There is no health in us.

[Alien]

If you didn't get it from a book, those who have taught you took it from a book - the Bible ... Simply because it isn't told in anything other than in the Bible!

Unless he is speaking about a personal experience, which is notoriously unreliable.

See #324.

The fact is, Alan, that everybody who believes in the Christian god does so either because of what they have heard or read, or because of some personal "experience" that they consider was caused by him.

Er, yes. What other route would you suggest there should be?

However, read #291. That was where he was making an ambiguous claim.

[Leonard James]

If you didn't get it from a book, those who have taught you took it from a book - the Bible ... Simply because it isn't told in anything other than in the Bible!

Unless he is speaking about a personal experience, which is notoriously unreliable.

See #324.

The fact is, Alan, that everybody who believes in the Christian god does so either because of what they have heard or read, or because of some personal "experience" that they consider was caused by him.

Er, yes. What other route would you suggest there should be?

There isn't any other, which is what I was pointing out ... to emphasize the weakness of religious beliefs.

However, read #291. That was where he was making an ambiguous claim.

I wasn't referring to that.

[Alien]

If you didn't get it from a book, those who have taught you took it from a book - the Bible ... Simply because it isn't told in anything other than in the Bible!

Unless he is speaking about a personal experience, which is notoriously unreliable.

See #324.

The fact is, Alan, that everybody who believes in the Christian god does so either because of what they have heard or read, or because of some personal "experience" that they consider was caused by him.

Er, yes. What other route would you suggest there should be?

There isn't any other, which is what I was pointing out ... to emphasize the weakness of religious beliefs.

However, read #291. That was where he was making an ambiguous claim.

I wasn't referring to that.

So what sort of evidence should there be then, Len?

[Leonard James]

So what sort of evidence should there be then, Len?

If  "God" wants to convince us he exists, he could do it by showing the love he is credited with and eradicating, at a stroke, all the sickness and suffering that plagues us.

[Jack Knave]

...
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.

"...about the NT accounts yet ignore that for the rest of history?"

But I don't. Why don't you help me here by keeping to what we have agreed instead of endlessly backtracking as if it was never mentioned.

1)But you do. You say we can't believe something because it happened so long ago and so on, but you accept that other things happened long ago. Why do you accept all those and not the NT accounts?

You base the whole of your intrinsic and fundamental lifestyle and attitude on your faith and the NT documents. Your whole approach to life is fashioned by this milieu. What else in history do you do that for?

I have explained (and you even did a post asking other atheists if they thought the same) that I treat history for my amusement,

2) Nowhere have I spoken of "amusement".

as just some academic curiosity (I can not personally verify its content) and that I do not base anything fundamental in my life and approach on anything in history. How I conduct my life is based on my personal experiences and on the information I have acquired through my years using my intellect, rationality and intuition to assess these and come to some kind of judgement on various matters. These judgement are the best I've got and I know that they are not perfect or complete but that they will have to do. It is true that I consider what some people from history have said but this is always brought into the colouration of my knowledge, intuition and personal experiences, but it has no direct significance for my life. I therefore treat all history the same.

3) I do not expect that you have to frequently ask yourself if the Battle of Hastings, the fall of Rome, the Spanish Armada and the Crusades happened. However, please answer me this simple question. Did they happen or not? Yes or no?

As I do not believe in God or heaven and all that the fact that my judgements and lifestyle may not be up to some idealistic standard does not bother me which is why I can take this take-it-or-leave-it attitude to some claims in history. A similar thing may apply to late political thinking such as ideas of Marx and so on. Everything  is brought under the lens of my own knowledge and experience - what else do I have?

4) That's fine, but it is not a good excuse for avoiding the evidence of Jesus' death and resurrection. As you seem to suggest whether the Battle of Hastings actually took place will not make much difference to your day today. We can be quite blasé about such stuff, but we do accept it happened. It does not affect how we determine whether or not happened. It does affect how we respond to it. Jesus made claims about himself and about your need to respond to him. If we Christians are wrong and physical death is indeed the end then fair enough. However, if we are right and Jesus was who the NT claims he was and is and if he did indeed make those claims, be prepared to answer his questions.

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.

And how do you judge the importance of an historical event? And how do you assess what needs to be done with that importance, how to respond to it? Do you not make all your judgements on what you personally know, what your life has given you in your very short time on this planet? And because of this short period your personal knowledge about life is substantially lacking, as it is for all of us, and yet from this deficient well you are suppose to come to up with an all embracing answer on the meaning of life from some tatty manuscripts written 2000 years ago! Pulling a rabbit out of that proverbial hat. You must be one hell of a ubermensch to achieve all that without err.

