What Is God Made From?

[Alien]

Alien

You say thinks like they saw him do miracles, they saw him crucified etc.

Just because these things are written in a book, if does not make them so.

Agreed, but then no-one here, me included, do not make that claim.

In fact it is pretty certain that no miracles were performed ever by anyone anywhere, for the simple reason that they are not possible.

Oh come on, BR. Do you really believe that? If so, please back up your assertion.

To simply say things happened due to a biased book is silly.

Straw man. See above.

[Alien]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.if

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Everything you say, which is like this, assumes these people, or people in general, were/are rational. Many religions have grown up with weird ideas and beliefs and have been followed by many people well after its creation. So why do you think these early Christians were any different? If many other religions/sects can have strange beliefs based on nothing then why not the sect that grew up 2000 years ago and which became Christianity?

Because none, at least as far as I know, have anything like the evidence that Christianity has. Remember you need to account for the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, people as individuals and groups thinking they saw and/or ate with him on about a dozen occasions and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and fearful people.

Which explanation do you have which covers all those?

Its all a fabrication and it never happened.

Simple!

Why do you claim that?

[BeRational]

Alien

You say thinks like they saw him do miracles, they saw him crucified etc.

Just because these things are written in a book, if does not make them so.

Agreed, but then no-one here, me included, do not make that claim.

In fact it is pretty certain that no miracles were performed ever by anyone anywhere, for the simple reason that they are not possible.

Oh come on, BR. Do you really believe that? If so, please back up your assertion.

To simply say things happened due to a biased book is silly.

Straw man. See above.

Miracles cannot happen as they require the laws of physics to be suspended.

They do not suspend.

[floo]

...
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.

"We don't even know if he existed"? So you are a conspiracy theory man then.

We do have Tacitus who wrote of him, probably Suetonius too. Don't forget Pliny the Younger writing of him or Josephus.

So why do you think we have no non-Christian sources for his existence? We don't know where they got their information from; it might have been Christians, but what sources would you expect which would tell us about an itinerant Jewish preacher who you were either for (and became a Christian, some of whom wrote about him) or were against him (and, if in your power, had him crucified and wanted the whole thing to cease)?

If it was so bloody obvious that Jesus had existed it would all be done and dusted by now. The fact people are arguing about this like historians shows that it is far from clear cut.

It is obvious that Jesus existed, but there is much more to becoming a Christian than just believing he existed.

The fact is none of those were eyewitnesses.

Are you sure about that?

And I ask again, how come only his followers saw him afterwards?

Are you sure about that as well? James, his half-brother, does not seem to have been a follower until he met the risen Jesus.

Wouldn't it have served God's plan to have Jesus show himself to his antagonists?

Why? They had already seen he had done miracles before he was crucified.

If he had done this with hundreds of them they all couldn't have closed the rumours down and having a dead man alive in front of you would be most impressive beyond belief.

They saw him killed, they saw the empty tomb, they saw lots of witnesses. Why should they not already believe?

When you say those against him in your last line who do you mean who were contemporaries of Jesus? Not the Romans as he didn't cause that much of a fuss for them and there were others kicking up similar dust so it was just the norm of the times?

I was thinking of the Jewish authorities.

Someone called Jesus probably did exist, and may have been quite charismatic, which is why he attracted some followers. However, I think it more than probable most of what was attributed to him was highly exaggerated or untrue.

[Alien]

Alien

You say thinks like they saw him do miracles, they saw him crucified etc.

Just because these things are written in a book, if does not make them so.

Agreed, but then no-one here, me included, do not make that claim.

In fact it is pretty certain that no miracles were performed ever by anyone anywhere, for the simple reason that they are not possible.

Oh come on, BR. Do you really believe that? If so, please back up your assertion.

To simply say things happened due to a biased book is silly.

Straw man. See above.

Miracles cannot happen as they require the laws of physics to be suspended.

OK with that.

They do not suspend.

That is a positive claim (rather than something like, "I've not seen any reasonable evidence to suggest they have"), so over to you to demonstrate it.

[BeRational]

Alien

You say thinks like they saw him do miracles, they saw him crucified etc.

Just because these things are written in a book, if does not make them so.

Agreed, but then no-one here, me included, do not make that claim.

