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?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 40 by marco]

Well I'm sorry to be excluded from that exclusive club that employs complex thought to get at the Resurrection mystery. Declaring we use complexity doesn't actually mean that we have done so.

And here is another one of those "straw men." I said not a word about it being complex. It is not complex in any way, to simply move on beyond, "its far to incredible" in order to actually analyze all the facts involved. Some folks are satisfied with simple answers.

I do understand that the resurrection is scientifically impossible and I do understand that you have convinced yourself to overlook science and accept that it did happen, some two millennia ago.

And again, it is not overlooking science, when science would have nothing to do with it. Science, is not in the business of determining historical events. Science can only tell us if it can explain an event, or not, scientifically. If science cannot explain an event, this does not in any way necessitate that the event did not happen.

We use the tools at our disposal. Because we do, we are able to explore Mars. If we still lived in an age where gods are running about all over the place appearing as swans or showers of gold we could get to Mars in a whale's stomach.

None of which would have a thing in the world to do with the resurrection occurring, or not.

Science cannot answer all our problems: but it can tell us which propositions to ignore.

Yep! Some folks have this sort of faith in science. In other words, if science says it cannot explain an event, then it did not happen.

Yes, part of your persuasion is that Paul and company must have pulled off the biggest hoax in history. So be it!

No! Paul would not have been involved remember. Rather, Paul would have had to be one of those deceived after doing all he could do to stop this movement. Sort of funny ain't it, how things just seem to continue to somehow workout to keep this movement going, to the point this Jesus they were proclaiming becomes the most well known name in history, on top of having the greatest impact going on some 2000 years now. Pretty extraordinary for a group of guys who were lying, or deceived in some sort of way.

However, that's not what I am saying. They were gullible

I wonder just how you can demonstrate, "they were gullible?" And as we have already demonstrated, the author of 2 Peter addresses your concerns, and actually acknowledges gullible beliefs, and ensures his audience, that what he and the other Apostles were reporting was not based on such things.

Well listen! While I would love to address the rest of what you say here, I am going to have to give you a 2 week break, because I am off to cook at a Church camp for 2 weeks, where we explain to the kids all the facts, evidence, and reasons which support the resurrection.

So then, have a good break, because I promise I will address the rest here upon my return.

[marco]

I said not a word about it being complex. It is not complex in any way, to simply move on beyond, "its far to incredible" in order to actually analyze all the facts involved. Some folks are satisfied with simple answers.

Presumably a "non-simple answer" such as you have found can be called complex. Those of us who lack time, ability or imagination to pore over Paul's pronouncements are opting for an easy life, when a complicated one is called for. This is what you have been saying.

Science, is not in the business of determining historical events.

I agree and we're not dealing with a historical event but with the opinion that a corpse raised itself from death. Science has something to say about that.

If we still lived in an age where gods are running about all over the place appearing as swans or showers of gold we could get to Mars in a whale's stomach

None of which would have a thing in the world to do with the resurrection occurring, or not.

I probably explained my point badly: it is this. When people hear that the powerful around them accept deities of all descriptions, then it is perhaps easier for them to accept yet another god appeared among them and rose from the dead. We live in more sophisticated times.

And as we have already demonstrated, the author of 2 Peter addresses your concerns, and actually acknowledges gullible beliefs, and ensures his audience, that what he and the other Apostles were reporting was not based on such things.

Peter says: "In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories." One mght say it takes one to know one; get your defence in fast before the attack is made. When someone anticipates a reasonable objection to a claim, it is NOT a refutation of the claim. When people begin: "To be honest with you ..." they invariably are not.

[Zzyzx]

.

I said not a word about it being complex. It is not complex in any way, to simply move on beyond, "its far to incredible" in order to actually analyze all the facts involved. Some folks are satisfied with simple answers.

Presumably a "non-simple answer" such as you have found can be called complex.

Word play (example = complex vs. non-simple) is a staple of Apologetics

Science, is not in the business of determining historical events.

I agree and we're not dealing with a historical event but with the opinion that a corpse raised itself from death. Science has something to say about that.

Many maintain that study of events of nature (science) can be contradicted by claiming that supernatural entities intervened in cases they champion.

We live in more sophisticated times.

