There is no health in us.

[Leonard James]

In spite of these experiences, I suppose  you will persist in sneering at ideas of the 'Biofield' and healing techniques.  Sad...but  each to their own! 

I think we should all be open to learning what works, and trying to find out why it works.

In this case it seems that physical properties in the field brought about the cure in some way, either by directly affecting Floo's shoulder, or spurring he own body's defences to work the cure.

[floo]

The Aberfan disaster was one of the things which put my mum and dad off church/Christianity for about 15 years. They struggled to see how a loving God could allow that.

As well they might. At the end of that fifteen year period did they return to church/Christianity, and if so, how did they square that particular circle?

Yes, they came back with a bit of a bang, partly because Dad's migraines stopped when our local vicar prayed for him (and something to do with me becoming a Christian too). I'm not sure how they see that problem now. I can't ask Mum as she is in heaven. I'll try to remember to ask Dad next Tuesday or Wednesday when I see him.

A pity the flipping deity comes through for some, but not others!

Thank you for being pleased my dad stopped having crippling migraines.

Of course I am pleased your father's migraines were cured, by whatever means. However, I would want to beat the crap out of the deity if it had cured your father, yet failed to cure others in desperate need, especially children, what sort of evil games would it be playing?

I had a very painful frozen shoulder years ago, when living at our former property with its 'miracle' field.  As the medics weren't managing to sort out my shoulder, someone suggested I sort a 'cure' from the field. I thought it a silly idea, but gave it a go for the hell of it. Within 5 minutes my shoulder felt easier, and by the next day it was totally cured, I have not had a problem with it since. I am firmly of the opinion my body's own healing mechanism kicked in in response to the pleasant vibes coming from my field, nothing 'supernatural'!

Oh Floo!

God obviously lives in that field!  Why on earth did you sell up!  The people of Lourdes have made an absolute fortune thinking God lived there, when all the time he was living in your field!

You would think he'd do better if he lived in Iraq or Syria, so that he might do some decent curing instead of concentrating on headaches and arm aches though.

Our field was like a mini Lourdes for a time, we had visitors from all over the UK, Ireland and even some from America. However, my husband and I would never have dreamed of making money out of the field, regarding that as immoral, especially as we are sceptics where religion and the supernatural are concerned. We put a notice up saying people were welcome to stand at the field gate and take in the vibes, as long as they didn't disturb the neighbours.

[Jack Knave]

The Aberfan disaster was one of the things which put my mum and dad off church/Christianity for about 15 years. They struggled to see how a loving God could allow that.

As well they might. At the end of that fifteen year period did they return to church/Christianity, and if so, how did they square that particular circle?

Yes, they came back with a bit of a bang, partly because Dad's migraines stopped when our local vicar prayed for him (and something to do with me becoming a Christian too). I'm not sure how they see that problem now. I can't ask Mum as she is in heaven. I'll try to remember to ask Dad next Tuesday or Wednesday when I see him.

No doubt your dad's migraine was only psychosomatic. All he needed was to be loved again; accepted by the fold, and feel part of the social tribe once more. No God-power required just some good old social loving. So times referred to as the placebo effect.

Excellent. You've spoken to my dad then. He was feeling unloved. I know why he had those migraines and it was not being unloved. Cut the crap psychoanalysis.

Crap, Alan, crap? On what evidence do you base that on? Have you studied the subject and read the books? By the way psychoanalysis is Freud I'm Jungian based, that's totally different.

If you know why he was having the migraines then it wasn't God who cured him, especially as God doesn't exist, so my surmise was pretty much on the money!!!

[Jack Knave]

Oh, and Alan. There's my 242, 243, 245, and.... 251, 252, 253 (one of which you've just answered). Bold one is more pressing....well, according to my notes.

Eh? 247 was my reply to your 242, my 248 your 243, my 249 your 245. Would you please check to see which, if any, I still owe you a reply on.

251, 252 which is about the flood (if this gets going I could start a thread; that'll be novel) and 253 for you to confirm that you never lived in Wales.

[Alien]

The Aberfan disaster was one of the things which put my mum and dad off church/Christianity for about 15 years. They struggled to see how a loving God could allow that.