In fact it is pretty certain that no miracles were performed ever by anyone anywhere, for the simple reason that they are not possible.

Oh come on, BR. Do you really believe that? If so, please back up your assertion.

To simply say things happened due to a biased book is silly.

Straw man. See above.

Miracles cannot happen as they require the laws of physics to be suspended.

OK with that.

They do not suspend.

That is a positive claim (rather than something like, "I've not seen any reasonable evidence to suggest they have"), so over to you to demonstrate it.

You need to show that the miracles happened.

Stating that it says so in a book is not good enough.

So what do you have to conclude the laws of physics were suspended.

[Gordon]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.

1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc.  What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.

2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.

Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case. 

[Alien]

Alien

You say thinks like they saw him do miracles, they saw him crucified etc.

Just because these things are written in a book, if does not make them so.

Agreed, but then no-one here, me included, do not make that claim.

In fact it is pretty certain that no miracles were performed ever by anyone anywhere, for the simple reason that they are not possible.

Oh come on, BR. Do you really believe that? If so, please back up your assertion.

To simply say things happened due to a biased book is silly.

Straw man. See above.

Miracles cannot happen as they require the laws of physics to be suspended.

OK with that.

They do not suspend.

That is a positive claim (rather than something like, "I've not seen any reasonable evidence to suggest they have"), so over to you to demonstrate it.

You need to show that the miracles happened.

No, I don't, not in this particular instance. You stated that miracles cannot happen. You did not say, "I have not seen any evidence which convinces me they do happen", but rather you made the statement that they do not happen. The burden of proof is therefore on you. I am confident you know that anyway.

[Alien]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.

1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc.  What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.

2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.

Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.

OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it.

[Andy]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.

1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc.  What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.

2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.

Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.

OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it.

Only yesterday you were saying that what's most important is whether it happens rather than how it happens, yet here Gordon is questioning the whether rather than the how if it did happen, but you gloss over that and jump straight to asking how. Double standards.
If you want to play fair, then the least you can do is explain how God resurrected Jesus.

[Gordon]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.

1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc.  What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.

2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.

Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.

OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it.

Simple: someone (or some people) decided to promote the case for Jesus being divine by creating a fictitious propaganda that includes narrative elements (empty tomb, didn't stay dead, met people later etc) so as to convince the intended audience - propaganda on this basis has been with us throughout history, as I'm sure you well know.

If they did this in relation to Jesus then what they'd produce is quite possibly the sort of thing that the NT contains (inc. the resurrection biggie). The issue for those that believe this tale as per the NT claims, and I'm not one of those, is to show how propaganda (a known risk) can be dismissed.

As I've said before the resurrection story in the NT is indistinguishable from fiction so whether it actually happened at all has yet to be established, since if it didn't (in the sense of it being a historical fact) then 'how' is an irrelevant question. 

[Jack Knave]

...
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.

"We don't even know if he existed"? So you are a conspiracy theory man then.

We do have Tacitus who wrote of him, probably Suetonius too. Don't forget Pliny the Younger writing of him or Josephus.

So why do you think we have no non-Christian sources for his existence? We don't know where they got their information from; it might have been Christians, but what sources would you expect which would tell us about an itinerant Jewish preacher who you were either for (and became a Christian, some of whom wrote about him) or were against him (and, if in your power, had him crucified and wanted the whole thing to cease)?

If it was so bloody obvious that Jesus had existed it would all be done and dusted by now. The fact people are arguing about this like historians shows that it is far from clear cut.

1) It is obvious that Jesus existed, but there is much more to becoming a Christian than just believing he existed.

The fact is none of those were eyewitnesses.

2) Are you sure about that?

And I ask again, how come only his followers saw him afterwards?

3) Are you sure about that as well? James, his half-brother, does not seem to have been a follower until he met the risen Jesus.

Wouldn't it have served God's plan to have Jesus show himself to his antagonists?

4) Why? They had already seen he had done miracles before he was crucified.

If he had done this with hundreds of them they all couldn't have closed the rumours down and having a dead man alive in front of you would be most impressive beyond belief.

5) They saw him killed, they saw the empty tomb, they saw lots of witnesses. Why should they not already believe?

When you say those against him in your last line who do you mean who were contemporaries of Jesus? Not the Romans as he didn't cause that much of a fuss for them and there were others kicking up similar dust so it was just the norm of the times?

