Show us the evidence

[Spud]

But also where is you evidence of a mass execution of purported eye witnesses to the claimed resurrection of Jesus. I don't think there is any evidence for this, even in the bible (which is a non partial record). Paul sees to claim 500 eye witnesses, and then goes on to claim that most of these are still living at the time he was writing (some 20 years after the purported event). So even Paul doesn't support your claim that the purported eye witnesses were rapidly killed off.

Book of Acts.

[Nearly Sane]

This is not a methodology. People die all the time for what they believe in, not necessarily by blowing people up, though discounting such is simply a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Many times the thing they will die for will be diametrically opposed to what someone else will die for.

Can you give examples? Often they die fighting for their country, or defending themselves or their family or friend. How about being tortured until dead with no retaliation, you would think at least one of the twelve would have resisted or said 'it was all a fake'?

and they may have done. who knows see propaganda.

And again why dismiss dying fighting, other than the no true Scotsman fallacy?

As for dying in pain
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc

[Nearly Sane]

But also where is you evidence of a mass execution of purported eye witnesses to the claimed resurrection of Jesus. I don't think there is any evidence for this, even in the bible (which is a non partial record). Paul sees to claim 500 eye witnesses, and then goes on to claim that most of these are still living at the time he was writing (some 20 years after the purported event). So even Paul doesn't support your claim that the purported eye witnesses were rapidly killed off.

Book of Acts.

nope, next

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An empty tomb or the empty tomb? As far as I know the empty tomb would be meaningless in any case as the standalone idea you've tried to portray it as. Unfortunately for you there are the other resurrection accounts.

But don't forget first that the earliest gospel, Mark, originally ended with nothing more than the empty tomb. So anything about visions, eye witnesses etc is likely embellishment to fit an agenda.

But even if you accept the basic narrative, it can easily be explained in a completely non supernatural manner through any combination of:

Jesus not being actually dead (which isn't implausible at all particularly given the much poorer understanding of physiology in those days)

Mistaken recollection (again not an unreasonable assumption). Ask a bunch of witnesses to a car crash and you'll straight away get many differing accounts

Exaggeration and embellishment (just think of recent historical events that we have really good accounts of and how rapidly stories arise that are embellishments what happened or completely fabricated, whether due to mistaken recollection or deliberate misrepresentation for a purpose).

A virgin birth? Well nobody apart from God had the technology in those days....Nowadays it is different.

If a woman has a baby and her husband knows he hasn't had intercourse with her I don't think virgin birth is likely to be the cause. I think something rather more naturalistic is going to be the reason!

I think the truth of the matter is that any merely historical fact loses it's impact with time.
So had the resurrection merely been an historical event it's value in perpetuating faith would have tailed off . However Christians have there own experience of the resurrected Jesus and it is that which makes the account of the empty tomb resonate.

Somebody living within and committed to an arid philosophical materialism isn't necessarily going to appreciate either aspect of the resurrection unless the reinforced titanium doors are prized apart.

I agree that the 'myth' can become more resonant in terms of its longevity than the actual factual truth of what actually happened. And much more so when aligned with a combination of:

1. Embedding the myth in a religious belief with its own customs, traditions, mechanisms for passing belief in the myth from one generation to another.
2. Imbuing belief in the myth as an element of cultural identity (with links to 1) and
3. That the myth is based on events that happened at a time when the ability to collect verified and verifiable evidence for what actually happened was much poorer than today and
4. That the historical events which gave rise to the myth happened at a time when the distinctions between historical reality and myth/legend were culturally blurred.

The events that lead to christian belief fit with all of these.

However none of this alters that fact that the all of the claims within the gospels can be easily explained away without resort to the supernatural.

And the notion that for a christian a personal belief in the resurrection, even a belief in the actual veracity of the resurrection is deeply, deeply important to that person doesn't mean it actually happened.

But the more important aspect is to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself. Not merely to believe in the historicity of it or the value of it as myth or even the human charisma of the resurrected(that would mean you would want him back as a charismatic human).

And that's aside from the debateable aspects of your theory of myth and belief.

[ProfessorDavey]

But the more important aspect is to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself. Not merely to believe in the historicity of it or the value of it as myth or even the human charisma of the resurrected(that would mean you would want him back as a charismatic human).

And that's aside from the debateable aspects of your theory of myth and belief.

But you then run into the issue of objectivity vs subjectivity.