5) "Some tatty manuscripts written 2000 years ago?" The state of the manuscripts is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we know what was written and whether it is making a valid claim for our attention and response.

And this comes to my other ace up my sleeve - if this is the best your God can do in conveying Its most superordinate message to mankind, is to leave us very limited creatures, trapped in the confines of time, with this protean historical puzzle then your God is a joke at best and sadistic at worst.

If you find yourself having to give an account of your life to God, you can bring this up with him. It might be helpful to make some notes now.

You do not need to justify yourself to me nor me to you. You and I have come to different conclusions. Time will tell which, if either, of us is correct.

1) I am sceptical about them all, and equally so! Is that clear?

2) You asked in a post, to other atheists either on here or on my thread What's God Made Of?, if they thought the same a I did as not finding history a good guide to life and other things I've said as you can't know what actually happened. That is why history is just for my amusement.

3) Who really cares? I am quiet blasé about it. They have no consequence on my life today. I read history for my amusement only.

Your whole premise is that if one finds something in history that is significant one should act upon it but I'm saying by definition of what history is you can't  apply such a criterion as history is an unreliable source for factual information and only a fool would do this. This is my argument against your position. History is not fact it is speculation and the further you go back the more so - keeping in mind today we have things like film, recording etc. which help us more with recent history, but even so some details elude us.

4) But the thing is history is just speculation. It is too vague, especially 2000 years ago, to make a clear judgement on it or to think it should be responded to as you claim. My claim is that you have made an err in thinking it is good enough to make a life changing response to it.

What are these questions that JC will ask?

5) What I find ironic is that you are finding it hard to understand what I'm saying to you yet I converse in your mother tongue but you claim to have a clear idea what some people wrote 2000 years ago in a foreign discontinued language with copying error and what not. See my point?

Nothing in history can make "a valid claim for our attention and response" because by definition it will be deficient and flawed before it ever reaches us.

St. Augustine wrote a paper called the 'Literal Meaning of Genesis'. What he meant by 'literal' and what we mean today by 'literal' is totally different. The meaning of words change. With the Gen 6 post we have going on this thread you had troubles/task of explaining the meaning of the word for mountain/hill in the link. We all know what these are for we have seen them but still it was not too clear what the Hebrew(?) meant. If you are having to deal with words referring to material things how much greater difficulty will you have with words referring to ideas and concept from history? How much fuzzier will your understanding be in regards to what they are trying to say and express? So how many words are there from the NT documents that you have misconstrued? The fact is you have no way of knowing. See point?

[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.

"...about the NT accounts yet ignore that for the rest of history?"

But I don't. Why don't you help me here by keeping to what we have agreed instead of endlessly backtracking as if it was never mentioned.

1)But you do. You say we can't believe something because it happened so long ago and so on, but you accept that other things happened long ago. Why do you accept all those and not the NT accounts?

You base the whole of your intrinsic and fundamental lifestyle and attitude on your faith and the NT documents. Your whole approach to life is fashioned by this milieu. What else in history do you do that for?

I have explained (and you even did a post asking other atheists if they thought the same) that I treat history for my amusement,

2) Nowhere have I spoken of "amusement".

as just some academic curiosity (I can not personally verify its content) and that I do not base anything fundamental in my life and approach on anything in history. How I conduct my life is based on my personal experiences and on the information I have acquired through my years using my intellect, rationality and intuition to assess these and come to some kind of judgement on various matters. These judgement are the best I've got and I know that they are not perfect or complete but that they will have to do. It is true that I consider what some people from history have said but this is always brought into the colouration of my knowledge, intuition and personal experiences, but it has no direct significance for my life. I therefore treat all history the same.

3) I do not expect that you have to frequently ask yourself if the Battle of Hastings, the fall of Rome, the Spanish Armada and the Crusades happened. However, please answer me this simple question. Did they happen or not? Yes or no?

As I do not believe in God or heaven and all that the fact that my judgements and lifestyle may not be up to some idealistic standard does not bother me which is why I can take this take-it-or-leave-it attitude to some claims in history. A similar thing may apply to late political thinking such as ideas of Marx and so on. Everything  is brought under the lens of my own knowledge and experience - what else do I have?