6) I was thinking of the Jewish authorities.

1) That's your assertion. You have no proof for this. What would help would be some indifferent observers such as the Roman authorities.

2) As sure as you are about psychoanalysis!!! 

3) That's just speculation that this event occurred. As I have said the only fact you have about the NT documents is that they were written, everything else, that is their content, is speculation on your part. 

4) Here's your lack of understanding of human nature again. People are good at denying or selectively remembering what suits them, but as I have said before seeing a dead man walking up to you sure is guaranteed to loosen those bowels, and that's something nobody is going to forget. Also, if it is done to a group of people who were trying to suppress your activities before your resurrection the pressure of the group i.e. group denial, is much harder.

Didn't Jesus say don't hide your light under a bowl? This was his best trick yet so why be shy about it?

5) Who's they? We are talking about Jesus' antagonists here, not his followers.

6) Didn't the Jewish authorities write logs and reports etc. about what was going on around them, just general stuff?

[BashfulAnthony]

...
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.

"We don't even know if he existed"? So you are a conspiracy theory man then.

We do have Tacitus who wrote of him, probably Suetonius too. Don't forget Pliny the Younger writing of him or Josephus.

So why do you think we have no non-Christian sources for his existence? We don't know where they got their information from; it might have been Christians, but what sources would you expect which would tell us about an itinerant Jewish preacher who you were either for (and became a Christian, some of whom wrote about him) or were against him (and, if in your power, had him crucified and wanted the whole thing to cease)?

If it was so bloody obvious that Jesus had existed it would all be done and dusted by now. The fact people are arguing about this like historians shows that it is far from clear cut.

It is obvious that Jesus existed, but there is much more to becoming a Christian than just believing he existed.

The fact is none of those were eyewitnesses.

Are you sure about that?

And I ask again, how come only his followers saw him afterwards?

Are you sure about that as well? James, his half-brother, does not seem to have been a follower until he met the risen Jesus.

Wouldn't it have served God's plan to have Jesus show himself to his antagonists?

Why? They had already seen he had done miracles before he was crucified.

If he had done this with hundreds of them they all couldn't have closed the rumours down and having a dead man alive in front of you would be most impressive beyond belief.

They saw him killed, they saw the empty tomb, they saw lots of witnesses. Why should they not already believe?

When you say those against him in your last line who do you mean who were contemporaries of Jesus? Not the Romans as he didn't cause that much of a fuss for them and there were others kicking up similar dust so it was just the norm of the times?

I was thinking of the Jewish authorities.

Someone called Jesus probably did exist, and may have been quite charismatic, which is why he attracted some followers. However, I think it more than probable most of what was attributed to him was highly exaggerated or untrue.

Jesus did exist:  His current followers number 2 billion, plus!!

[Jack Knave]

Alien

I think you missed my 743?

[Alien]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.

1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc.  What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.

2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.

Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.

OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it.

Only yesterday you were saying that what's most important is whether it happens rather than how it happens, yet here Gordon is questioning the whether rather than the how if it did happen, but you gloss over that and jump straight to asking how. Double standards.

This is incorrect. Gordon, as some others do, says, "None of the resurrection stuff... is difficult to fabricate into a story." OK, since it is not difficult, let him do it. He is claiming that that would be a more probable explanation of what really happened than that Jesus was raised from the dead. Since he is thereby claiming it is "not difficult" to come up with a reasonable naturalistic explanation, then let him do it.

If you want to play fair, then the least you can do is explain how God resurrected Jesus.

I don't know how God did it. If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to raise Jesus' body to life, would you? I'm quite happy to leave my contention open like that and people can come to the conclusion, if they like, that I have not supplied enough detail. If that is the case, so be it. I have never claimed to give details of how God did it. If Gordon is unable to come up with a scenario for his stance, then people can come to their own conclusions about that too.

[Alien]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.

1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc.  What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.

2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.

Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.

OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it.

Simple: someone (or some people) decided to promote the case for Jesus being divine by creating a fictitious propaganda that includes narrative elements (empty tomb, didn't stay dead, met people later etc) so as to convince the intended audience - propaganda on this basis has been with us throughout history, as I'm sure you well know.

OK. What means did they have? What motive did they have?

