"Take my word for it, or his, or this book"

[Zzyzx]

Most of us probably know better than to believe everything said or written. If someone tells us they can fly by flapping their arms, our response is likely disbelief and a request that they ‘show me’. If they refuse to demonstrate or fail in flapping, we regard their claim as false. Agreed?

If a person claims to have come back to life after being dead for days none of us are likely to believe the claim unless it could be verified. Right?

If someone writes that fifty years ago a long-dead person came back to life and flew away into the sky, what would be your / our likely reaction? Would we be convinced if they say ‘many saw him’?

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

[SiNcE_1985]

Most of us probably know better than to believe everything said or written.

We all believe what we perceive to be true; whether said or written.

If someone tells us they can fly by flapping their arms, our response is likely disbelief and a request that they ‘show me’. If they refuse to demonstrate or fail in flapping, we regard their claim as false. Agreed?

This is false equivalency fallacy.

You're comparing historical methodology (HM)with scientific methodology (SM)...one is not as black/white as the other.

If a person claims to have come back to life after being dead for days none of us are likely to believe the claim unless it could be verified. Right?

Sure, and believers believe the claim was/is verified, by those that were there, and saw.

If someone writes that fifty years ago a long-dead person came back to life and flew away into the sky, what would be your / our likely reaction? Would we be convinced if they say ‘many saw him’?

Yeah, text books today write that X billions of years ago, long-inanimate matter came to life and began to talk, think, and have sex.

No seems to be fussing about the truth value of that...are we?

And no one has ever said that they saw this phenomenon either...yet people still believe it..and no one is making any fuss about it.

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

What would it take to convince us that abiogenesis is/was true?

But to answer the question of the thread....we (believers) are convinced based on what we believe to be positive evidence for the historicity of Jesus, and his Resurrection.
....

Yet, another thread made by an unbeliever who just can't seem to let it go.

I guess, the Holy Spirit is tugging away at you folks..it keeps you up at night...and instead of embracing it, you fight it by coming on forums such as this, looking for confirmation bias.

If the idea of the Resurrection seems absurd to you, then let it go.

Why waste time/energy on something that doesn't concern you?

Let it go.

[Zzyzx]

You say: "We all believe what we perceive to be true, whether said or written.
--------
I say: "People believe what they WANT to believe and/or what they have been taught (or indoctrinated) to believe. Belief is no assurance of truth and accuracy. People believe all sorts of nonsense.

I don't 'let it go' because promoters of Christianity attempt to inflict their beliefs, rules, and practices onto others and onto the society in which I live.

It is interesting to see someone criticize 'false equivalency' by others while equating origin of life theories with claims of seeing dead people who had come back to life.

You say, "believe the claim was/is verified, by those that were there, and saw"
--------
WHO was there and saw the 'resurrection' of Jesus? Where is their eyewitness account?

If someone claims to have seen something unusual or unprecedented, do we accept it as true and accurate if it cannot be verified? If they claim that 'many saw' (without verification), is that evidence of truth?

Tales of 'resurrection' are a common theme in ancient mythology and religions. Are they all true? Some but not others? Just a favorite one? HOW to choose which to believe?
List of Gods that are claimed to have died and resurrected.
1 . Krishna of India.
2. Buddha of India.
3. Salivahana of Bermuda.
4. Osiris and Horus, of Egypt.
5. Odin of the Scandinavians.
6. Crite of Chaldea.
7. Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia.
8. Baal and Taut, "the only Begotten of God," of Phenicia.
9. Indra of Thibet.
10. Bali of Afghanistan.
1 1 . Jao of Nepaul.
12. Wittoba of the Bilingonese.
13. Thammuz of Syria.
14. Atys of Phrygia.
15. Xaniolxis of Thrace.
16. Zoar of the Bonzes.
17. Adad of Assyria.
18. Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam of Siam.
19. Alcides of Thebes.
20. Mikado of the Sintoos.
21. Beddru of Japan.
22. Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids.
23. Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls.
24. Cadmus of Greece.
25. Hil and Feta of the Mandaites.
26. Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico.
27. Universal Monarch of the Sibyls.
28. Ischy of the Island of Formosa.
29. Divine Teacher of Plato.
30. HolyOneofXaca.
31 . Fohi and Tien of China.
32. Adonis, son of the virgin lo of Greece.
33. IxiOn and Quirinus of Rome.
34. Prometheus of Caucasus.

