would not be based upon such things. The point is, I am at least giving some sort of facts, and evidence to back what I say, while you simply throw out possibilities, as if they were facts, without a shred of evidence.

Jesus wasn't recognised when people saw him : conclusion, it wasn't Jesus. Your conclusion seems to be it MUST have been Jesus, because later they DID recognise him.

I am sorry, but this was not the case in every situation. However, if we are now allowed to appeal to these writings in order to demonstrate that some did not recognize Jesus, then it should also be fair to acknowledge the fact that it also reports the witnesses seeing the wounds in his hands, and side, from the crucifixion. The point is, we cannot appeal to these reports only when it is convenient.

This is amusing. I am on the side that condemns absurd claims.

So you think! You do condemn claims you claim to be absurd, but then go on to make absurd claims yourself, and the fact that you acknowledge that your guesses have problems demonstrate this.

You think that because the Church built a huge institution on the myth of Jesus, it MUST be true, for here we are discussing it 2000 years on.

This is a "straw man" because I have said nothing of the Church we have today. Rather, my appeal has always been to the reports we have in the NT, which you have no explanation for, and it is your claim (not mine) that we are discussing them now because, "the Church built a huge institution on the myth of Jesus" but this says nothing of the reports themselves.

The fact is, we have these reports. The fact is, we continue to discuss this issue. The fact is, you have no explanation for the facts we have. The fact is, this very issue which you claim is so simple, continues to consume the better part of your life, which is demonstrated by the amount of time you spend on this site.

To deny the truth - you think - is absurd.

Well, what "truth" have I proclaimed? I have not proclaimed Christianity to be the truth, which means that I do not proclaim that it would be "absurd to deny it." In fact, I am on record here as proclaiming that there would be reasons to believe the reports, and also reasons to doubt them.

So then, what would be absurd, is for one to proclaim, "there is no reasons to doubt the claims", and, or, "there would be no reason to believe the claims", when such a one cannot demonstrate the claims would either be true, or false.

Where are you at my friend? Because you see, I am not saying it is "absurd" for you to doubt the claims.

However, what is "absurd" is for you to tell me I have no reason to believe, when we have all these facts, evidence, and reasons, while you admit you have no other plausible explanation, and go on to admit that your conclusion is based upon what seems the more "preferable." Yes, now that is, "absurd!"

The truth is that many claims have been built on the figure of Jesus.

But we are not talking about, "many claims." Rather, we are talking about the claims made in the NT, by those who at least claim to be "eyewitnesses."

Of course we can build an institution on a lie.

True! So............? How does this demonstrate the reports in the NT are a lie?

Billions believe Muhammad spoke to God and got his Koran from heaven. Is that less remarkable?

The question here is, what other evidence do we have to support the claims of Islam, as opposed to the evidence we have to support the reports in the NT? That is the question. It is not an argument at all to point to the fact that we may have similar claims that may not be true, so these other reports must, and have to be false based upon this.

Will a wry smile suffice?

Yes, you continue to suggest that it is that simple, but the fact is, your arguments demonstrate differently, and I will continue to point out the fact that there is a lot to smile about in, "fantasy land."

Corpses of "holy" man rose up and walked. And you say: "Prove that did not happen."

Another "straw man!" You insist this report to be a lie. I simply pointed out the fact that you now own the burden, which is a fact.

Walking corpses - possible. Church built on myth - absurdity.

Again, "straw man!" I have never suggested that "walking corpses is possible" and have also never suggested that a "Church built upon myth" would be absurdity."

But nobody's claiming this. They may well have sincerely believed. So what?

Okay, so now you are indeed saying that they were not behind the deception, but were rather simply all deceived themselves? That is indeed understandable, but again your list of options is getting shorter.

Moreover, now we must come up with some sort of scenario in which all these reporters would have been deceived, and still be able to supply us with all the facts, and evidence that you admit to, which support what they were reporting. Good luck!

This is silly - dead people do not speak.

I did not say a word about, "dead people speaking." Rather, the fact of the matter is, we have overwhelming evidence from historical documents which demonstrate, these men continued to proclaim the same thing well into their old age, with no historical documents which suggest any of them ever recanted. What would this have to do with, "dead people speaking?" Not a thing!