If they did this in relation to Jesus then what they'd produce is quite possibly the sort of thing that the NT contains (inc. the resurrection biggie). The issue for those that believe this tale as per the NT claims, and I'm not one of those, is to show how propaganda (a known risk) can be dismissed.

As I've said before the resurrection story in the NT is indistinguishable from fiction so whether it actually happened at all has yet to be established, since if it didn't (in the sense of it being a historical fact) then 'how' is an irrelevant question.

See above.

[Andy]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.

1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc.  What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.

2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.

Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.

OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it.

Only yesterday you were saying that what's most important is whether it happens rather than how it happens, yet here Gordon is questioning the whether rather than the how if it did happen, but you gloss over that and jump straight to asking how. Double standards.

This is incorrect. Gordon, as some others do, says, "None of the resurrection stuff... is difficult to fabricate into a story." OK, since it is not difficult, let him do it. He is claiming that that would be a more probable explanation of what really happened than that Jesus was raised from the dead. Since he is thereby claiming it is "not difficult" to come up with a reasonable naturalistic explanation, then let him do it.

The point any ever makes here is that storeies/propaganda is more probable than a resurrection, as we have more evidence for the former than the latter, the latter having so little and evidence to the contrary that we might as well say it's virtually impossible. You're no different, otherwise you wouldn't see it as miraculous. If the probability was the other way around, then propaganda would be the miracle

If you want to play fair, then the least you can do is explain how God resurrected Jesus.

I don't know how God did it. If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to raise Jesus' body to life, would you? I'm quite happy to leave my contention open like that and people can come to the conclusion, if they like, that I have not supplied enough detail. If that is the case, so be it. I have never claimed to give details of how God did it. If Gordon is unable to come up with a scenario for his stance, then people can come to their own conclusions about that too.

If you don't know how God did it, then you can't claim it to be a miracle in the sense that the laws of nature were suspended/changed.

Whether Gordon can come up with a scenario or not is irrelevant. No scernario, no matter how probable or improbable, can eliminate whether God was or wasn't involved in it.

[Leonard James]

There is no more evidence for the Christian God and his miracles than there is for any other gods that people believe in.

[Gordon]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.

1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc.  What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.

2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.

Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.

OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it.

Simple: someone (or some people) decided to promote the case for Jesus being divine by creating a fictitious propaganda that includes narrative elements (empty tomb, didn't stay dead, met people later etc) so as to convince the intended audience - propaganda on this basis has been with us throughout history, as I'm sure you well know.

OK. What means did they have? What motive did they have?

If they did this in relation to Jesus then what they'd produce is quite possibly the sort of thing that the NT contains (inc. the resurrection biggie). The issue for those that believe this tale as per the NT claims, and I'm not one of those, is to show how propaganda (a known risk) can be dismissed.

As I've said before the resurrection story in the NT is indistinguishable from fiction so whether it actually happened at all has yet to be established, since if it didn't (in the sense of it being a historical fact) then 'how' is an irrelevant question.

See above.

Alan

Now you are being obtuse: if fictitious propaganda is involved then its aim is, presumably, to promote the spurious myth of the divinity of Jesus amongst the credulous using (in the absence of podcasts) word of mouth and/or written documents (obviously).

This is what propagandists would do: so it would be essential, surely, to rule out propaganda before taking the resurrection claim seriously, and since you do take it seriously (and I don't) then how have you done this; after all, there is a clear risk that you are a victim of propaganda yourself.

[Andy]

If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to raise Jesus' body to life, would you?

If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to create some propaganda, would you?

See the point yet?

[Gordon]

This is incorrect. Gordon, as some others do, says, "None of the resurrection stuff... is difficult to fabricate into a story." OK, since it is not difficult, let him do it. He is claiming that that would be a more probable explanation of what really happened than that Jesus was raised from the dead. Since he is thereby claiming it is "not difficult" to come up with a reasonable naturalistic explanation, then let him do it.

You are still assuming that the bit about Jesus being raised from the dead 'happened' in the first place.

I think it most likely that this is fictional propaganda begun by supporters of a dead Jesus, which is known human behaviour, and that it didn't 'happen' at all and that you are effectively believing a lie.

[Alien]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.

1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc.  What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.

2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.

Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.

OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it.