If by 'to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself' you mean that in a purely subjective manner, i.e. that the notion of the resurrected christ is subjectively important to you, and therefore 'real' to you but is not necessary objectively real, then I have no problem.

But as soon as theists claim the resurrected christ to be objectively real - not just real to you or other believers but actually real then that's where the problems arise.

There are all sorts of 'real to me' subjectivities but that doesn't make them objectively true.

[ProfessorDavey]

But also where is you evidence of a mass execution of purported eye witnesses to the claimed resurrection of Jesus. I don't think there is any evidence for this, even in the bible (which is a non partial record). Paul sees to claim 500 eye witnesses, and then goes on to claim that most of these are still living at the time he was writing (some 20 years after the purported event). So even Paul doesn't support your claim that the purported eye witnesses were rapidly killed off.

Book of Acts.

Where?

Noting that according to Paul (who I guess you think isn't telling porkies) there were hundreds of witnesses - were they all (or nearly all executed as you claim - because if you are claiming that you are refuting Paul who claims most were still alive when he was writing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the more important aspect is to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself. Not merely to believe in the historicity of it or the value of it as myth or even the human charisma of the resurrected(that would mean you would want him back as a charismatic human).

And that's aside from the debateable aspects of your theory of myth and belief.

But you then run into the issue of objectivity vs subjectivity.

If by 'to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself' you mean that in a purely subjective manner, i.e. that the notion of the resurrected christ is subjectively important to you, and therefore 'real' to you but is not necessary objectively real, then I have no problem.

But as soon as theists claim the resurrected christ to be objectively real - not just real to you or other believers but actually real then that's where the problems arise.

There are all sorts of 'real to me' subjectivities but that doesn't make them objectively true.

It's importance is neither here nor there.

Indeed for St Paul and many others the very thing whose non existence is or becomes the most important thing is experienced anyway. It looks as though you have mistaken the New Testament and other Christian testimony as sentimental wish fulfilment. Take another look.

Now, If I was the only one claiming an experience like this I might agree with you. As I'm not I cannot take your theory as ''Gospel''.

[ProfessorDavey]

But the more important aspect is to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself. Not merely to believe in the historicity of it or the value of it as myth or even the human charisma of the resurrected(that would mean you would want him back as a charismatic human).

And that's aside from the debateable aspects of your theory of myth and belief.

But you then run into the issue of objectivity vs subjectivity.

If by 'to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself' you mean that in a purely subjective manner, i.e. that the notion of the resurrected christ is subjectively important to you, and therefore 'real' to you but is not necessary objectively real, then I have no problem.

But as soon as theists claim the resurrected christ to be objectively real - not just real to you or other believers but actually real then that's where the problems arise.

There are all sorts of 'real to me' subjectivities but that doesn't make them objectively true.

It's importance is neither here nor there.

Indeed for St Paul and many others the very thing whose non existence is or becomes the most important thing is experienced it anyway. It looks as though you have mistaken the New Testament and other Christian testimony as sentimental wish fulfilment. Take another look.

Now, If I was the only one claiming an experience like this I might agree with you. As I'm not I cannot take your theory as ''Gospel''.

Plenty of people can believe something is real to them and important to them in a subjective manner - that has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is real in a objective manner.

That you choose to believe in one set of supernatural mythical claims yet chose not to believe in all the others betrays the nature of your subjectivity. The only reason you have to belief in the life after death claims in the gospels while rejecting the others in thousands of mythological stories throughout the ages, which are also often written as historical, is entirely down to subjectivity - it is real to you, it is important to you. But people have claimed that for the miracles of deities since people started inventing them. None have ever had any evidence to support their 'objectively real' rather than 'subjectively real to me' nature.

[ProfessorDavey]

Now, If I was the only one claiming an experience like this I might agree with you. As I'm not I cannot take your theory as ''Gospel''.

Group think is a very strong influence on people.

Don't forget that at the time of Jesus people throughout the mediterranean believed in all sorts of gods, no doubt through their own experience (or rather the upbringing and culture). If the notion that many people currently believe in the resurrection means it must be objectively true then surely the notion that many people at the time of Jesus believed that Theseus killed a minotaur must mean that that is also objectively true and that minotaurs actually existed (or at least did a couple of thousand years ago). The objective truth is not a popularity content - that is the world of subjectivity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the more important aspect is to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself. Not merely to believe in the historicity of it or the value of it as myth or even the human charisma of the resurrected(that would mean you would want him back as a charismatic human).