Years after Jesus died stories were written about him.

When you say, "years", exactly how many years are you talking about? Because we can know beyond doubt who the author of the to letters to Theophilus would have been, and we also know that he would have known, and spent a great deal of time with the Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making very well, and he reports on the things which you claim came much later.

Importantly the Roman state eventually accepted Christian superstitions. We are dealing with the strength of human politics.

You continue to fail to see the point that, even if what you are saying would be true, it would have noting whatsoever to do with whether there would be reasons to believe the reports in the NT. NOTHING!

Do you know their names and what they claimed?

Sure! It was Peter, James, John, Paul, and we know what they were claiming was not things that we can credit as being much later, because we know who the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been. Therefore, we know these names, and others would be included, and we know that these letters were authored inside the lifetime of these folks.

It is true Rome suppressed early Christianity as a pernicious superstition opposed to Roman customs. Christians were given the chance to recant: some did, some didn't. Catholic and Protestants likewise went to their deaths for their opposing beliefs.

But we are not talking about any "early Christians" who may have simply believed the accounts. Rather, we are talking about those who actually made the claims. It is not extremely unusual for there to be those convinced of claims, and be willing to die for what they are convinced of, however it is unusual for there to be those who claim to have witness events, which they did not, and be willing to go to prison, and even death continuing to claim to have witness things which they know is not true.

Nowadays Muslims blow themselves up, so persuaded are they.

Thanks! This is a great example of what I am talking about above. These Muslims who blow themselves up, are not claiming to have witnessed anything, but are rather "persuaded" as you say. However, and again, we are not talking about those who are simply persuaded, rather we are talking about those who claim to be "eyewitnesses", and they did not "blow themselves up", nor did they harm anyone else, rather they were willing for harm to come to them, for continuing to claim to have witnessed such things.

So again, as we can clearly see, although you would like there to be some sort of comparison, there is no comparison in the least.

And you are upholding martyrdom as proof that the martyr is upholding truth.

Nope! Another "straw man." There is a tremendous difference between those who may be convinced, and are willing to be harmed, or harm themselves, along with others who may be opposed, as opposed to those who are willing to have harm come to themselves, and not others, not because they have become convinced by others, but are rather claiming to have been "eyewitnesses" of what they report.

[marco]

In other words, you are not disputing the fact that there were some sort of extraordinary events which occurred some 2000 years ago

The "fact" is an event took place - a body went missing from a grave. "Extraordinary" is an interpretation of that event.

And even though we have reports of what happened from right there at that time, with no other reports to the contrary,

The majority of people did not believe in the resurrection at the time; a few followers did. What is " a report to the contrary"? Judaism continued, as it does, ignoring messianic claims.

we have to take the word of you, some 2000 years later that, there was no resurrection

Please don't. Just employ common sense. Empty tomb does not equal resurrection.

and something else had to happen to the body, even though we cannot imagine what that would possibly be?

Of course we can "imagine" what happened. The body was taken from the tomb. And yes, 2000 years later, we cannot identify who did what but that remains an explanation.

We know for a fact that Paul was extremely opposed to this movement to begin with, so much so, that he was traveling about with the exact intention of putting a stop to it, by dragging Christians off, and even going to the extent of consenting to their death.

If you say so I would be surprised if the authorities allowed Jewish gangs to do this. Just to have the ringleader tried and executed took planning and lots of work. Paul's conversion is problematic. We have no idea what happened to him. Does changing one's mind mean divine encounter? Paul liked being a champion, a leader, a modest acolyte for God. Is that a shock? The world is full of vocal champions for this or that cause.

[marco]

In other words, we should all go with what we "prefer?"

No, we should not forsake reality just because some character Luke wrote to some ghost called Theophilus. Do we accept resurrections because someone was literate and told tales?

Notice that I am not saying that your arguments demonstrate a resurrection did occur, but rather that your arguments clearly demonstrate that there are very good reasons to come to the conclusion that a resurrection very well may have occurred, in that you acknowledge all the facts involved, and acknowledge the fact that all you can do is to guess

We GUESS because we do not know what happened 2 millennia ago. A tomb was empty; years later people wrote their VIEW on what happened, piecing together various stories they had heard involving angels sitting in a sepulchre and dead men walking to Jerusalem. And we guess these tales are rubbish.