Only yesterday you were saying that what's most important is whether it happens rather than how it happens, yet here Gordon is questioning the whether rather than the how if it did happen, but you gloss over that and jump straight to asking how. Double standards.

This is incorrect. Gordon, as some others do, says, "None of the resurrection stuff... is difficult to fabricate into a story." OK, since it is not difficult, let him do it. He is claiming that that would be a more probable explanation of what really happened than that Jesus was raised from the dead. Since he is thereby claiming it is "not difficult" to come up with a reasonable naturalistic explanation, then let him do it.

The point any ever makes here is that storeies/propaganda is more probable than a resurrection, as we have more evidence for the former

But it hasn't ever been shown to add up, to cover the whole of the NT evidence and Josephus and Tacitus, etc. If you really think it is plausible, write out a scenario and we can look at it. Why the refusal to give some detail?

than the latter, the latter having so little and evidence to the contrary that we might as well say it's virtually impossible.

But there is evidence. We have Jesus being killed, an empty tomb and individuals and groups seeing and talking and eating with Jesus afterwards. At least that is what they seem to have honestly believed. Why did they believe it? If they didn't believe it, why did they write the NT? What was their motive? Why did some of them devote themselves to what they knew to be a lie? Why did some die for what they knew to be a lie? Why won't you answer that question.

You're no different, otherwise you wouldn't see it as miraculous. If the probability was the other way around, then propaganda would be the miracle

If you want to play fair, then the least you can do is explain how God resurrected Jesus.

I don't know how God did it. If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to raise Jesus' body to life, would you? I'm quite happy to leave my contention open like that and people can come to the conclusion, if they like, that I have not supplied enough detail. If that is the case, so be it. I have never claimed to give details of how God did it. If Gordon is unable to come up with a scenario for his stance, then people can come to their own conclusions about that too.

If you don't know how God did it, then you can't claim it to be a miracle in the sense that the laws of nature were suspended/changed.

Why not?

Whether Gordon can come up with a scenario or not is irrelevant.

He claimed it was not difficult to come up with a scenario yet so far has refused to do so.

No scernario, no matter how probable or improbable, can eliminate whether God was or wasn't involved in it.

Eh?

[Alien]

...

Alan

Now you are being obtuse: if fictitious propaganda is involved then its aim is, presumably, to promote the spurious myth of the divinity of Jesus amongst the credulous using (in the absence of podcasts) word of mouth and/or written documents (obviously).

This is what propagandists would do: so it would be essential, surely, to rule out propaganda before taking the resurrection claim seriously, and since you do take it seriously (and I don't) then how have you done this; after all, there is a clear risk that you are a victim of propaganda yourself.

But why would they do it when some of them devoted their lives to it and suffered greatly for it, e.g. Paul being stoned, whipped and imprisoned? Why would some die for what they knew to be a lie? Why? Please answer that question. Why do you refuse to answer it?

[Alien]

If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to raise Jesus' body to life, would you?

If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to create some propaganda, would you?

See the point yet?

Why would he do it?

[Gordon]

...

Alan

Now you are being obtuse: if fictitious propaganda is involved then its aim is, presumably, to promote the spurious myth of the divinity of Jesus amongst the credulous using (in the absence of podcasts) word of mouth and/or written documents (obviously).

This is what propagandists would do: so it would be essential, surely, to rule out propaganda before taking the resurrection claim seriously, and since you do take it seriously (and I don't) then how have you done this; after all, there is a clear risk that you are a victim of propaganda yourself.

But why would they do it when some of them devoted their lives to it and suffered greatly for it, e.g. Paul being stoned, whipped and imprisoned? Why would some die for what they knew to be a lie? Why? Please answer that question. Why do you refuse to answer it?

I'm not - you just don't like what I've said, and it also seems you don't understand it either.

I have said that I think that the original claim of resurrection is most likely propaganda but I haven't said that I think that all those subsequently believing it knew that it was a lie, even those daft enough to knowingly die for it: they may well all have sincerely believed that Jesus was resurrected, just as you do.

We've been down this 'but they died for their beliefs' nonsense before - this may say something about them but it says nothing about the truth of their cause, since if you see this martyrdom test as demonstrating that Christianity is true then, for consistency, I assume you take the same position in respect of every suicide bomber in recent times.