4) That's fine, but it is not a good excuse for avoiding the evidence of Jesus' death and resurrection. As you seem to suggest whether the Battle of Hastings actually took place will not make much difference to your day today. We can be quite blasé about such stuff, but we do accept it happened. It does not affect how we determine whether or not happened. It does affect how we respond to it. Jesus made claims about himself and about your need to respond to him. If we Christians are wrong and physical death is indeed the end then fair enough. However, if we are right and Jesus was who the NT claims he was and is and if he did indeed make those claims, be prepared to answer his questions.

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.

And how do you judge the importance of an historical event? And how do you assess what needs to be done with that importance, how to respond to it? Do you not make all your judgements on what you personally know, what your life has given you in your very short time on this planet? And because of this short period your personal knowledge about life is substantially lacking, as it is for all of us, and yet from this deficient well you are suppose to come to up with an all embracing answer on the meaning of life from some tatty manuscripts written 2000 years ago! Pulling a rabbit out of that proverbial hat. You must be one hell of a ubermensch to achieve all that without err.

5) "Some tatty manuscripts written 2000 years ago?" The state of the manuscripts is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we know what was written and whether it is making a valid claim for our attention and response.

And this comes to my other ace up my sleeve - if this is the best your God can do in conveying Its most superordinate message to mankind, is to leave us very limited creatures, trapped in the confines of time, with this protean historical puzzle then your God is a joke at best and sadistic at worst.

If you find yourself having to give an account of your life to God, you can bring this up with him. It might be helpful to make some notes now.

You do not need to justify yourself to me nor me to you. You and I have come to different conclusions. Time will tell which, if either, of us is correct.

1) I am sceptical about them all, and equally so! Is that clear?

2) You asked in a post, to other atheists either on here or on my thread What's God Made Of?, if they thought the same a I did as not finding history a good guide to life and other things I've said as you can't know what actually happened. That is why history is just for my amusement.

3) Who really cares? I am quiet blasé about it. They have no consequence on my life today. I read history for my amusement only.

Your whole premise is that if one finds something in history that is significant one should act upon it but I'm saying by definition of what history is you can't  apply such a criterion as history is an unreliable source for factual information and only a fool would do this. This is my argument against your position. History is not fact it is speculation and the further you go back the more so - keeping in mind today we have things like film, recording etc. which help us more with recent history, but even so some details elude us.

4) But the thing is history is just speculation. It is too vague, especially 2000 years ago, to make a clear judgement on it or to think it should be responded to as you claim. My claim is that you have made an err in thinking it is good enough to make a life changing response to it.

What are these questions that JC will ask?

5) What I find ironic is that you are finding it hard to understand what I'm saying to you yet I converse in your mother tongue but you claim to have a clear idea what some people wrote 2000 years ago in a foreign discontinued language with copying error and what not. See my point?

Nothing in history can make "a valid claim for our attention and response" because by definition it will be deficient and flawed before it ever reaches us.

St. Augustine wrote a paper called the 'Literal Meaning of Genesis'. What he meant by 'literal' and what we mean today by 'literal' is totally different. The meaning of words change. With the Gen 6 post we have going on this thread you had troubles/task of explaining the meaning of the word for mountain/hill in the link. We all know what these are for we have seen them but still it was not too clear what the Hebrew(?) meant. If you are having to deal with words referring to material things how much greater difficulty will you have with words referring to ideas and concept from history? How much fuzzier will your understanding be in regards to what they are trying to say and express? So how many words are there from the NT documents that you have misconstrued? The fact is you have no way of knowing. See point?

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him - ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

[Alien]

So what sort of evidence should there be then, Len?

If  "God" wants to convince us he exists, he could do it by showing the love he is credited with

He has by giving us life in the first place and by sending Jesus to die for our sins

and eradicating, at a stroke, all the sickness and suffering that plagues us.

Why?

[Alien]

...
1) I am sceptical about them all, and equally so! Is that clear?

OK, got your point. I'll make a note of it.

2) You asked in a post, to other atheists either on here or on my thread What's God Made Of?, if they thought the same a I did as not finding history a good guide to life and other things I've said as you can't know what actually happened. That is why history is just for my amusement.

OK, got your point. I'll make a note of it.

3) Who really cares? I am quiet blasé about it. They have no consequence on my life today. I read history for my amusement only.

OK, got your point. I'll make a note of it.