As well they might. At the end of that fifteen year period did they return to church/Christianity, and if so, how did they square that particular circle?

Yes, they came back with a bit of a bang, partly because Dad's migraines stopped when our local vicar prayed for him (and something to do with me becoming a Christian too). I'm not sure how they see that problem now. I can't ask Mum as she is in heaven. I'll try to remember to ask Dad next Tuesday or Wednesday when I see him.

No doubt your dad's migraine was only psychosomatic. All he needed was to be loved again; accepted by the fold, and feel part of the social tribe once more. No God-power required just some good old social loving. So times referred to as the placebo effect.

Excellent. You've spoken to my dad then. He was feeling unloved. I know why he had those migraines and it was not being unloved. Cut the crap psychoanalysis.

Crap, Alan, crap? On what evidence do you base that on?

Why he had the migraines? If so, my dad has told me over the last few months and no, I'm not discussing it over the internet.

Have you studied the subject and read the books?

No, but my dad has told me over the last few months, etc.

By the way psychoanalysis is Freud I'm Jungian based, that's totally different.

Happy to let you pick the term.

If you know why he was having the migraines then it wasn't God who cured him,

Why?

especially as God doesn't exist, so my surmise was pretty much on the money!!!

Excellent. Atheist decides God can't have done a miracle as God doesn't exist therefore it can't be a miracle.

As it is I would not rule out at least some psychosomatic stuff here. I was just asked why my mum and dad started going back to church and no, the reason his migraines stopped was not because "all he needed was to be loved again".

[Alien]

Oh, and Alan. There's my 242, 243, 245, and.... 251, 252, 253 (one of which you've just answered). Bold one is more pressing....well, according to my notes.

Eh? 247 was my reply to your 242, my 248 your 243, my 249 your 245. Would you please check to see which, if any, I still owe you a reply on.

251, 252 which is about the flood (if this gets going I could start a thread; that'll be novel) and 253 for you to confirm that you never lived in Wales.

253 was answered in 254. I'll answer 251 and 252 as I don't think I've answered them.

[Jack Knave]

The Aberfan disaster was one of the things which put my mum and dad off church/Christianity for about 15 years. They struggled to see how a loving God could allow that.

As well they might. At the end of that fifteen year period did they return to church/Christianity, and if so, how did they square that particular circle?

Yes, they came back with a bit of a bang, partly because Dad's migraines stopped when our local vicar prayed for him (and something to do with me becoming a Christian too). I'm not sure how they see that problem now. I can't ask Mum as she is in heaven. I'll try to remember to ask Dad next Tuesday or Wednesday when I see him.

No doubt your dad's migraine was only psychosomatic. All he needed was to be loved again; accepted by the fold, and feel part of the social tribe once more. No God-power required just some good old social loving. So times referred to as the placebo effect.

Excellent. You've spoken to my dad then. He was feeling unloved. I know why he had those migraines and it was not being unloved. Cut the crap psychoanalysis.

Crap, Alan, crap? On what evidence do you base that on?

Why he had the migraines? If so, my dad has told me over the last few months and no, I'm not discussing it over the internet.

Have you studied the subject and read the books?

No, but my dad has told me over the last few months, etc.

By the way psychoanalysis is Freud I'm Jungian based, that's totally different.

Happy to let you pick the term.

If you know why he was having the migraines then it wasn't God who cured him,

Why?

especially as God doesn't exist, so my surmise was pretty much on the money!!!

Excellent. Atheist decides God can't have done a miracle as God doesn't exist therefore it can't be a miracle.

As it is I would not rule out at least some psychosomatic stuff here. I was just asked why my mum and dad started going back to church and no, the reason his migraines stopped was not because "all he needed was to be loved again".

My post was about you being an expert  on psychoanalysis, and as such being able to make the judgement that what I had said was crap.

[Alien]

...
Evidence isn't fact!!!

1) Agreed, but it is possible to have good enough evidence about things to come to a decision on something, e.g. whether to get on a plane to go on holiday.

And there is no historical document good enough for someone to sanely guide their whole life style on it as gospel truth.

2) That's your assertion. I disagree with you.

The facts are that people wrote this stuff. The speculation is why they did it? From our point in history we can never truly know why this was and so the speculation goes categorical unanswered.