Some of ‘us’ apparently prefer the LESS sophisticated times – when ‘gods’ explained droughts, floods, storms, crop failure. They still use 'less sophisticated' means to 'explain' long-dead bodies coming back to life.

Peter says: "In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories." One mght say it takes one to know one; get your defence in fast before the attack is made. When someone anticipates a reasonable objection to a claim, it is NOT a refutation of the claim. When people begin: "To be honest with you ..." they invariably are not.

The US has a ‘president’ that exemplifies this point.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 42 by marco]

Presumably a "non-simple answer" such as you have found can be called complex.

First, it is not an "answer I have found", but rather the explanation of the facts involved, by those who would have been a lot closer in time than you, and I. Moreover, there would be millions, upon millions, who have believed these explanations, long before I was even thought about, which clearly demonstrates that it is not an "answer that I have found."

Next, it is not complex in any way, to go beyond being satisfied with answers such as, "the claims are far to unbelievable, and go against what science has to say", in order to actually analyze all the facts involved, to understand that those answers simply are not satisfactory, and do not come close to answering all the questions.

Now again, if there are those who are somehow satisfied with these simple answers, then I have no problem with this in the least. The problem comes in when we have those who seem to insist that the reports must, and have to be false, and they have no way in which to demonstrate such a thing, on top of the fact that their explanations do not answer all the questions.

So again, I have no problem with folks stopping at this point. The problem comes in when they insist they must, and have to be correct, when they have not demonstrated this in any way whatsoever.

Those of us who lack time, ability or imagination to pore over Paul's pronouncements are opting for an easy life, when a complicated one is called for.

First, and again, it is not "complicated" at all, and does not take a whole lot of "time, ability, or imagination", to understand that simply coming to the conclusion that the reports must, and have to be false, does not in any way, answer all the questions.

So then, "this is NOT what I have been saying." Rather, "what I am saying" is, there are some who are satisfied, by simply acknowledging that these things are far to extraordinary, without going on to understand that any other explanation would have to be just as extraordinary.

In other words, it would be extremely extraordinary if there was a resurrection. On the other hand, it would be extremely extraordinary for any of the other explanations you seem to be satisfied with, to in fact be the truth.

I agree and we're not dealing with a historical event but with the opinion that a corpse raised itself from death.

No, my friend, you are completely in error. There are many historical events, facts, and evidence, that is tied to the alleged, resurrection. Moreover, those who have supplied us with these historical events, (which can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt) facts, and evidence, were not in any way claiming to be giving an opinion, but were rather claiming to have been witnesses of the crucifixion, death, burial, and then went on to claim to have witnessed Jesus alive after such events.

Now, this does not in any way necessitate that what they claim would be true. However, it does indeed necessitate that what they were claiming was not in any way an opinion.

Of course, you would be correct to say that Christians simply hold an opinion of the facts involved, and can in no way demonstrate that the opinion they hold would be fact. On the other hand, the same would hold true for you, along with all those who are opposed. In other words, you simply hold a particular opinion of the facts we have concerning the resurrection, but you can in no way demonstrate that, the opinion you hold would be fact.

The only difference seems to be, there are those of us who understand this, while there are others who seem to be under the impression that if they believe something strongly enough, it must, and has to be true. I am not under such delusion.

Science has something to say about that.

Again, science can only tell us that a resurrection is scientifically impossible. This in no way means that a resurrection has not occurred. It simply means that if a resurrection has occurred, science would not be able to explain it.

Of course, there are certainly those who have such faith in science, that they are under the impression that if science cannot explain an event, then it could not possibly have occurred, while there are others of us who understand that science is not in such a business, and also understand that there can be, and is, bias in science, just as there is bias in many of those who are Christian.

Again, there are those who understand that there is bias on both sides of the equation, while there are others who seem to be under the delusion, that the bias can only be on the other side, while there can be no possible way there could be bias on the side one happens to be on.

I probably explained my point badly: it is this. When people hear that the powerful around them accept deities of all descriptions, then it is perhaps easier for them to accept yet another god appeared among them and rose from the dead. We live in more sophisticated times.

And again, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether a resurrection actually occurred, or not. All you are doing here is to share an opinion of what might have happened, with no facts, nor evidence to back it up.

Moreover, we have already discussed how the author of 2 Peter has addressed this concern. In other words, he acknowledges, your complaint, and then goes on to assure his audience that what he, and the other Apostles report, would not fit into this category.