And that's aside from the debateable aspects of your theory of myth and belief.

But you then run into the issue of objectivity vs subjectivity.

If by 'to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself' you mean that in a purely subjective manner, i.e. that the notion of the resurrected christ is subjectively important to you, and therefore 'real' to you but is not necessary objectively real, then I have no problem.

But as soon as theists claim the resurrected christ to be objectively real - not just real to you or other believers but actually real then that's where the problems arise.

There are all sorts of 'real to me' subjectivities but that doesn't make them objectively true.

It's importance is neither here nor there.

Indeed for St Paul and many others the very thing whose non existence is or becomes the most important thing is experienced it anyway. It looks as though you have mistaken the New Testament and other Christian testimony as sentimental wish fulfilment. Take another look.

Now, If I was the only one claiming an experience like this I might agree with you. As I'm not I cannot take your theory as ''Gospel''.

Plenty of people can believe something is real to them and important to them in a subjective manner - that has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is real in a objective manner.

That you choose to believe in one set of supernatural mythical claims yet chose not to believe in all the others betrays the nature of your subjectivity. The only reason you have to belief in the life after death claims in the gospels while rejecting the others in thousands of mythological stories throughout the ages, which are also often written as historical, is entirely down to subjectivity - it is real to you, it is important to you. But people have claimed that for the miracles of deities since people started inventing them. None have ever had any evidence to support their 'objectively real' rather than 'subjectively real to me' nature.

I don't know of many other myths presented as history rather than being philosophies delivered in story form. Please name some.
In terms of life after death I think you are confusing eternal divinity which is what we experience in the resurrected Christ with a mere human being with some post mortem existence.

I'm not sure that the eternal divinity can be nicely categorised in or out of the boxes of objective and subjective as you understand them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now, If I was the only one claiming an experience like this I might agree with you. As I'm not I cannot take your theory as ''Gospel''.

Group think is a very strong influence on people.

Don't forget that at the time of Jesus people throughout the mediterranean believed in all sorts of gods, no doubt through their own experience (or rather the upbringing and culture). If the notion that many people currently believe in the resurrection means it must be objectively true then surely the notion that many people at the time of Jesus believed that Theseus killed a minotaur must mean that that is also objectively true and that minotaurs actually existed (or at least did a couple of thousand years ago). The objective truth is not a popularity content - that is the world of subjectivity.

A debateable sociological theory based on a debateable theory of myth.

If one becomes convinced of the need for personal salvation can one equate the resurrection with any old myth plucked out of the air which doesn't in itself even claim to touch on personal salvation.?

[ProfessorDavey]

A debateable sociological theory based on a debateable theory of myth.

Not really - are you really claiming that believers in ancient religions and their gods didn't really believe in them at all. That appears to be what you are suggesting. I am suggesting that ancient people believed in their gods, their importance (including to them), their miraculous stories, just the same as christians do today about their god and miraculous stories.

If one becomes convinced of the need for personal salvation can one equate the resurrection with any old myth plucked out of the air which doesn't in itself even claim to touch on personal salvation.?

Which has exactly nothing to do with objective evidence. There are plenty of people who are convinced of all sorts of things which are not objectively true, but are greatly important to them and therefore true to them in a subjective manner.

So there are people who are convinced that a black cat is lucky and they aren't going to pluck out of the air any other old 'lucky' superstition, nor accept any other colour of cat will do. Nope has to be this good luck superstition and that colour of cat. Does it actually mean that the notion that a black cat is objectively true or real. Nope, of course it doesn't, merely that they believe it in a subjective manner.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A debateable sociological theory based on a debateable theory of myth.

Not really - are you really claiming that believers in ancient religions and their gods didn't really believe in them at all. That appears to be what you are suggesting. I am suggesting that ancient people believed in their gods, their importance (including to them), their miraculous stories, just the same as christians do today about their god and miraculous stories.

If one becomes convinced of the need for personal salvation can one equate the resurrection with any old myth plucked out of the air which doesn't in itself even claim to touch on personal salvation.?

Which has exactly nothing to do with objective evidence. There are plenty of people who are convinced of all sorts of things which are not objectively true, but are greatly important to them and therefore true to them in a subjective manner.

So there are people who are convinced that a black cat is lucky and they aren't going to pluck out of the air any other old 'lucky' superstition, nor accept any other colour of cat will do. Nope has to be this good luck superstition and that colour of cat. Does it actually mean that the notion that a black cat is objectively true or real. Nope, of course it doesn't, merely that they believe it in a subjective manner.