Your whole premise is that if one finds something in history that is significant one should act upon it but I'm saying by definition of what history is you can't  apply such a criterion as history is an unreliable source for factual information and only a fool would do this. This is my argument against your position. History is not fact it is speculation and the further you go back the more so - keeping in mind today we have things like film, recording etc. which help us more with recent history, but even so some details elude us.

OK, got your point. I'll make a note of it.

4) But the thing is history is just speculation.

OK, got your point. I'll make a note of this too.

It is too vague, especially 2000 years ago, to make a clear judgement on it or to think it should be responded to as you claim. My claim is that you have made an err in thinking it is good enough to make a life changing response to it.

OK. We disagree on this point quite fundamentally.

What are these questions that JC will ask?

I would think it would be along the lines of, "Why did you view my life, death for your sins and my resurrection as something just for amusement? Why did you not respond in the way you needed to?

5) What I find ironic is that you are finding it hard to understand what I'm saying to you yet I converse in your mother tongue but you claim to have a clear idea what some people wrote 2000 years ago in a foreign discontinued language with copying error and what not. See my point?

I see your point, but it is not valid. There is an absolutely huge body of Greek literature from hundreds of years before Christ through his time and right up to the present day. There are plenty of people who understand what ancient Greek texts mean, including in the dialect used in the NT. Greek is not a discontinued language. As for copying errors, let me quote the popular skeptic scholar Bart Ehrman from an appendix in Misquoting Jesus on p252 of the American version:

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.  The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."

So, remind me why you think we have lost enough of the NT to not know its essential claims, in particular the essential claims of Jesus and why you read such stuff only for amusement.

Nothing in history can make "a valid claim for our attention and response" because by definition it will be deficient and flawed before it ever reaches us.

St. Augustine wrote a paper called the 'Literal Meaning of Genesis'. What he meant by 'literal' and what we mean today by 'literal' is totally different. The meaning of words change. With the Gen 6 post we have going on this thread you had troubles/task of explaining the meaning of the word for mountain/hill in the link.

Did I? Please tell me which post I had this trouble on.

We all know what these are for we have seen them but still it was not too clear what the Hebrew(?) meant.

Why the question mark after the word "Hebrew"? Are you saying that you are confident there is a fundamental problem here with the original language even though you are not sure what that original language was?

If you are having to deal with words referring to material things how much greater difficulty will you have with words referring to ideas and concept from history? How much fuzzier will your understanding be in regards to what they are trying to say and express? So how many words are there from the NT documents that you have misconstrued? The fact is you have no way of knowing. See point?

I see the point you are making, but it is fundamentally flawed.

Is there anyone else on this thread who sees history, all history, as "just speculation" (point 4 above)?

[Alien]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

[jjohnjil]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

[Alien]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

Don't be silly. I know that I have never written "that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!" to you or anyone else. You have misquoted me. When other people here do that (or I do that to them), we apologise for misquoting. I think I know what you think I said, but just have a look at what you wrote. You should be able to see easily where you have misquoted me.

[jjohnjil]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

Don't be silly. I know that I have never written "that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!" to you or anyone else. You have misquoted me. When other people here do that (or I do that to them), we apologise for misquoting. I think I know what you think I said, but just have a look at what you wrote. You should be able to see easily where you have misquoted me.

I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead.

Thank you.

[Alien]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

Don't be silly. I know that I have never written "that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!" to you or anyone else. You have misquoted me. When other people here do that (or I do that to them), we apologise for misquoting. I think I know what you think I said, but just have a look at what you wrote. You should be able to see easily where you have misquoted me.

I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead.

Thank you.

Nope.

[jjohnjil]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

Don't be silly. I know that I have never written "that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!" to you or anyone else. You have misquoted me. When other people here do that (or I do that to them), we apologise for misquoting. I think I know what you think I said, but just have a look at what you wrote. You should be able to see easily where you have misquoted me.

I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead.

Thank you.

Nope.

So the best explanation for an empty tomb is that the occupant has risen from the dead? 

You're worst than a twisty turny thing, Alien!

[Alien]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

Don't be silly. I know that I have never written "that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!" to you or anyone else. You have misquoted me. When other people here do that (or I do that to them), we apologise for misquoting. I think I know what you think I said, but just have a look at what you wrote. You should be able to see easily where you have misquoted me.

I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead.

Thank you.

Nope.

So the best explanation for an empty tomb is that the occupant has risen from the dead? 

You're worst than a twisty turny thing, Alien!

Sigh.