I have no idea from where you derive your strong conviction that all that was narrated about miracles and divine intervention is solid truth. It is usually called faith, but you seem to object to that word but I know of no better description for accepting the impossible because some people wrote about it.

The thing is, when one really sits down to think of what other possibilities there may be to explain the events, they, like you, will come to the conclusion that there are too many road blocks, and in order to make these other scenarios work, they become just as absurd as the reports of a resurrection,

No, that's your problem, not mine. I don't see anything absurd in thinking a body was removed from the tomb. It seems a reasonable explanation. Our difficulty is NOT with building a credible alternative to resurrection, but - because of the 2000 year time lapse - in finding facts and names and reasons. Our modern ignorance is no reason for accepting ancient superstition.

[marco]

Rather, all I have done is to appeal to the reports, facts, evidence, and reasons we have, which demonstrates there are reasons to believe the reports.

"An angel was seen in a tomb" is a report concerning the resurrection. WHY would anyone believe this? It is an INTERPRETATION of what happened. But you have "reasons" to believe an angel occupied the tomb. Or do you prefer to disregard that absurdity, while accepting something else?

thus far you have given us no reasons to believe the reports may be false.

Hmm. How many angels pass your way of an evening?

But I do not know who Jim is, but I do know for a fact there were 12 Apostles and I also know that we can know beyond doubt they were claiming a resurrection

Did they all write this or did someone report what they think these twelve shadowy figures saw?

I could continue on, but with just what we have above, I don't care who you are, to believe such things, would require having a tremendous amount of faith in the abilities of these reporters.

What are you talking about? The "reporters" reported stories they had heard. I've indicated that the content of these tales is suspect: angels and walking corpses, but you continue to accept them as reliable.

they were simple men

Not if they pulled off the above!

You are determined to make a miracle out of myth reporting. Rumour grows exponentially. A good man became a miracle worker and then a god. The years built him up into the giant figure he is today, amended in greatness by the rise of Islam, where another demi-god features.
And because Peter said: "Honestly, this is not a hoax" - are we then in the domain of truth? The same Peter lied about Christ, as I recall.

This is a "straw man" because I have said nothing of the Church we have today.

You miss the point. You constantly say we are discussing Jesus after 2000 years, suggesting the power of the original tale. I am saying that this celebration has everything to do with the Church. We celebrate 25th December ENTIRELY because it was a Church suggestion and replaced earlier pagan celebrations.

So then, what would be absurd, is for one to proclaim, "there is no reasons to doubt the claims", and, or, "there would be no reason to believe the claims", when such a one cannot demonstrate the claims would either be true, or false.

How many times do we have to repeat that there is no requirement on anyone to disprove an impossible claim? A corpse rose from the dead is, prima facie, a case of the impossible happening. The entire burden is to prove it DID happen. And that requires something more than Luke writing about Paul.

And you are upholding martyrdom as proof that the martyr is upholding truth.

There is a tremendous difference between those who may be convinced, and are willing to be harmed, or harm themselves, along with others who may be opposed, as opposed to those who are willing to have harm come to themselves, and not others, not because they have become convinced by others, but are rather claiming to have been "eyewitnesses" of what they report.

And they witnessed wrongly but they were sincerely convinced they saw an angel or God hollered out from heaven. At this distance in time we cannot apply psychiatric tests. We are told they died for their beliefs, as did thousands of Christians in teh Roman amphitheatres. The mark of a true believer in whatever cause is the willingness to die for one's principles. It doesn't make the Resurrection any more likely.

I think we've said enough on the subject and repetition doesn't win us points. Basically we have to demonstrate that an impossible event happened and in support of the impossible we have anonymous speakers, long dead, from an age of superstition and gods. Faith can move mountains so it can raise corpses. Reason lets them lie.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 54 by marco]

Unfortunately the anonymous reporters were not witnesses, but reporting what they had heard.

This is simply an assumption, which is far from being a fact that we can know. So let us deal with the things we can know.