3) That's your assertion. I disagree with you.

You're whole Christian faith is based on guesswork all bolstered up by your prejudices to want to believe.

4) That's your assertion. I disagree with you. Why should I think it is my prejudices and not yours?

1) Your example is not comparable, and you are playing your games again by doing this.

That is incorrect. I am point out, yet again, that we make decisions all the time on incomplete evidence and some of those decisions could be life-changing/life-ending. The clamour from some people here for irrefutable evidence is not what happens in the real world.

You also do not have good evidence - you can't follow it up by interviewing the people concerned.

So you are saying that unless someone can be interviewed it cannot be deemed "good evidence"? Really?

Your evidence can't be investigated personally, it has solidified in history and is inaccessible.

Like whether there was a Battle of Waterloo in 1815 then. How would you "investigate that personally"?

2) That is not an assertion it is fact.

So you assert. Come on, js. It is your opinion. You are remarkably ahistoric. Where does history start for you (looking backwards). When you were 10 when you could start interviewing people. You are not applying the same criteria for the NT as you are for other historic questions and that is not the right way to do it.

Your tactics here are similar to those I hear politicians use and is disingenuous. I thought Christians were suppose to not be duplicitous...people should guide their lives based on personal experience of their lives not some rule book from the past.

A personal attack not worth arguing against. I'm happy to have a serious discussion if you want to, but there is no need to get personal.[quote

3) Again, this is not an assertion but logical reasoning, and bloody obvious!!![/quote]In which case you can demonstrate it. Have you noticed how often it is that when people say something is obvious they will not defend their stance? Show me I am wrong here.

4) It is at least guesswork i.e. speculation, for what else do you have? You can't examine the events personally, unless you have a time machine, and therefore, you can never know what actually happened. And as there is more than one explanation that can account for these manuscripts that puts doubts throughout the documentation. Which means your faith rests on speculation and doubt.

I'll be happy to answer this when you stop applying double standards between the NT and everything else in history.

[BashfulAnthony]

...
Evidence isn't fact!!!

1) Agreed, but it is possible to have good enough evidence about things to come to a decision on something, e.g. whether to get on a plane to go on holiday.

And there is no historical document good enough for someone to sanely guide their whole life style on it as gospel truth.

2) That's your assertion. I disagree with you.

The facts are that people wrote this stuff. The speculation is why they did it? From our point in history we can never truly know why this was and so the speculation goes categorical unanswered.

3) That's your assertion. I disagree with you.

You're whole Christian faith is based on guesswork all bolstered up by your prejudices to want to believe.

4) That's your assertion. I disagree with you. Why should I think it is my prejudices and not yours?

1) Your example is not comparable, and you are playing your games again by doing this.

That is incorrect. I am point out, yet again, that we make decisions all the time on incomplete evidence and some of those decisions could be life-changing/life-ending. The clamour from some people here for irrefutable evidence is not what happens in the real world.

You also do not have good evidence - you can't follow it up by interviewing the people concerned.

So you are saying that unless someone can be interviewed it cannot be deemed "good evidence"? Really?

Your evidence can't be investigated personally, it has solidified in history and is inaccessible.

Like whether there was a Battle of Waterloo in 1815 then. How would you "investigate that personally"?

2) That is not an assertion it is fact.

So you assert. Come on, js. It is your opinion. You are remarkably ahistoric. Where does history start for you (looking backwards). When you were 10 when you could start interviewing people. You are not applying the same criteria for the NT as you are for other historic questions and that is not the right way to do it.

Your tactics here are similar to those I hear politicians use and is disingenuous. I thought Christians were suppose to not be duplicitous...people should guide their lives based on personal experience of their lives not some rule book from the past.

A personal attack not worth arguing against. I'm happy to have a serious discussion if you want to, but there is no need to get personal.[quote

3) Again, this is not an assertion but logical reasoning, and bloody obvious!!!

In which case you can demonstrate it. Have you noticed how often it is that when people say something is obvious they will not defend their stance? Show me I am wrong here.