You are just trivialising the idea of God by equating it with things you shouldn't. Where is your warrant. When last I looked  lucky black cats were not studied to degree level, nor seem to meet deep needs, nor were studied in the context of neo-platonic thought.

By objectively real you mean physical of course. Then we are straight back into the physical evidence of physicalism.

I'm afraid Bluehillside got the accusation of argumentum ad ridiculum. If the great man was thus challenged the only thing that will spare a lesser mortal will be that I'm just off to get my cocoa.

[ProfessorDavey]

If one becomes convinced of the need for personal salvation can one equate the resurrection with any old myth

But interestingly the notion of both personal salvation - i.e. that adherence to a particular religious belief and worship of a particular deity is linked to salvation is common currency in many, many religions old and new.

And resurrection myths are ten a penny in religions old and new and mythology associated with deities. It seems that pretty well every religion has one (or more). So ..

Dionysus, Persephone, Osiris, Odin, Ganesha, Lemminkainen, Tammuz, Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Attis etc ... and of course Jesus.

It ma be of course that the basis premise of the resurrection mythology is inextricably linked to the older still need for early humans to recognise the importance of the natural world around them, and in particular the annual cycles of seasons that naturally goes through cycles of death and re-birth.

So I wouldn't get too hung up on the unique importance of your own resurrection mythology - it isn't unique by a long stretch of the imagination.

[Shaker]

You are just trivialising the idea of God by equating it with things you shouldn't. Where is your warrant. When last I looked  lucky black cats were not studied to degree level, nor seem to meet deep needs, nor were studied in the context of neo-platonic thought.

The problem that you have here is the same problem that everyone has who attempts to mount the same argument and make the same case (case in point: the dreadful Alister McGrath). The problem is that it's a massive exercise in question-begging in the true sense of that phrase, which is to say, assuming the prior truth of the very thing which you're attempting to prove.

Firstly, who decides who shouldn't equate God with this, that or the other? What sort of things shouldn't God be equated with, and who decides this, and on what warrant? Who says, in other words?

Secondly, and more importantly: your invocation of 'degree level studies,' 'deep needs' and so forth are, as I said, monumental examples of question begging. You are trying to impress us with the fact that some people inexplicably decide to study theology to degree level, that the belief in a god meets 'deep needs' (whose? not mine) and that gods are studied in the context of neo-Platonic thought. This is supposed to be some sort of rationale for our taking the concept of a god seriously and lucky black cats not-seriously. Nope, sorry. Doesn't work. You are assuming that your audience is as impressed by the concept of a god as you appear to be. Well, many of us are not, not even remotely. Many of us want to know exactly why we are supposed to give the idea of a god any more head-room than the idea of lucky black cats. You need to make your case, to argue it coherently, cogently and rationally, not just take it as read that God is different just because you say so, which at present is all that you're doing.

Arguments of this kind always fundamentally rely on the same fallacious rhetorical ploys. Firstly, they assume that people will be impressed by antiquity (humans have believed in gods for thousands of years; that's the argumentum ad antiquitatem if you prefer your fallacies comfortably couched in Latin) and secondly that they'll be impressed by sheer numbers (the argumentum ad populum/ad numerum). Sorry, but no. If we are to give the concept of a god, any god, all gods, more credence than the concept of leprechauns and tooth fairies, you're going to have to argue your corner and say precisely and exactly why we should do so, in a way that doesn't depend upon an argumentum ad populum/ad numerum already referred to and which doesn't rely on facts of human psychology (most people are afraid of death; they will tend to believe anything which purports to promise them that in some sense they won't meet total and utter oblivion when they die) which are entirely explicable within a sceptical, rationalist and naturalistic worldview. Lucky black cats do not provide human beings with a narrative story which purports to give objective meaning, value and purpose to their lives; lucky black cats do not purport to provide an ultimate and absolute grounding to morality; lucky black cats do not offer the hope of the continuation of personality/consciousness after death. Gods do. That this is why gods are believed in in far greater numbers than lucky black cats falls well within the remit of human psychology and anthropology and what-have-you, with absolutely no woo required. It is not an argument that gods exist or an argument that we should take the existence of gods seriously. If such arguments even exist - I've never seen one but hey, you might be the first - it's up to you to provide one. The spluttering righteous indignation that seems to overcome some theists when they come across their god being compared to airborne pasta-comprised creatures and the like merely masks a needle-sharp point; the paucity of any reason to take the one seriously (and on the the flimsiest of bases) and not the other.