We know beyond doubt who authored the two letters to Theophilus. We also know this author would have known the original Apostles first hand, and would have spent a lot of time with them, and would have been well aware of the claims they were making. We also know beyond doubt that this author spent a number of years traveling around with Paul, and would have witnessed much of what he wrote concerning the journeys of Paul, all the way to Rome, and Paul's arrest. We also know these two letters would have had to have been written well within the lifetime of the Apostles.

The bottom line here is the fact that we have a report, far closer to the time of the events, than you would like to admit, and also would have been one who would have witnessed himself, much of what he wrote, and would have had first hand testimony directly from those who were making the claims.

Now, as we move on to the other reports, it would be you, and even critical scholars who admit, 2 of the other accounts, are very much like, and report very much the same events, so much so that they are accused of copying. So then, with this being a fact, we know we have at least one author who would have been extremely close to the time of the events, and would have also been extremely close to those who were making the claims, and we have 2 more accounts, which pretty much report the same thing as the report we have by one we can know would have known those making the claims, first hand.

So then, these authors being anonymous, is not working out very well in your favor, now is it? No, it is not. And why is that? Well, more than likely it is simply an argument you have heard from others, and it sounds good to know the authors never identify themselves, but when one goes on to analyze all the facts we have, they then come to understand that, not knowing who the authors may have been, does not matter very much in the least.

There is nothing extraordinary in this.

Oh? So a man is buried in a tomb, then the tomb is found empty, with no explanation other than a resurrection, and you say, "There is nothing extraordinary in this?" Well, can you explain why it has consumed your life?

You will recall that in the 19th century "resurrectionists" dug up graves to steal corpses for medical research. We don't conclude heaven was involved.

Exactly! Rather, what we do is to look for other answers, and as you say, the answer was found which solved the mystery, as to where these bodies were.

So then, we do the same with the empty tomb of Jesus. In other words, we look for answers that may explain how the tomb became empty. Which would mean, we would have to take into account the testimony of those who claim to know what happened, even if these claims sound absurd.

We then begin to look for other answers that would not be so absurd, and attempt to determine how plausible they may be. When we come to the conclusion, that all these other scenarios have definite problems, and cannot answer all the questions involved, we do not then come to the conclusion that a resurrection did in fact occur, but we would then at least have to admit that there are reasons to believe a resurrection may have in fact occurred, since we have facts, evidence, and even eyewitnesses, who claim to have witnessed the deceased alive, after death.

In other words, we do not simply assume a resurrection occurred, but we do not simply dismiss all the facts, evidence, and reports of a resurrection simply because we deem these things to be absurd, and would prefer not to believe them.

And what did the authorities claim on the contrary?

Yes indeed, exactly what did they claim? Did they claim to know what happened to the body? No they did not! Did they reveal the body? No they did not! You see, this is all that would have had to have occurred, and this would have put a sure stop to all of this nonsense right there.

However, your authorities, who were right there at the time, could not determine where in the world the body got off to, and you would think these folks who the Apostles were claiming were responsible for the murder of their Messiah, would have left no stone unturned, in order to demonstrate that all these facts, and evidence, which pointed to a resurrection was a hoax, but either they failed to care, which we know is not the case, or they simply failed to demonstrate that this whole thing was orchestrated in some sort of way, in the same way in which you are failing.

Did this supposition have wide acceptance?

Is this how we determine truth? By how wide spread the truth is accepted? Is this kinda like determining truth by what would be considered more "preferable?" Well, lets just see how wide spread this belief became?

We know that a great deal of folks believed at the first preaching of Peter, because we know there were many Jews in Jerusalem that year form all over the world, just as they were every year for, "The Day of Pentecost."

We also know for a fact that a great number of the Jews from all over the world, decided not to return home, but rather stayed in Jerusalem, because they were so convinced by what the Apostles had to say, which is why there were differences which arose between the Jews from Jerusalem, and those Jews from other parts of the world.

In fact, we know that the early Jewish Christians from Jerusalem began to sell their land, and give to those Jewish Christians who were in need who were from these other parts of the world.

Now, why do you suppose these early Jerusalem Christians would have done such a thing? In other words, why would they have not simply contributed money, and or gave these Jews from other parts, some of the land they owned, in order to give them a place of their own, along with land to live off of? Why sell the land, and give the money, instead of keeping the land, allowing those to use the land, and then in return these folks could one day, pay you back?