The best explanation for the empty tomb where Jesus' dead body had been laid and for the dozen or so times that people (individuals and groups) believed they had seen and sometimes eaten with him and for the start of the Christian church is that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

[jjohnjil]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

Don't be silly. I know that I have never written "that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!" to you or anyone else. You have misquoted me. When other people here do that (or I do that to them), we apologise for misquoting. I think I know what you think I said, but just have a look at what you wrote. You should be able to see easily where you have misquoted me.

I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead.

Thank you.

Nope.

So the best explanation for an empty tomb is that the occupant has risen from the dead? 

You're worst than a twisty turny thing, Alien!

Sigh.

The best explanation for the empty tomb where Jesus' dead body had been laid and for the dozen or so times that people (individuals and groups) believed they had seen and sometimes eaten with him and for the start of the Christian church is that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Oh, I see ... special pleading.

Okay.

[floo]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

Don't be silly. I know that I have never written "that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!" to you or anyone else. You have misquoted me. When other people here do that (or I do that to them), we apologise for misquoting. I think I know what you think I said, but just have a look at what you wrote. You should be able to see easily where you have misquoted me.

I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead.

Thank you.

Nope.

So the best explanation for an empty tomb is that the occupant has risen from the dead? 

You're worst than a twisty turny thing, Alien!

Sigh.

The best explanation for the empty tomb where Jesus' dead body had been laid and for the dozen or so times that people (individuals and groups) believed they had seen and sometimes eaten with him and for the start of the Christian church is that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Really?

[BeRational]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

Don't be silly. I know that I have never written "that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!" to you or anyone else. You have misquoted me. When other people here do that (or I do that to them), we apologise for misquoting. I think I know what you think I said, but just have a look at what you wrote. You should be able to see easily where you have misquoted me.

I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead.

Thank you.

Nope.

So the best explanation for an empty tomb is that the occupant has risen from the dead? 

You're worst than a twisty turny thing, Alien!

Sigh.

The best explanation for the empty tomb where Jesus' dead body had been laid and for the dozen or so times that people (individuals and groups) believed they had seen and sometimes eaten with him and for the start of the Christian church is that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

This is were you always make your mistake.

No people or groups saw him placed there.
No people ate with him after the event.
He did not rise from the dead.

You quote the book as if it was fact. It's just words in a book.

This is just special pleading, as you do not give other books the same credence.

None of it actually happened. There are ZERO witnesses.

[floo]

Why do people believe in something which is just not credible, and for which there is absolutely no verifiable evidence?

[Alien]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

Don't be silly. I know that I have never written "that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!" to you or anyone else. You have misquoted me. When other people here do that (or I do that to them), we apologise for misquoting. I think I know what you think I said, but just have a look at what you wrote. You should be able to see easily where you have misquoted me.

I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead.

Thank you.

Nope.

So the best explanation for an empty tomb is that the occupant has risen from the dead? 

You're worst than a twisty turny thing, Alien!

Sigh.

The best explanation for the empty tomb where Jesus' dead body had been laid and for the dozen or so times that people (individuals and groups) believed they had seen and sometimes eaten with him and for the start of the Christian church is that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Oh, I see ... special pleading.

Okay.

Before we look at what I claim is true, do you accept that what you said I said is different from what I have actually said?

[jjohnjil]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

Don't be silly. I know that I have never written "that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!" to you or anyone else. You have misquoted me. When other people here do that (or I do that to them), we apologise for misquoting. I think I know what you think I said, but just have a look at what you wrote. You should be able to see easily where you have misquoted me.

I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead.

Thank you.

Nope.

So the best explanation for an empty tomb is that the occupant has risen from the dead? 

You're worst than a twisty turny thing, Alien!

Sigh.

The best explanation for the empty tomb where Jesus' dead body had been laid and for the dozen or so times that people (individuals and groups) believed they had seen and sometimes eaten with him and for the start of the Christian church is that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Oh, I see ... special pleading.

Okay.

Before we look at what I claim is true, do you accept that what you said I said is different from what I have actually said?

I have already apologised for that, Alan.

So you think that all the overwhelming evidence of a great number of people seeing JC talking and eating after he had been killed (I suppose you can verify that statement, can you, other than being in the same book as the crucifixion itself?)

In any other context, you agree we wouldn't believe any other book that told us that had happened with someone else?  In other words, this, you plead, is a special case?

[Alien]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

Don't be silly. I know that I have never written "that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!" to you or anyone else. You have misquoted me. When other people here do that (or I do that to them), we apologise for misquoting. I think I know what you think I said, but just have a look at what you wrote. You should be able to see easily where you have misquoted me.