Simple bald assertion is Alan Burns's job on this forum; you need to demonstrate, not merely assert, why the concept of a god has a coherent definition and should be taken more seriously than lucky black cats, cash-dispensing fairies and garage-dwelling dragons. The idea of gods is as trivial, and remains as trivial, as the other examples I've given until and unless you can mount a sound case otherwise.

Good luck with that; nobody else has ever done it.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are just trivialising the idea of God by equating it with things you shouldn't. Where is your warrant. When last I looked  lucky black cats were not studied to degree level, nor seem to meet deep needs, nor were studied in the context of neo-platonic thought.

By objectively real you mean physical of course. Then we are straight back into the physical evidence of physicalism.

I'm afraid Bluehillside got the accusation of argumentum ad ridiculum. If the great man was thus challenged the only thing that will spare a lesser mortal will be that I'm just off to get my cocoa.

I don't think it is for you to dictate what I should or should not equate god to.

But nonetheless it was not my intention to trivialise, merely to make a comparison. I could of course have used a comparison with belief and customs within another modern or ancient religion. This simply seemed a rather easier comparison because I think it might have been easier for you to understand the issues of belief and custom and its relation (or rather its lack of relation) to objective truth or things that are objectively real.

And that something is studied extensively is no indication of its veracity, more an indication of its subjective importance to people. The ancient Greeks extensively studied their gods and religion. Does that make their religion objectively true or they gods objectively real ... nope.

[jeremyp]

you would think at least one of the twelve would have resisted or said 'it was all a fake'?

How do you know they didn't.  For all we know, Peter went to his death screaming "it's not true, I made it all up".

[jeremyp]

But also where is you evidence of a mass execution of purported eye witnesses to the claimed resurrection of Jesus. I don't think there is any evidence for this, even in the bible (which is a non partial record). Paul sees to claim 500 eye witnesses, and then goes on to claim that most of these are still living at the time he was writing (some 20 years after the purported event). So even Paul doesn't support your claim that the purported eye witnesses were rapidly killed off.

Book of Acts.

Not a reliable document.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are just trivialising the idea of God by equating it with things you shouldn't. Where is your warrant. When last I looked  lucky black cats were not studied to degree level, nor seem to meet deep needs, nor were studied in the context of neo-platonic thought.

The problem that you have here is the same problem that everyone has who attempts to mount the same argument and make the same case (case in point: the dreadful Alister McGrath). The problem is that it's a massive exercise in question-begging in the true sense of that phrase, which is to say, assuming the prior truth of the very thing which you're attempting to prove.

Firstly, who decides who shouldn't equate God with this, that or the other? What sort of things shouldn't God be equated with, and who decides this, and on what warrant? Who says, in other words?

Secondly, and more importantly: your invocation of 'degree level studies,' 'deep needs' and so forth are, as I said, monumental examples of question begging. You are trying to impress us with the fact that some people inexplicably decide to study theology to degree level, that the belief in a god meets 'deep needs' (whose? not mine) and that gods are studied in the context of neo-Platonic thought. This is supposed to be some sort of rationale for our taking the concept of a god seriously and lucky black cats not-seriously. Nope, sorry. Doesn't work. You are assuming that your audience is as impressed by the concept of a god as you appear to be. Well, many of us are not, not even remotely. Many of us want to know exactly why we are supposed to give the idea of a god any more head-room than the idea of lucky black cats. You need to make your case, to argue it coherently, cogently and rationally, not just take it as read that God is different just because you say so, which at present is all that you're doing.