Have you ever thought about this? Well, could it be the fact that Jesus had predicted the destruction of the Temple, along with Jerusalem, and that, "not one stone would be left upon another", and that there would be those alive at the time of this prediction who "would not die before these things occurred?"

Well maybe, this would in fact be why they were more than willing to be shed of their land, since they were convinced that the land they owned would be useless to them once, "these things did in fact occur." Did these things occur? Well yes they did!

Next, we know that Paul traveled all over the known world at the time, and started at least fourteen Churches that we know of, and more than likely more than this. Therefore, I would say that, even though it is not wise to determine truth based upon how many folks accept the truth, that Christianity was fairly widespread.

The myth grew over the years until Jesus became God eventually.

You make this statement as if it were a known fact, and it is far from it. You continue to forget about the fact, that we have the two letters to Theophilus, which was authored by one who would have known the Apostles first hand, and we also know for a fact that his letters would have been written well within the lifetime of the Apostles, which demonstrates beyond doubt that these reports could not have possibly, "grew over the years."

Yes, well of course this is REALLY conclusive. Have you heard of groups today committing mass suicide for their religious beliefs?

Well, yes I have. However, we are not talking about, "religious beliefs." Rather, we are talking about those who claim to have witnessed Jesus alive after death, and as I have just demonstrated this would not have been something that could have possibly, "grew over the years" because even you, and the most critical scholars agree that these original Apostles were convinced they had truly encountered the risen Christ.

So again, we are not simply talking about those who may hold, "religious beliefs." Rather, we are talking about those who were claiming to have witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion, knowing full well that what they were claiming would cause them much grief, which it did.

Jesus picked his pals from the simple classes.

Do you even think about what it is you type? Or, do you simply type out what comes to mind? Because you see, if what you say here is indeed true, then you have surely eliminated the possibility of these men being in on any part of the whereabouts of the body.

In other words, if these men are as simple as you say, then they surely would not have been able to put together a scheme to get rid of the body, and then go on to come up with any sort of story of how the tomb came to be empty, and then be able to hold all of this together in the face of the persecution which we know they did in fact incur.

In fact, if these men were as "simple" as you make them out to be, it really does not seem as if they would have been able to accomplish all they in fact accomplished, even if they were somehow duped into believing these sort of things.

In fact, the picture that the author of the two letters to Theophilus paints, is much different than you suggest, which has the Apostles operating in a totally different manner than you portray. Of course this author could have been lying to Theophilus, but this would mean that at least this author would not have been so simple, in that he had the mind enough to sit down in order to fabricate all these things, for whatever purpose, but the fact of the matter is, we can know that much of what he writes would indeed be accurate, because the evidence we have for these things, is overwhelming.

The point that is being made is, you seem to want us to believe, that all these men were pretty stupid, and yet even if they were stupid enough to believe such nonsense, they were somehow able to carry on with this nonsense, in a very sane manner according to the author of the letters to Theophilus.

I don't know what "every predisposition to the contrary" could mean.

Well how about this? The Jews were, and are still today looking for the Messiah to come, and their idea of a Messiah, would have nothing whatsoever to do with being crucified as a criminal. Rather, the idea was for the Messiah to come in and restore the kingdom to Israel, and this would include these very men that happen to proclaim that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he was indeed crucified, and that the Jews were responsible for the death of their Messiah.

In other words, the men who were claiming Jesus was resurrected, would have believed these same things concerning the Messiah, and would have known full well that what they were proclaiming would be against, not only what they believed, but also against what the Jews believed, and this could only cause them serious trouble.

However, now that we know just how stupid these men were, we can say with confidence that they would have been far to stupid, to come up with any sort of ideas to flip this story around, and therefore something occurred which caused them to truly believe these things, and even though they were as stupid as you suggest, they were still somehow able to be successful, in carrying this deception on to the point, that this deception eventually becomes the biggest religion the world has ever known, on top of the fact that it continues to consume your life. I would say that is pretty good for a bunch of stupid, and deceived folks.

We occupy different worlds then, since I have demonstrated no such thing, nor have you.

Because you see, all these explanations you would prefer, turn out to be just as absurd. [/quote}


(a) false tales of miracles (b) Jesus was called divine, a god (c) Church built on this

Where is the absurdity in this explanation.

