Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[BashfulAnthony]

I would like to know what is wrong with you.  Apart from your all but pathological obsession with a thing you don't even believe in, you exhibit absolutely no intellectual credibility by merely denouncing every single aspect of the Bible stories out of hand

 The comparison between the followers of Jesus and what they claimed, and the 9/11 murderers is a case in point.  In fact, the two bear no resemblance.  The 9/11 psychopaths were a well-organised group of radicalised volunteers, who were ready to kill Westerners, because they detest all things Western.  They planned their atrocity for months, even years in advance, and were a highly efficient bunch.  The followers of Jesus, on the other hand, were largely illiterate, or at best, semi-literate, individuals, who simply attested to what they had seen.  There was no group organisation, no planning or collusion,  and especially no intent to die for what they were saying:  they put themselves in mortal danger because they wanted to witness what they had experienced.  I don't suppose any of them sought martyrdom.  That is the situation, and for you to make any comparison between the two events, is frankly, ignorant.

There is nothing wrong with me, BA ... the fault is yours. You are unobservant and bitchy.

If you look again you will see I was answering Cyberman's post which contained both references, it was not me making the comparison.

I wish you would not trail around after me looking for imaginary things to complain about. You're a childish twit! 

I comment only on your poor, unresearched, and flimsy posts.   It is at least encouraging to see a more intellectual approach today!!

[Andy]

Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans.  Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims?  It doesn't add up.

They'd all been hypnotised.

[BashfulAnthony]

Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans.  Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims?  It doesn't add up.

They'd all been hypnotised.

I reckon James is self-hypnotised!

[Andy]

Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans.  Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims?  It doesn't add up.

They'd all been hypnotised.

I reckon James is self-hypnotised!

No, of course, a god did it.

[BashfulAnthony]

Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans.  Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims?  It doesn't add up.

They'd all been hypnotised.

I reckon James is self-hypnotised!

No, of course, a god did it.

No, he doesn't believe in gods!  They are all in the imagination, rather like his "arguments!"

[Andy]

Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans.  Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims?  It doesn't add up.

They'd all been hypnotised.

I reckon James is self-hypnotised!

No, of course, a god did it.

No, he doesn't believe in gods!  They are all in the imagination, rather like his "arguments!"

Oh, I though you were talking about Jesus' brother. My bad.

[Hope]

Surely he himself taught that he was the son of "God".

He taught that he was the Son of God - yes, but it is clear that the disciples didn't fully understand what that meant until they saw the resurrected Christ.  How often have you been taught things that have taken you several months, even years, to fully understand?

[Hope]

They'd all been hypnotised.

By who?  Obviously it wasn't Jesus who had hypnotised them since they seem to have deserted him in his final hours and gone into hiding.

[Leonard James]

Surely he himself taught that he was the son of "God".

He taught that he was the Son of God - yes, but it is clear that the disciples didn't fully understand what that meant until they saw the resurrected Christ.  How often have you been taught things that have taken you several months, even years, to fully understand?

What's to "understand" about being the son of "God". I'm sure they understood it, even though they may have had doubts about the truth of it.

[Andy]

They'd all been hypnotised.

By who?  Obviously it wasn't Jesus who had hypnotised them since they seem to have deserted him in his final hours and gone into hiding.

Dunno, by anyone around at the time who had the skills and was willing to. I didn't say it had to be Jesus but you haven't dismissed that with what you say, as one possibility is they could've been hypnotised to believe they had gone into hiding when they hadn't.

The thing here is, I currently understand that hypnotism is possible, but resurrections aren't, so on that basis hypnotism is a more plausible scenario no matter how far or how silly you take it. If you didn't agree that hypnotism was more plausible, then you'd be arguing for miracles every time hypnotism occurred.

[Spud]

We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.

How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.

This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?

I'm not saying there were eyewitnesses or that they were telling the truth; I'm saying that what they say they witnessed was enough to convince them.

[BashfulAnthony]

Look into my eyes!     This discussion is absurd!

[Spud]

What would make men fly planes into buildings,

Hatred?

[BashfulAnthony]

What would make men fly planes into buildings,

Hatred?

Now it's called "radicalisation!"

[Gordon]

We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.

How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.

This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?

I'm not saying there were eyewitnesses or that they were telling the truth; I'm saying that what they say they witnessed was enough to convince them.

That doesn't imply that what they were convinced by was true though: they may have been the victims of propaganda, or perhaps they were simply gullible and assumed more than was justified (confirmation bias can be a risk), or perhaps they lied for Jesus.

Clear risks that, as far as I can see, tend to be ignored by the many Christians who resort to making fallacious assertions (whether the realise that they are or not) in the absence of a method that clearly identifies the supernatural.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.

How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.

This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?

I'm not saying there were eyewitnesses or that they were telling the truth; I'm saying that what they say they witnessed was enough to convince them.

That doesn't imply that what they were convinced by was true though: they may have been the victims of propaganda, or perhaps they were simply gullible and assumed more than was justified (confirmation bias can be a risk), or perhaps they lied for Jesus.