And again, this does not in any way demonstrate that what is reported is true. However, it does indeed demonstrate that the author was well aware of what you are saying, so much so that he wants to ensure his audience that what they are reporting would not be the same. You have no argument here, my friend.

Next, simply because we may, "live in more sophisticated times" does not in any way demonstrate that a resurrection did not occur. I do not know how far back you consider to be "more sophisticated times", but I will assure you that there have been many, many, sophisticated, and intelligent people who have believed in the resurrection.

Again, there are those who understand that there is intelligence, and sophistication, on both sides of the equation, while there seem to be others who are under the delusion that, sophistication, and intelligence, is only reserved for those who are on my side. GOOD GRIEF!

Peter says: "In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories."

WHOA! WAIT A MINUTE HERE? I thought you had decided in another post, that there would be no way that Peter could have possibly been the author of 2 Peter, since it was written so well? Now all of the sudden, it was Peter, and "it takes one, to know one?" SERIOUSLY?

So, which is it? Was Peter to stupid to have written so well? Or, is it that it was Peter? It seems that it really doesn't matter, as long as it fits your argument at the time, right?

One mght say it takes one to know one; get your defence in fast before the attack is made.

Yeah! "One might say" this, but one would have to give some sort of evidence to demonstrate that this may be the case.

However, your problem here is the fact that, this author was not attempting to, "get his defense in fast before an attack was made", because he is not attempting to defend any sort of attack against the claim of a resurrection.

Rather, he begins by assuring his audience that,

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.� And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

Now we have 3 accounts of this very same event, by 3 different authors. At any rate, this author goes on to talk about how these folks do indeed, "speak great swelling words of emptiness" which is in fact a comparison to what the author claims to have actually witnessed with his own eyes.

When people begin: "To be honest with you ..." they invariably are not.

Well, I do not necessarily agree with you here, but the question is, where does this author say anything like this?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 43 by Zzyzx]

Word play (example = complex vs. non-simple) is a staple of Apologetics

Since you are using my quote, you really need to demonstrate how I am using, "word play?" In other words, simply referring to those who may be satisfied with, "simple answers", in no way insinuates that the matter would be, complex.

As an example, if I am satisfied with simply watching as the sun appears to move across the sky, and settle on the conclusion that the sun must, and has to be in motion, would this make the true answer, complex? It would not at all. Rather, it would simply demonstrate one who is satisfied with simply stopping at the simplest answer.

Many maintain that study of events of nature (science) can be contradicted by claiming that supernatural entities intervened in cases they champion.

Again, since you are using quotes by me, then why not demonstrate where I have made such a claim? I have not. Therefore, your argument is with some sort of imaginary character in this case.

Some of ‘us’ apparently prefer the LESS sophisticated times – when ‘gods’ explained droughts, floods, storms, crop failure. They still use 'less sophisticated' means to 'explain' long-dead bodies coming back to life.

And as demonstrated in my last post to "Marco", none of this would have a thing in the world to do with whether there may have been a resurrection.

The US has a ‘president’ that exemplifies this point.

This is really sad moment for me! In other words, we have Christians who are under the delusion that referring to politics, and political leaders somehow makes a point, which is one of the reasons I would rather spend my time with those who are not under such a delusion, even if I happen to disagree with them on certain points. However, it now seems that those who are opposed to Christianity, somehow believe that politics, and political leaders, somehow adds to the argument of whether there may have been a resurrection. Really sad day for me!

[marco]

First, it is not an "answer I have found"

We can adopt the answers given by other people. If the "non-simple" answer is one favoured by others, it does not prevent it from being the one you have chosen. I wasn't suggesting that as a result of some original theological research, unknown to millions, you hit on some brilliancy. I could as well have said: "the answer you have."

Next, it is not complex in any way to go beyond being satisfied with answers such as, "the claims are far to unbelievable, and go against what science has to say"....."

You appear to contrast the "simple" approach of those who reject the resurrection with the one not "found" but adopted by you. Your rejection of simplicity would suggest your methodology is something else. I am saying there are ordinary explanations before we leap into miracles. We do not have to outline these explanations any more than you have to explain how Jesus moved the stone from the inside or how he acquired new clothes or why an angel was sitting in the tomb. I accept that these require horrendously complex answers that would puzzle Descartes and Kant. Or maybe just a simple answer: "It was God what did it."