4) It is at least guesswork i.e. speculation, for what else do you have? You can't examine the events personally, unless you have a time machine, and therefore, you can never know what actually happened. And as there is more than one explanation that can account for these manuscripts that puts doubts throughout the documentation. Which means your faith rests on speculation and doubt.

I'll be happy to answer this when you stop applying double standards between the NT and everything else in history.


A fair point, that.

[Alien]

...
My overall point is about being efficient and methodical. If a specific virus had wiped out all the sinners then the process would have been a lot cleaner and less messier (the flood would have churned up the fertile land and afterwards would have left tonnes of rotting vegetation leaving one hell of a smell). Noah wouldn't have had to build that ark but just watch the plague wipe out those sinners. He would have had good ground to start planting some crops and would have fruit etc. to eat. What did he survive on, food, whilst he waited for the rotting mess to disappear?

I don't know what he lived on during that time. I would presume he would have planted stuff and eaten that when it ripened just like before. When we've had floods around here people survive. Why do you think there would be a particular problem?

A total flood like that would destroy the fertility of the soil. It would take months if not years for it to be put right. All the plants and trees would be destroyed and of course there would be very few eatable animals about, though he couldn't touch those as they had been saved to repopulate the Earth. What did the carnivores survive on after they were let loose?

May I point out to you that I do not believe that the bible speaks of a flood which covered the entire planet, so if I am correct, your point above may not be relevant.

Oh, I am surprised.

You should not be. I have argued thus for years on several "Noah's Flood" threads. Did you really not know that was my stance?

I thought the purpose of the flood was to remove the whole of mankind (sinners) except Noah and his family?

In fact what you say doesn't square with what Gen 6 says.

Have a search for some of the previous threads on the Flood. Here's one at http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10057.0 and here's the one it refers to and which would be more useful for you to look at to see my stance http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10056.0

Oh, look, jakswan took part in it, so why the "Oh, I am surprised" in this post I am replying to?

[Jack Knave]

...
Evidence isn't fact!!!

1) Agreed, but it is possible to have good enough evidence about things to come to a decision on something, e.g. whether to get on a plane to go on holiday.

And there is no historical document good enough for someone to sanely guide their whole life style on it as gospel truth.

2) That's your assertion. I disagree with you.

The facts are that people wrote this stuff. The speculation is why they did it? From our point in history we can never truly know why this was and so the speculation goes categorical unanswered.

3) That's your assertion. I disagree with you.

You're whole Christian faith is based on guesswork all bolstered up by your prejudices to want to believe.

4) That's your assertion. I disagree with you. Why should I think it is my prejudices and not yours?

1) Your example is not comparable, and you are playing your games again by doing this.

That is incorrect. I am point out, yet again, that we make decisions all the time on incomplete evidence and some of those decisions could be life-changing/life-ending. The clamour from some people here for irrefutable evidence is not what happens in the real world.

You also do not have good evidence - you can't follow it up by interviewing the people concerned.

So you are saying that unless someone can be interviewed it cannot be deemed "good evidence"? Really?

Your evidence can't be investigated personally, it has solidified in history and is inaccessible.

Like whether there was a Battle of Waterloo in 1815 then. How would you "investigate that personally"?

2) That is not an assertion it is fact.

So you assert. Come on, js. It is your opinion. You are remarkably ahistoric. Where does history start for you (looking backwards). When you were 10 when you could start interviewing people. You are not applying the same criteria for the NT as you are for other historic questions and that is not the right way to do it.

Your tactics here are similar to those I hear politicians use and is disingenuous. I thought Christians were suppose to not be duplicitous...people should guide their lives based on personal experience of their lives not some rule book from the past.

A personal attack not worth arguing against. I'm happy to have a serious discussion if you want to, but there is no need to get personal.[quote

3) Again, this is not an assertion but logical reasoning, and bloody obvious!!!

In which case you can demonstrate it. Have you noticed how often it is that when people say something is obvious they will not defend their stance? Show me I am wrong here.

4) It is at least guesswork i.e. speculation, for what else do you have? You can't examine the events personally, unless you have a time machine, and therefore, you can never know what actually happened. And as there is more than one explanation that can account for these manuscripts that puts doubts throughout the documentation. Which means your faith rests on speculation and doubt.

I'll be happy to answer this when you stop applying double standards between the NT and everything else in history.