You are indeed correct that, "we occupy different worlds." The "absurdity" is not in the explanation. The "absurdity" is when one goes on to think through all that would have to be involved in these explanations, and comes to understand they do not in any way add up, to the point that this very one acknowledges that, "we need better guesses."

But the fact of the matter seems to be, that this one who has been consumed by these events the better part of his life, and spends a great deal of time on this site debating these same things over, and over again to the point that it seems highly doubtful that there will be any "guesses" that will finally put all the pieces together, and so this one simply decides that the best way to decide, is to simply select the option which seems to be, "the most preferable", and this one then wants to go on to call others, "simple." Now, that is what is, "absurd!"

(a) Man incarnated from God lived near Jerusalem (b) cured people by letting them touch him (c) died and walked around for a few weeks before rising into the sky

And of course this is NOT absurd. It needs no explanation.

None of what you say here above, even if it could be proven to be false, (and it cannot, and has not been) would negate the fact that we have very good evidence, facts, and reasons to believe a resurrection may have in fact occurred.

Really, the only thing you are doing here is to suggest that, "the things above could be false", (but you cannot demonstrate that they would be) but these things would have nothing to do with demonstrating that there is not facts, evidence, and reason to believe the resurrection may have indeed taken place. In other words, all you are really saying is, "they could have made these things up, which MAY indicate the resurrection would have been made up.

I have a cousin, and he can tell you the simplest thing, and you may find that what he has told you is a lie. However, he can tell you the wildest things, to the point you cannot imagine that it would possibly be true, only to find out that it is. This has happened many times to me in my relationship with this cousin of mine.

Now, do you imagine that I consider my cousin to be trustworthy? Not very much, I will assure you. So then, why do I believe some of the things has said? Well, it is certainly not because I am convinced he is trustworthy. But rather, the fact that I have went on to examine the evidence, and facts involved, and have determined that what he reported would in fact be true.

In the same way, we should not in any way believe, or dismiss the reports of a resurrection based on whether we believe the reporters would be trustworthy or not, because we have no way to know. Therefore, we should base our conclusions upon the facts, and evidence we have, and in that way we have no need to be concerned as to whether these reporters would have been trustworthy, or not.

The only reason I can see for "accepting" a miraculous explanation for an empty tomb is because it is pleasing.

This is no argument at all, because there have been many, millions of folks who come to a completely different conclusion, based upon the facts, and evidence we have. Moreover, as has been demonstrated, there would be many facts, and evidence which would support this conclusion, and you have admitted that your guesses do not answer the question involved, and you go on to admit, "we need better guesses" which indeed would demonstrate that you understand that there is indeed reasons for such belief.

Next, this same thing can be said of those who are opposed. In other words, it may in fact be the case, that there are those who are opposed, not because they have been truly convinced these things are false, but rather because it is not something they would "prefer" to believe, and some have even admitted as much.

You think it is impossible for reporters, many years after Christ died, to have exaggerated and misinterpreted, or to have been deceived by those who gave them their tales.

No! You see, you continue to make "straw man" arguments. It is certainly possible for folks to be deceived, into believing things that would not be true. So the problem is not that I think this to be impossible. Rather, the problem is, being deceived does not answer the questions.

Exaggerated, is simply a nicer word for lying, and this does not answer the questions, especially when we consider the fact that you say these men were all simple folk. Misinterpreted, is really no different than being deceived.

Next, you need to get out of your mind, that it is even possible that these reports came many years after the death of Jesus, because this argument can, and has been defeated.

The reason we know this would not be the case, is because we have the two letters written to Theophilus, and we know who this author would have been, and we also know this author would have known the Apostles very well, and would have spent much time with them, and would have known what they were reporting first hand, and we also know that all of this means that these two letters would have been written well within the lifetime of the Apostles.

Therefore, it is not as though what you say above would be, impossible. Rather, it is simply that these answers simply do not add up in this case. However, we do know that it would be impossible for these tales to have risen over time, many years after the death of Jesus, because we have testimony from one who would have known what the original Apostles were claiming, first hand, and at the time.

Human deception, human misunderstanding - or miracle? What a tough choice!