Now again, if there are those who are somehow satisfied with these simple answers, then I have no problem with this in the least.

Well you conceal this acceptance very well since you have spent a great deal of time giving a critique of my simplicity.

The problem comes in when we have those who seem to insist that the reports must, and have to be false

We are returning to square one. There was no resurrection: corpses 2000 years ago decomposed as they do now. Rigor mortis would prevent poor Jesus changing his clothes. There is NO need for anyone to prove there was no resurrection, as I have said many times. You have not established there was one..... except by faith in primitive reporters. When I get an email from Africa saying I have happily acquired £50,000,000 amazingly enough I do not believe the report. In a similar way, when we are told a corpse wandered off, we do not believe this.

Rather, "what I am saying" is, there are some who are satisfied, by simply acknowledging that these things are far too extraordinary, without going on to understand that any other explanation would have to be just as extraordinary.

They are not merely "extraordinary" but absurd. The claims are impossible. ANY explanation that does not involve walking dead would be preferable. "A small boy did it and ran away." We do not know what the scenario was, behind the scenes, but it was sufficiently well managed to deceive a few people. I do not know how magicians effect their magic, but I accept there is no miracle involved.

[marco]

In other words, it would be extremely extraordinary if there was a resurrection. On the other hand, it would be extremely extraordinary for any of the other explanations you seem to be satisfied with, to in fact be the truth.

In degrees of "extraordinary", miracle is absurd; human craft is surprising, but not absurd. We need not explain what we do not know - it's sufficient to accept there was no resurrection.

Moreover, those who have supplied us with these historical events, (which can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt) facts, and evidence, were not in any way claiming to be giving an opinion, but were rather claiming to have been witnesses of the crucifixion, death, burial, and then went on to claim to have witnessed Jesus alive after such events.

I accept some people say things, but we then ask ourselves whether what they say is credible. The cleverest folk can be deceived. And remember, we are hearing reports of reports - not actual eye-witnesses. "John Smith says he saw this" is not the same as "I saw this." So, we are left with opinions.

Again, science can only tell us that a resurrection is scientifically impossible.

Good enough for me.

Of course, there are certainly those who have such faith in science, that they are under the impression that if science cannot explain an event, then it could not possibly have occurred, while there are others of us who understand that science is not in such a business, and also understand that there can be, and is, bias in science, just as there is bias in many of those who are Christian.

No one is saying that science pronounces infallibly. Of course there are many areas where we lack explanation of how the material world works, especially at a sub-atomic level. Newton drew conclusions about motion which Einstein corrected. We are not in the science laboratory here but in wide-eyed Jerusalem, with its market traders and Temple. If some of its citizens say they saw a corpse walking about, it is not a question of Bose-Einstein statistics. There are no complex equations - just the word of peasants in awe of gods.

Rather, Peter begins by assuring his audience that,

"For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.� And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain."

The wonders of the human mind! We still debate what happened to Bernadette when she, like Peter, heard some ethereal voice and saw the Virgin Mary. Poor old Peter was flummoxed by a cockerel and seems a likeable but simple soul. Did he hear heaven speaking from the upper atmosphere? No, he most definitely did not.


So after all this thunder and semantic mining we must still insist there is no reason to overturn Nature as we know it and claim a Resurrection. The poor souls wandering around witnessing blind people seeing and dead people talking were hopeful dreamers at best. God bless them.

[Elijah John]

he could not save himself,

Quaint strawman pov: He came to die...

Why didn't he announce that at the beginning of his ministry, it that were the case? Like when he opened the Isaiah scroll in the opening chapters of Luke, or when he enumerated the Beattitudes at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount?

That "he came to die" is revisionism or at best, theological interpretation.

And if he "came to die" why did he bother to preach? Why didn't he just go to the Temple and offer himself up on the altar?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 46 by marco]

We can adopt the answers given by other people. If the "non-simple" answer is one favoured by others, it does not prevent it from being the one you have chosen.

I surely understand, there are those who come to their conclusions based upon what others may favor, but your problem here is, there are those of us who happen to analyze all the facts involved, and attempt to come to an answer that best satisfies all the questions involved, while there are others who are simply satisfied with any answer that does not involve anything out of the ordinary, even if these answers do not even come close to possibly answering the questions, as you have clearly demonstrated.