A fair point, that.

Except it is Alien who applies double standards in the way he treats various things as many keep complaining about to him. This claim of his on me here is a double standard, to deflect from the fact of his lack of an answer, and he tends to resort to these tactics when he feels cornered - if he has an answer let him give it. I have not applied any double standards as my treatment of all history is the same, as he well knows.

[Alien]

...
Except it is Alien who applies double standards in the way he treats various things as many keep complaining about to him. This claim of his on me here is a double standard, to deflect from the fact of his lack of an answer, and he tends to resort to these tactics when he feels cornered - if he has an answer let him give it. I have not applied any double standards as my treatment of all history is the same, as he well knows.

Help me here then. Why do you write stuff like, "You also do not have good evidence - you can't follow it up by interviewing the people concerned" about the NT accounts yet ignore that for the rest of history? I genuinely do not understand why you seem to require different levels of evidence in determining whether something happened. Note that to say that the NT accounts are more important is actually irrelevant (if you were going to say that). If you can't assign a high probability of something happening in the NT because you can't interview the people involved, you can't assign a high probability to the Battle of Hastings, the fall of Rome, the Spanish Armada, the Crusades and so. The importance of the event is important if we need to act as a result of those events, but it does not affect the probability of their having happened.

Please explain.

[Leonard James]

Please explain.

Alan, surely you can see that the probability of something having happened which does not defy natural laws is greater than something which does?

For example, the probability of the moon being hit by an enormous asteroid and breaking into pieces is far greater than it just breaking up for no scientific reason, and that is simply because we have observed such things as the former.

The same principle applies to the supernatural events recounted in the Bible.

[jjohnjil]

...
Except it is Alien who applies double standards in the way he treats various things as many keep complaining about to him. This claim of his on me here is a double standard, to deflect from the fact of his lack of an answer, and he tends to resort to these tactics when he feels cornered - if he has an answer let him give it. I have not applied any double standards as my treatment of all history is the same, as he well knows.

Help me here then. Why do you write stuff like, "You also do not have good evidence - you can't follow it up by interviewing the people concerned" about the NT accounts yet ignore that for the rest of history? I genuinely do not understand why you seem to require different levels of evidence in determining whether something happened. Note that to say that the NT accounts are more important is actually irrelevant (if you were going to say that). If you can't assign a high probability of something happening in the NT because you can't interview the people involved, you can't assign a high probability to the Battle of Hastings, the fall of Rome, the Spanish Armada, the Crusades and so. The importance of the event is important if we need to act as a result of those events, but it does not affect the probability of their having happened.

Please explain.

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

[Leonard James]

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

If that is part of the Islamic belief, it is dafter than Christianity.

[floo]

Please explain.

Alan, surely you can see that the probability of something having happened which does not defy natural laws is greater than something which does?

For example, the probability of the moon being hit by an enormous asteroid and breaking into pieces is far greater than it just breaking up for no scientific reason, and that is simply because we have observed such things as the former.

The same principle applies to the supernatural events recounted in the Bible.

No doubt Alan will ignore that logical answer!

[jjohnjil]

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

If that is part of the Islamic belief, it is dafter than Christianity.

But as it's written in a book, Len, Alan says we should believe it.

[BashfulAnthony]

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

If that is part of the Islamic belief, it is dafter than Christianity.

But as it's written in a book, Len, Alan says we should believe it.

Harold being killed by an arrow in the eye is supposedly depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry. I fact, it is not at all clear that it is indeed Harold being shot.  My point is, in historical events going back that far, and further, whether written or otherwise depticted, it is always open to some doubt, but it does not mean it didn't, or couldn't have, happened.

[jjohnjil]

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

If that is part of the Islamic belief, it is dafter than Christianity.

But as it's written in a book, Len, Alan says we should believe it.

Harold being killed by an arrow in the eye is supposedly depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry. I fact, it is not at all clear that it is indeed Harold being shot.  My point is, in historical events going back that far, and further, whether written or otherwise depticted, it is always open to some doubt, but it does not mean it didn't, or couldn't have, happened.

You are perfectly right, BA, Harold may or may not have been killed; he may or may not have escaped and someone else may have had that arrow in his eye, who knows?