Correct! If one is only looking for an answer that would be the most, "preferable", then I would agree. However, if one is actually looking at all the facts involved, then they would surely come to understand that what would be the most preferable answer, simply does not add up.

How does persecution change anything?

What I am saying is, it is one thing for one to be convinced something is true, even if it is false, and be willing to suffer for what it is they believe to be true, as opposed to those who are NOT simply claiming to be convinced of certain things, but rather that they witnessed these things with their own eyes, knowing full well before they go on to tell these things they would suffer for it, and then go on to do just that, and we have the overwhelming facts, and evidence to demonstrate that this is exactly what happened.

What this means is, it is highly unlikely that they were lying about such things, because more than likely some of them would begin to tell the real story at a certain point.

I mean think about it for just a moment. Let's imagine that it would have been you who was involved, and you had agreed to go along with this wild tale that you knew beyond doubt was false. Now let us imagine suffering for this very thing you know to be false, but it is not only you who is suffering, but also your own friends, and even family, and you come to understand that it is all because of something you know to be false.

Now let's imagine you begin to see many who apparently are persuaded by your tales, that they begin to sell land right out from under their family, believing this land was about to be worthless to them, all based upon what you, and a number of others have agreed to lie about.

Now, can you imagine there would be quarrels, and divisions among them if they were all in on this thing, and there would surely be some who would have backed out, and begin to attempt to persuade those who were buying into it, that it was all based upon a lie?

So then, what I am saying is, it is extremely difficult to imagine these men were all in this together, knowing it all to be a lie.

I don't doubt they believed.

EXACTLY! And this makes my case. But the question is, what was it they believed? Did they simply believe tales which were told to them? NO! What they believed is that they all, (not just one of them) had seen Jesus alive after death, with there own eyes, which is far different than simply believing a tale told to you.

Moreover, when you go on to having no "doubt they believed" you eliminate the possibility of them lying about such things, and then must move on to another one of your, "guesses."

But thousands around them did NOT. The authorities did not.

My friend, I have never made the argument that these folks believed, and therefore it must be true. So what in the world would cause you to somehow believe it to be an argument to point out the fact that, others did not believe? It makes no sense.

Moreover, let us think about the fact that these were very outlandish claims that were being made, and all those opposed would have had to do, is to present a body. But they did not.

They did not "work together". They simply believed Christ was a miracle worker, where many others, alive at the time, did not.

Great! So at this point, you are now on record as eliminating the possibility that these things would have been based upon a lie between these men, because you are here making the definite statement that, "They did not work together".

But again, I cannot in my wildest imagination understand what others believed would have a thing to do with it?

The tales of miracles were written down many years after the actor had gone.

I guess we will have to go back through this again. We know for a fact who authored the two letters to Theophilus. We know this author would have known, and spent a great deal of time with the original Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making, first hand. Ergo, we have a report from one who would know the claims first hand. This argument has been defeated!

There was nothing to orchestrate- just claims of a wonder man.

Not just that, my friend. Rather, they claimed to have witnessed these things, and you are now on record as saying, "they did not work together" and that you, "have no doubt they believed". Ergo, you are then saying, they did not lie, but they all truly believed they in fact witnessed these extraordinary events.

Later he became a god, because the tales grew.

Again, this argument has been soundly defeated. See above.

No, they were simple folk in an age of gods and superstitions.

This maybe true, but we have at least one of them who acknowledges these things, and goes on to ensure his audience at the time that, this would not be the case as far as their reports, because he goes on to say that he, and the others were, "eyewitnesses", and it does no good to suggest he may be lying because you have eliminated that possibility.

And remember, we have stories not from witnesses but from people who heard things.

This has not in any way been demonstrated to be a fact. In other words, the fact is, we do not know who the authors were of three of the Gospels, which means these three authors could have very well have been first hand witnesses.

However, what you need to "remember" is the fact that we can know who authored the two letters to Theophilus, and we can know that he knew, and spent a lot of time with them, and we can know that he would know exactly what they were claiming first hand, and we can also know that he in fact witnessed much of what he wrote, because we can know that he was indeed there.

Our info comes from anonymous sources.

Anonymous, simply means the author does not identify themselves. However, this does not mean we cannot know who the author was, and in the case of the two letters to Theophilus, we do know.