[Tcg]

WHO was there and saw the 'resurrection' of Jesus? Where is their eyewitness account?

Mary Magdelene is reported to have seen the resurrected Jesus at the tomb. We of course don't have her testimony, so the report is hearsay at best. It is important to note though, that according to this questionable report, she didn't recognize Jesus but rather thought he was the gardener. This brings up two pertinent issues.

We know based on the Innocence Projects' findings, that eyewitness misidentification is not uncommon. Apologists want us to believe that eyewitness testimony is a smoking gun affair. It is far from it.

<https://innocenceproject.org/eyewitness ... ification/>

Secondly, the case of imposters points to the fact that the Jesus reportedly seen after the crucifixion may have been a fake. There were perhaps three Nero imposters who were accepted as him after his death.

<https://www.thecollector.com/emperor-ne ... udo-neros/>

So, the reports could be a result of misidentification and/or the presence of imposter/s.

The so called "evidence" for Jesus' resurrection is astonishingly weak which reveals why Christianity places such emphasis on faith. Faith is required to accept this mythology. Honest Christians will admit this fact. We'll have to wait to see if any show up.


Tcg

[OneJack]

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

In this context, God’s way prevails over men’s way. If you want Jesus to speak with you as in the days of the old, then go Jesus’ way to meet Him.

[Clownboat]

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

In this context, God’s way prevails over men’s way. If you want Jesus to speak with you as in the days of the old, then go Jesus’ way to meet Him.

In this context, Allah's way prevails over men's way. If you want Allah to speak with you as in the days of old, then go Allah's way to meet Him.
Welcome to being Muslim! Wait, what?!? The words were ineffective! Surprise... surprise!

[OneJack]

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

In this context, God’s way prevails over men’s way. If you want Jesus to speak with you as in the days of the old, then go Jesus’ way to meet Him.

In this context, Allah's way prevails over men's way. If you want Allah to speak with you as in the days of old, then go Allah's way to meet Him.
Welcome to being Muslim! Wait, what?!? The words were ineffective! Surprise... surprise!

Go your way in peace, Clownboat!

[Clownboat]

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

In this context, God’s way prevails over men’s way. If you want Jesus to speak with you as in the days of the old, then go Jesus’ way to meet Him.

In this context, Allah's way prevails over men's way. If you want Allah to speak with you as in the days of old, then go Allah's way to meet Him.
Welcome to being Muslim! Wait, what?!? The words were ineffective! Surprise... surprise!

Go your way in peace, Clownboat!

That is not a valid debate response.
I hope you have the day you deserve.

[OneJack]

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

In this context, God’s way prevails over men’s way. If you want Jesus to speak with you as in the days of the old, then go Jesus’ way to meet Him.

In this context, Allah's way prevails over men's way. If you want Allah to speak with you as in the days of old, then go Allah's way to meet Him.
Welcome to being Muslim! Wait, what?!? The words were ineffective! Surprise... surprise!

Go your way in peace, Clownboat!

That is not a valid debate response.
I hope you have the day you deserve.

Peace be with you, Clownboat.

[tam]

Peace to you Z,

Most of us probably know better than to believe everything said or written. If someone tells us they can fly by flapping their arms, our response is likely disbelief and a request that they ‘show me’. If they refuse to demonstrate or fail in flapping, we regard their claim as false. Agreed?

Sure.

If a person claims to have come back to life after being dead for days none of us are likely to believe the claim unless it could be verified. Right?

Sure.

If someone writes that fifty years ago a long-dead person came back to life and flew away into the sky, what would be your / our likely reaction? Would we be convinced if they say ‘many saw him’?

I would not be convinced.

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

This is kind of simplified because we are talking about Christ, about God, and there are many things that can help build one's faith. But I guess the short answer would be that one is first given faith from God, and drawn to His Son.

Hearing from that person long after they died verifies (to the person hearing at least) that He a) spoke truthfully, and b) did indeed come back to life after having died.

**

I don't have to take someone else's word for anything. I know it to be true.


Peace again to you!