Historical events are always open to doubt but if one account said that Harold's body had been found, an arrow in his brain and a spear had been thrust into his side ... he was then buried on the battlefield ... and a couple of weeks later he was seen by 500 people talking and eating ...

Well I doubt if many of us would think that particular account could be overly relied upon!   Unless you think otherwise?

[Leonard James]

You are perfectly right, BA, Harold may or may not have been killed; he may or may not have escaped and someone else may have had that arrow in his eye, who knows?

Historical events are always open to doubt but if one account said that Harold's body had been found, an arrow in his brain and a spear had been thrust into his side ... he was then buried on the battlefield ... and a couple of weeks later he was seen by 500 people talking and eating ...

Well I doubt if many of us would think that particular account could be overly relied upon!   Unless you think otherwise?

Splendidly argued, JJ. But you won't convince him, he's ensnared by his belief.

[jjohnjil]

You are perfectly right, BA, Harold may or may not have been killed; he may or may not have escaped and someone else may have had that arrow in his eye, who knows?

Historical events are always open to doubt but if one account said that Harold's body had been found, an arrow in his brain and a spear had been thrust into his side ... he was then buried on the battlefield ... and a couple of weeks later he was seen by 500 people talking and eating ...

Well I doubt if many of us would think that particular account could be overly relied upon!   Unless you think otherwise?

Splendidly argued, JJ. But you won't convince him, he's ensnared by his belief.

Yes, tis sad, Len.

[BashfulAnthony]

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

If that is part of the Islamic belief, it is dafter than Christianity.

But as it's written in a book, Len, Alan says we should believe it.

Harold being killed by an arrow in the eye is supposedly depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry. I fact, it is not at all clear that it is indeed Harold being shot.  My point is, in historical events going back that far, and further, whether written or otherwise depticted, it is always open to some doubt, but it does not mean it didn't, or couldn't have, happened.

You are perfectly right, BA, Harold may or may not have been killed; he may or may not have escaped and someone else may have had that arrow in his eye, who knows?

Historical events are always open to doubt but if one account said that Harold's body had been found, an arrow in his brain and a spear had been thrust into his side ... he was then buried on the battlefield ... and a couple of weeks later he was seen by 500 people talking and eating ...

Well I doubt if many of us would think that particular account could be overly relied upon!   Unless you think otherwise?

You cannot compare the case of Harold with that of Jesus:  that is a spurious comparison.  My point is that you cannot be totally sure of claims made in ancient texts, but by the same token, it is the act of an idiot to dismiss something attested to by so many.  I assume you, and the sainted Leonard, aren't idiots...?

[jjohnjil]

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

If that is part of the Islamic belief, it is dafter than Christianity.

But as it's written in a book, Len, Alan says we should believe it.

Harold being killed by an arrow in the eye is supposedly depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry. I fact, it is not at all clear that it is indeed Harold being shot.  My point is, in historical events going back that far, and further, whether written or otherwise depticted, it is always open to some doubt, but it does not mean it didn't, or couldn't have, happened.

You are perfectly right, BA, Harold may or may not have been killed; he may or may not have escaped and someone else may have had that arrow in his eye, who knows?

Historical events are always open to doubt but if one account said that Harold's body had been found, an arrow in his brain and a spear had been thrust into his side ... he was then buried on the battlefield ... and a couple of weeks later he was seen by 500 people talking and eating ...

Well I doubt if many of us would think that particular account could be overly relied upon!   Unless you think otherwise?

You cannot compare the case of Harold with that of Jesus:  that is a spurious comparison.  My point is that you cannot be totally sure of claims made in ancient texts, but by the same token, it is the act of an idiot to dismiss something attested to by so many.  I assume you, and the sainted Leonard, aren't idiots...?

No we're not.

[Shaker]

You cannot compare the case of Harold with that of Jesus

Why not? This is already beginning to smell very much like special pleading.

that is a spurious comparison.

Instead of merely asserting that it's a supposedly spurious comparison and expecting us to accept this at face value, explain why you think it's a spurious comparison.

[Leonard James]

See what I mean! A complete waste of time and effort, but a good read for the rest of us.