There's no need to suggest insanity - people were all too willing to believe in wonders.

Okay then, thus far we have eliminated these men lying, insanity, and that the tales came along much later. I am certainly fine with this, but you are running out of options here.

[marco]

We know beyond doubt who authored the two letters to Theophilus.

You mean YOU have no doubt; others do. We know next to nothing about Luke and base our beliefs on tradition. The other things that for you are "beyond doubt" are debated. That others report the same rumour does not make the rumour true.

So then, these authors being anonymous, is not working out very well in your favor, now is it? No, it is not. And why is that? Well, more than likely it is simply an argument you have heard from others, and it sounds good to know the authors never identify themselves, but when one goes on to analyze all the facts we have, they then come to understand that, not knowing who the authors may have been, does not matter very much in the least.

Again, to you it doesn't matter. We don't even know if the authors are bona fide - though you think it doesn't matter. Odd.

Oh? So a man is buried in a tomb, then the tomb is found empty, with no explanation other than a resurrection, and you say, "There is nothing extraordinary in this?" Well, can you explain why it has consumed your life?

I find it fascinating that what I accepted as a kid and now reject is still accepted by many. I wonder if perhaps I have overlooked something. The more I hear from you the happier I am with my own position. You say faith plays no part in your stance, but belief in resurrections is based entirely on faith. You accuse me of having "faith" in some anonymous people, whatever that might mean.

So then, we do the same with the empty tomb of Jesus. In other words, we look for answers that may explain how the tomb became empty. Which would mean, we would have to take into account the testimony of those who claim to know what happened, even if these claims sound absurd.

Yes, we usually discard absurdities. There's a theory that the Essenes instructed young Jesus and they removed him possibly to Egypt. Is this more fanciful than a corpse walking? Some rich guy stepped forward to give Jesus a sepulchre. Curious.

However, your authorities, who were right there at the time, could not determine where in the world the body got off to,

Are you making this up? What is the story from the authorities? Were soldiers punished?

Next, we know that Paul traveled all over the known world at the time, and started at least fourteen Churches that we know of, and more than likely more than this. Therefore, I would say that, even though it is not wise to determine truth based upon how many folks accept the truth, that Christianity was fairly widespread.

Modern preachers who are also convinced they have spoken to God also founded churches. Paul's actions are not unusual. His success is based on the fact that a Roman Emperor later adopted Christianity, through a coincidence. Else Christians would still be a minority group. 14 churches is not a universe, but maybe a start.

You continue to forget about the fact, that we have the two letters to Theophilus, which was authored by one who would have known the Apostles first hand, and we also know for a fact that his letters would have been written well within the lifetime of the Apostles, which demonstrates beyond doubt that these reports could not have possibly, "grew over the years."

We know next to nothing about Luke and nothing about Theophilus, other than the meaning of his name. Luke, whoever he was, reported rumours: LATER these took on the selective dogma of a powerful church. You guess Luke SAW Jesus or the apostles, yet you have no idea who he was.

However, now that we know just how stupid these men were,

You are conflating a variety of views; SOME were pretty simple, but others were manipulative. If Jesus was part of some attempted rebellion, those behind him would not have been stupid. The people Jesus chose were probably chosen for their gullibility: they believed tricks to be miracles - but this is just a theory. One can believe in resurrections if that sounds better, especially if the unknown Luke says so when writing to the unknown Theophilus.

The "absurdity" is when one goes on to think through all that would have to be involved in these explanations, and comes to understand they do not in any way add up, to the point that this very one acknowledges that, "we need better guesses."

We can stop here. Because YOU cannot offer an alternative explanation to the resurrection, you accept it is possible. Does this apply in other branches of knowledge - when you cannot explain why particles seemingly vanish, you shout "miracle"? We are limited by our brain, by our modern circumstances, by distance, by texts that have been changed and others discarded. But out of this mass of confused details you see significance in the ghost Theophilus getting a letter from the nonentity Luke. And that adds up, in your view, to a resurrection.


I want a little more, I'm afraid. I am not as easily served.



Unless you come up with something startlingly new, other than how impressive Luke is (maybe you have a full biography that no one else has?) I'm not going to repeat myself further. Go well.