In other words, you seem to not care at all what the answer may be, or whether the answer actually can answer the questions involved, as long as the answer is not one you do not prefer, and you have actually said as much.

I wasn't suggesting that as a result of some original theological research, unknown to millions, you hit on some brilliancy. I could as well have said: "the answer you have."

The point was, the answer "I have" is actually what was reported some 2000 years ago, by those who went on the leave facts, and evidence in support of this answer, and you have in no way demonstrated that these reports would be false. Rather, all you have done is to insist that they must, and have to be false, without one shred of evidence, and even insisting that any explanation would be satisfying, as long as it does not involve these folks reporting the truth, when we have facts, and evidence to support the claims. My friend, that is not an argument in the least.

You appear to contrast the "simple" approach of those who reject the resurrection with the one not "found" but adopted by you.

The contrast is simple, and you demonstrate the contrast. In other words, you have clearly demonstrated one who is not interested in going beyond what you believe to be possible, while ignoring all the other facts involved, and you admit as much when you concede, an answer would be satisfying, as long as it is not the one you do not prefer, while there are others who are not so easily satisfied.

Your rejection of simplicity would suggest your methodology is something else.

It only involves not being satisfied with what I happen to believe would be possible. In other words, if I were to stop at what I thought possible, I would come to the same conclusion as you. However, since I, and many others have went on past what we believe to be possible, to actually analyze all these reports, along with all the facts, and evidence involved, we have come to the conclusion that what we may believe to be possible simply does not answer the questions.

And again, if you are satisfied with such answers, then I have no problem with that in the least. The problem comes in when one goes on to insist they must, and are correct, and then goes on to criticize others who are not so easily satisfied, when one has done nothing to demonstrate their case. Rather, all you continue to do is to point to what we all know to be, possible, or impossible, which demonstrates nothing as far as the reports are concerned.

I am saying there are ordinary explanations before we leap into miracles.

Are you truly under the delusion that those of us who happen to believe the reports did not think of this ourselves? Surely, I have thought of the fact that there very well could be an ordinary answer. But the question is, what is that ordinary answer? Because you see, I have thought of every answer I can think of, and have been on this site for a good number of years, and have read what others have had to say, and I have yet to hear any explanation that would satisfy all the questions.

Moreover, when I hear those such as yourself insisting that any answer would be satisfying as long as it does not involve the reports being accurate, this convinces me even more that there are no satisfactory ordinary answers.

The fact of the matter is again, something extraordinary happened some 2000 years ago. Either it was indeed a resurrection, or there was some sort of deception involved some sort of way, and it has continued on for well over 2000 years now. So again, either way, we have an extraordinary event, and all you seem to be doing is to choose the one which seems to be the least extraordinary to you.

We do not have to outline these explanations any more than you have to explain how Jesus moved the stone from the inside or how he acquired new clothes or why an angel was sitting in the tomb.

You are, "comparing apples to oranges" here. Since it is you who is insisting that the reports must, and have to be false, then you must, and have to come up with some sort of facts, and evidence in order to support such an argument. This does not mean you have to explain every little detail about how things may have happened, but you at the very least must give some sort of scenario that would explain all the events, with facts, and evidence.

Because you see, I do not have to explain how it was that a resurrection took place. All I have to do is to point to the fact that we have the reports, along with all the other facts, and evidence that would be in support. How a resurrection occurred, would have nothing to do with, whether it actually did occur, and how it happened would be another question, and this would include the "stone, new clothes, and angel."

Well you conceal this acceptance very well since you have spent a great deal of time giving a critique of my simplicity.

No, I do not "critique your simplicity" and am rather fine with it. In other words, I do this many times myself when I am really not interested in getting to the truth of a matter.

As an example, I am really not interested in the least in Islam. Therefore, I simply choose to doubt the claims, because I am not interested enough to actually analyze all the facts involved. However, I do not insist that Islam must, and has to be false, and those who believe the claims are foolish.

So then, I am not critiquing your simplicity, since I do the same thing with many things myself. The problem comes in when we have those who stop with the simplicity, and then go on to insist that those who have gone beyond the simple, must, and have to be in error, and are foolish.