I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead.

Thank you.

Nope.

So the best explanation for an empty tomb is that the occupant has risen from the dead? 

You're worst than a twisty turny thing, Alien!

Sigh.

The best explanation for the empty tomb where Jesus' dead body had been laid and for the dozen or so times that people (individuals and groups) believed they had seen and sometimes eaten with him and for the start of the Christian church is that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Oh, I see ... special pleading.

Okay.

Before we look at what I claim is true, do you accept that what you said I said is different from what I have actually said?

I have already apologised for that, Alan.

In #339? My turn to apologise then since when you wrote, "I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead." I thought you were taking the mick since you again didn't quote me correctly.

So you think that all the overwhelming evidence of a great number of people seeing JC talking and eating after he had been killed (I suppose you can verify that statement, can you, other than being in the same book as the crucifixion itself?)[/quotes]Books plural written by different people using, apparently, different sources.

I see the number and variety of occasions where people thought they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus as being much more important than the shear number of people involved. A large number of people on one occasion would only need one thing to be set up (if it was a fiddle) or one misconception of what was going on, perhaps like this sun thingy in 1917 or whenever. With it being about a dozen separate occasions in different places across Israel to individuals and to groups there would seem to be much less chance of it being a fiddle or people getting it wrong for some other reason.

In any other context, you agree we wouldn't believe any other book that told us that had happened with someone else?  In other words, this, you plead, is a special case?

See above where I have explained again that you have not quite understood what I have been claiming.

[jjohnjil]

...

Don't be too hard on the Alien, Jack, Alan has wrapped his whole life around these flimsy ideas being true.  He'll slip and slide and laa laa until you give up.

I learnt long ago to forget trying to have a reasoned exchange with him

Or in other words, I gave up trying to respond to Alien some time back and have since resorted merely to ad hominems and misquotes.

- ever since he told me that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!

I have never written that. Why have you misquoted me?

Alan, you obviously can't keep up with what you say.  That's no surprise!

Don't be silly. I know that I have never written "that the only reasonable explanation for an empty tomb was that the occupant had been resurrected!" to you or anyone else. You have misquoted me. When other people here do that (or I do that to them), we apologise for misquoting. I think I know what you think I said, but just have a look at what you wrote. You should be able to see easily where you have misquoted me.

I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead.

Thank you.

Nope.

So the best explanation for an empty tomb is that the occupant has risen from the dead? 

You're worst than a twisty turny thing, Alien!

Sigh.

The best explanation for the empty tomb where Jesus' dead body had been laid and for the dozen or so times that people (individuals and groups) believed they had seen and sometimes eaten with him and for the start of the Christian church is that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Oh, I see ... special pleading.

Okay.

Before we look at what I claim is true, do you accept that what you said I said is different from what I have actually said?

I have already apologised for that, Alan.

In #339? My turn to apologise then since when you wrote, "I apologise most sincerely, Alan, as you have now indicated that there is a far more reasonable explanation for an empty tomb than the occupant has risen from the dead." I thought you were taking the mick since you again didn't quote me correctly.

So you think that all the overwhelming evidence of a great number of people seeing JC talking and eating after he had been killed (I suppose you can verify that statement, can you, other than being in the same book as the crucifixion itself?)[/quotes]Books plural written by different people using, apparently, different sources.

I see the number and variety of occasions where people thought they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus as being much more important than the shear number of people involved. A large number of people on one occasion would only need one thing to be set up (if it was a fiddle) or one misconception of what was going on, perhaps like this sun thingy in 1917 or whenever. With it being about a dozen separate occasions in different places across Israel to individuals and to groups there would seem to be much less chance of it being a fiddle or people getting it wrong for some other reason.

In any other context, you agree we wouldn't believe any other book that told us that had happened with someone else?  In other words, this, you plead, is a special case?

See above where I have explained again that you have not quite understood what I have been claiming.

I think we all know what you are claiming, Alan!

[Alien]

...

I think we all know what you are claiming, Alan!

So why did you misquote me earlier then?

[jjohnjil]

...

I think we all know what you are claiming, Alan!

So why did you misquote me earlier then?

I didn't say I was quoting you, Alan, I was describing your position as I understood it back in the old BBC forum days, and you have repeated it today. 

I knew then what you were claiming, just as I do now. Your position hasn't changed and nor has mine.