Arguments of this kind always fundamentally rely on the same fallacious rhetorical ploys. Firstly, they assume that people will be impressed by antiquity (humans have believed in gods for thousands of years; that's the argumentum ad antiquitatem if you prefer your fallacies comfortably couched in Latin) and secondly that they'll be impressed by sheer numbers (the argumentum ad populum/ad numerum). Sorry, but no. If we are to give the concept of a god, any god, all gods, more credence than the concept of leprechauns and tooth fairies, you're going to have to argue your corner and say precisely and exactly why we should do so, in a way that doesn't depend upon an argumentum ad populum/ad numerum already referred to and which doesn't rely on facts of human psychology (most people are afraid of death; they will tend to believe anything which purports to promise them that in some sense they won't meet total and utter oblivion when they die) which are entirely explicable within a sceptical, rationalist and naturalistic worldview. Lucky black cats do not provide human beings with a narrative story which purports to give objective meaning, value and purpose to their lives; lucky black cats do not purport to provide an ultimate and absolute grounding to morality; lucky black cats do not offer the hope of the continuation of personality/consciousness after death. Gods do. That this is why gods are believed in in far greater numbers than lucky black cats falls well within the remit of human psychology and anthropology and what-have-you, with absolutely no woo required. It is not an argument that gods exist or an argument that we should take the existence of gods seriously. If such arguments even exist - I've never seen one but hey, you might be the first - it's up to you to provide one. The spluttering righteous indignation that seems to overcome some theists when they come across their god being compared to airborne pasta-comprised creatures and the like merely masks a needle-sharp point; the paucity of any reason to take the one seriously (and on the the flimsiest of bases) and not the other.

Simple bald assertion is Alan Burns's job on this forum; you need to demonstrate, not merely assert, why the concept of a god has a coherent definition and should be taken more seriously than lucky black cats, cash-dispensing fairies and garage-dwelling dragons. The idea of gods is as trivial, and remains as trivial, as the other examples I've given until and unless you can mount a sound case otherwise.

Good luck with that; nobody else has ever done it.

What assertion?. In your quote I only mention the idea of God.
How can you say you don't have deep needs, you might have and be unaware or suppressing them only for them to surface in communications like this.

Is perfectly sensible to suggest that an equation is wrong and your cack handed equations are.

Leprechauns only equated with God when The Master, Bluehillside changed the definition to God.

[Spud]

But also where is you evidence of a mass execution of purported eye witnesses to the claimed resurrection of Jesus. I don't think there is any evidence for this, even in the bible (which is a non partial record). Paul sees to claim 500 eye witnesses, and then goes on to claim that most of these are still living at the time he was writing (some 20 years after the purported event). So even Paul doesn't support your claim that the purported eye witnesses were rapidly killed off.

Book of Acts.

Where?

Noting that according to Paul (who I guess you think isn't telling porkies) there were hundreds of witnesses - were they all (or nearly all executed as you claim - because if you are claiming that you are refuting Paul who claims most were still alive when he was writing.

Sorry- I mixed up the massacre of Christians by Nero with the great persecution that began after the stoning of Stephen, Acts 8:1. My point should have been that the twelve apostles were flogged for preaching yet they continued, 'rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the name', Acts 4 & 5. A 'turn the other cheek' ethos sealed their testimony, as this blog describes:
http://tinyurl.com/ocfrkfd

[jeremyp]

My point should have been that the twelve apostles were flogged for preaching yet they continued,

What are your sources for this assertion?

'rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the name', Acts 4 & 5. A 'turn the other cheek' ethos sealed their testimony, as this blog describes:
http://tinyurl.com/ocfrkfd

Just Acts?  Got anything reliable?

[BashfulAnthony]

It is so pathetic to watch these anti-religionists talking any old rot, not in serious debate, but only to debunk and deride.  I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of them?

[Leonard James]

Just because people are prepared to suffer for their belief systems doesn't mean they have any credibility! Look at suicide bombers who are more than happy to be killed for their faith!

Nor is there any reason for believing that the accounts of their martyrdom are true simply because they come from the Bible. They are just as open to doubt as many other Bible claims.

[Spud]

Just because people are prepared to suffer for their belief systems doesn't mean they have any credibility!

If, as the early church recorded (not the Bible, except in Stephen and James' case, pay attention Leonard), none of them recanted while being killed, we can say they definitely believed they had met Jesus alive after his death.
If they were right, that would mean Jesus is alive now.
That would mean he could be contacted; it would be up to each individual to make the effort to contact him.

[Leonard James]

Just because people are prepared to suffer for their belief systems doesn't mean they have any credibility!

If, as the early church recorded (not the Bible, except in Stephen and James' case, pay attention Leonard), none of them recanted while being killed, we can say they definitely believed they had met Jesus alive after his death.
If they were right, that would mean Jesus is alive now.
That would mean he could be contacted; it would be up to each individual to make the effort to contact him.

I am paying attention, Spud, it is you who are not doing so.

As I keep pointing out, no matter whose version of the events you take, they are all second-hand (at least) accounts of the facts, and should therefore be treated with the greatest scepticism.