We are returning to square one. There was no resurrection: corpses 2000 years ago decomposed as they do now. Rigor mortis would prevent poor Jesus changing his clothes.

How in the world one can imagine that this would demonstrate that a resurrection did not occur is beyond my imagination? It is also beyond my imagination that you would be under the delusion that those of us who happen to believe the reports do not understand this, as if you are bringing some sort of news to our ears, that we have not considered.

Your problem here is, we have numerous reports of a resurrection, along with other facts, and evidence in support of a resurrection, and you have done nothing with all the time you spend on this site to demonstrate that the reports would be false. Moreover, you have done nothing with all of this time you spend, to even demonstrate that there would be no reason to believe the reports, and I can assure you that simply pointing to the fact that a dead corpse usually stays dead, does not do it.

There is NO need for anyone to prove there was no resurrection, as I have said many times.

Well let us see. We have the reports of numerous folks that there was indeed a resurrection. You are making a positive statement that these reports are indeed false. Therefore, you own the burden my friend.

I will demonstrate in just a moment how I do not own the burden, but you may be under the impression that the authors own the burden to prove the resurrection to us. This would not be the case in the least. Because you see, these authors were not writing to us, and did not have us in mind as they wrote.

Rather, these authors, were writing to audiences at the time, and only had that audience in mind, and so they owe nothing to us. However, in these letters they do report to their audience at the time that there was a resurrection, on top of the fact that they leave other facts, and evidence in support. Therefore, when we have those today who insist that these reports would be false, then they own the burden to demonstrate their case.

You have not established there was one.

And here is your problem! Because you see, I have never set out in order to, "establish there was one", because I am well aware that I could not. Therefore, I own no burden. What I have done is to demonstrate that there are very good, and solid reasons to believe there very well may have been a resurrection.

But again, let us remember that it is you who is insisting that there was not, and you have not only failed at establishing that there was not a resurrection, you have also failed to demonstrate that there would be no reason to believe there may have been a resurrection.

except by faith in primitive reporters.

As we have already established, you seem to have far more faith in these men, than I ever would!

When I get an email from Africa saying I have happily acquired £50,000,000 amazingly enough I do not believe the report. In a similar way, when we are told a corpse wandered off, we do not believe this.

How in the world one could use this as some sort of argument against a resurrection, is far beyond my imagination?

They are not merely "extraordinary" but absurd.

My friend, you can use any word you like, the facts remain the same. As we have already seen, the explanations you attempt to give, would be just as "absurd."

The claims are impossible.

OH MY! Well I never considered that? Seriously? So, how would this settle the argument?

ANY explanation that does not involve walking dead would be preferable.

And again, I am fine with those who simply look for answers that are "preferable" to them. But, I am not the type of person who simply looks for answers that are "preferable." Rather, I attempt to look for answers that seem to satisfy all the questions, even if it is not the "preferable" answer.

"A small boy did it and ran away."

What was that word again?............... Oh that's right, "ABSURD."

We do not know what the scenario was, behind the scenes, but it was sufficiently well managed to deceive a few people.

I'm a thinking that it was far more than just a few. Because you see, this deception has been going on for well over 2000 years now, not to mention it has been successful in consuming the better part of your life.

I do not know how magicians effect their magic, but I accept there is no miracle involved.

Well maybe you need to give us some sort of facts, and evidence that may suggest there was a magician involved? I have to say though, that would be pretty good stuff. A magician who orchestrated all these events to the point this Jesus is the most well known name in history, and has had the most significance, and has even consumed the better part of your life.

As we think about what you say above, it demonstrates that you are indeed admitting that something very extraordinary happened some 2000 years ago. Of course we cannot even mention the miraculous. That would be, "absurd." The best we can do is to suggest that it must have been a "magician", because a "magician" would be far more "preferable."

At any rate, we know we have to come up with some sort of explanation, because we all understand that the events were indeed extraordinary, and since the miraculous would be "absurd", let's just go with, "the magician did it."

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 47 by marco]

In degrees of "extraordinary", miracle is absurd;

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

human craft is surprising, but not absurd.

No, "human craft" is not absurd. What would be "absurd" is to analyze all the facts, and evidence involved with the reported resurrection, and simply come to the conclusion that there must, and had to be some sort of "human craft" involved, with no facts, or evidence to back such a thing, especially from one who has accused these folks of being somewhat ignorant compared to us today. Moreover, "human craft" does not explain all the questions involved.

We need not explain what we do not know

Right, and one of the things "we do not know" is that a resurrection did not take place. However, there are many, many things we do know beyond doubt concerning these events.

it's sufficient to accept there was no resurrection.

To some folks this is certainly the case. However, there is a tremendous difference between simply "accepting there was no resurrection" as opposed to demonstrating such a thing.

I accept some people say things, but we then ask ourselves whether what they say is credible.

Agreed! So what is the evidence that would suggest that what is reported in the NT would not be credible, or that these men were deceived themselves, or were deceiving? I see nothing that would call into question these men's credibility?

The cleverest folk can be deceived.

True! So, how does this demonstrate that these men were deceived?

And remember, we are hearing reports of reports - not actual eye-witnesses.

And how did you determine this to be the case? I was under the impression that we cannot know who authored the reports, and now you seem to be insisting that we do know they were not eyewitnesses. How is this?

However, we can know beyond doubt who the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been. We can also know beyond doubt that this author was well acquainted with, and knew the original Apostles first hand, and knew the claims they were making very well, so that he would have been reporting from those who would have been first hand eyewitnesses. We can also know that this author claims to have been present to witness what would be miraculous events, concerning the travels with Paul. So then, it would seem that we have an account that is much, much, closer to the events than you would care to admit, I'm afraid.

"John Smith says he saw this" is not the same as "I saw this." So, we are left with opinions.

I am certainly happy that you bring, "John Smith" into the conversation, so let's compare. John, claims to have witnessed some sort of "Golden Tablets." As time went on, there were others who claimed to have also witnessed these tablets of gold. However, one by one, there were those who began to recant their testicmony, each giving different explanations to explain away what they first claim to have seen, with at least one of these witnesses leaving the Church.

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.

However, as we look at those who report about the resurrection, we do not hear a "peep" from history of any of them ever recanting what they report. In fact, we have overwhelming evidence that some of these men went on to live the rest of their lives, continuing to report the same exact thing, in the face of persecution, and imprisonment. So then, thanks for bringing this up.

Good enough for me.

Of course it is. However, what is "good enough for you" in no way demonstrates anything at all. We already know that it does not take a whole lot to convince some folks. This is not a revelation in any way.

No one is saying that science pronounces infallibly.

This is surprising because you seem to possess a whole lot of faith in science.

Newton drew conclusions about motion which Einstein corrected. We are not in the science laboratory here but in wide-eyed Jerusalem, with its market traders and Temple. If some of its citizens say they saw a corpse walking about, it is not a question of Bose-Einstein statistics. There are no complex equations - just the word of peasants in awe of gods.

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.

The wonders of the human mind! We still debate what happened to Bernadette when she, like Peter, heard some ethereal voice and saw the Virgin Mary.

The problem with your comparison here is the fact that we have 3 others besides Peter who report of this event. But again, the main point here that you are missing is the fact that this author had the objection you make in mind as he wrote to his audience at the time, and goes on to ensure his audience that what he, and the other Apostles report would not be based upon myth, legend, and that it was not passed down to them by others, but they were rather, "eyewitnesses."

This alone demonstrates, that at least this author was well aware of such things, and was not simply walking around looking for the next claim of some sort of god, as you suggest. The point is, making the argument that he did not hear the voice of God, (which you in no way can demonstrate) is completely beside the point, even if you could demonstrate this to be the case, which you cannot.

Poor old Peter was flummoxed by a cockerel and seems a likeable but simple soul.

Another statement made as if it were a fact, without a shred of facts, and evidence to back it up.

Did he hear heaven speaking from the upper atmosphere? No, he most definitely did not.

And here is another. What facts, and evidence do you have which would demonstrate this?

So after all this thunder and semantic mining we must still insist there is no reason to overturn Nature as we know it and claim a Resurrection.

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.

The poor souls wandering around witnessing blind people seeing and dead people talking were hopeful dreamers at best.

Yes, you continue to say things like this, however, you never give us any shred of facts, and evidence which would back up what you say.

God bless them.

Well, we can't have that, now can we? Because that would be an act of God, which would be miraculous, and that is, "absurd."