Clear risks that, as far as I can see, tend to be ignored by the many Christians who resort to making fallacious assertions (whether the realise that they are or not) in the absence of a method that clearly identifies the supernatural.

Gordon, do you tend to put your spectacles on when you write this stuff? Apparently they make you look more intelligent.
The scientific method does not cover many things e.g. philosophical naturalism. ''Clear identification'' sounds though precisely the kind of guff that a philosophical naturalist would resort to in an  attempt to sound authoritative.

[Sassy]

HOW?  How can Christianity force anyone to comply? It is impossible.

Christianity is simply that which Christians apply in its name, so yes 'Christianity' can compel people to do or not do certain things, by enshrining their religious tenets in law.

True Christianity had nothing to do with people and worldly laws.
Want to see if you can see the true Christianity as opposed to that which is false... Clue; Jesus said - do as I do...

If you haven't tried Christianity how can you make such a foolish assertion?  For you to assert they are the same shows ignorance and is even more foolish. It is folly in the worse case possible.

This still doesn't explain what reason there is to assume there is a difference. You believe, that's your prerogative. I have testimony from any number of people believing any number of allegations from global alien empires in pre-human history, through lizard-doppelgangers in the Royal Family on to the efficacy of extremely diluted water, and no reason to believe that any of them have any more justification than any other. The number of people that believe unevidenced assertions is not a reliable indicator of the reliability of the assertion.

But the Spirit and Truth are the only evidence.
Want to explain what about these two things you think is like the above,

Billions of people believe Muhammed has superseded Judaism and that Christianity is fundamentally misguided, but their sincerity is, no doubt, insufficient to convince you. Why should your equally sincere but equally unsupported belief convince me?

You WISH....LOL 1.6 billion actually but there are 1.09 billion Christians in the Roman Catholic Church alone... In fact the Christian religion has a 1/3rd of of the worlds population.
Where is Muhammed now, that's right he is dead. No miracles then.

You see Christians make choice and speaks from an informed stance and knowledge. It would be foolish for anyone to diss that without having experienced what they have or understanding what they have read.

Some Christians, perhaps, but not all. And whilst you can be informed about the Bible, it is a poor source of information itself.

The fact is that it is a living religion. Spirit and Truth.

Christians DO NOT stop the right to die, they do not stop gay marriage and they do not advocate walking away from the Lords (is that the 'house of Lords' or did you mean Laws? They have never advocated anyone walk away from schooling....

Really? So the Lords Spiritual, amongst others, didn't vote against the Assisted Dying bill? The Lords Spiritual didn't speak out against, and vote against, the progress of the amendments to marriage when they went through? They don't advocate people walk away from schooling, but they encourage the segregation and tribalism of religious schools.

Sounds like a personal beef. Are you saying no atheists or pagans agreed with those decisions. Well, you do not have a point do you.

Let me remind you...

Re: Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

It would be best if you did not try to derail or throw red herrings into the topic being discussed...

Do you have any idea if there's an alleged 'correct' order, because it all seems to have gone quiet on that front.

Your reply proves differently. You couldn't even understand or reply to the post with displaying you never bothered it in a meaningful manner let alone open minded. In fact your reply showed you never even contemplated the actual things being discussed.

I have asked, repeatedly, for information to expand upon the original question. I have asked, repeatedly, for someone to explain why I should treat claims of gods differently to claims of leprechauns, and as yet no-one has tried.

Keep with the red herring assertions if you'd like, but I'd prefer an answer to the questions that might move the discussion on a little....

O.
[/quote]

You are kidding yourself. Try stay on topic and start a thread for other issues...

[Spud]

We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.

How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.

This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?

I'm not saying there were eyewitnesses or that they were telling the truth; I'm saying that what they say they witnessed was enough to convince them.

That doesn't imply that what they were convinced by was true though: they may have been the victims of propaganda, or perhaps they were simply gullible and assumed more than was justified (confirmation bias can be a risk), or perhaps they lied for Jesus.

Clear risks that, as far as I can see, tend to be ignored by the many Christians who resort to making fallacious assertions (whether the realise that they are or not) in the absence of a method that clearly identifies the supernatural.

I was putting myself in the shoes of someone who has seen a great preacher/miracle worker die, then seen that person three days later alive, and touched marks that are consistent with his death, and had other people there to confirm, etc. They were convinced they had enough evidence. Here is the method that clearly identifies the supernatural.

It only does this for the eyewitness himself, though. For anyone else, something is needed to prove they were not lying or deluded: an infallible lie-detector and multiple independent witnesses, respectively.

[Hope]

I was putting myself in the shoes of someone who has seen a great preacher/miracle worker die, then seen that person three days later alive, and touched marks that are consistent with his death, and had other people there to confirm, etc. They were convinced they had enough evidence. Here is the method that clearly identifies the supernatural.

It only does this for the eyewitness himself, though. For anyone else, something is needed to prove they were not lying or deluded: an infallible lie-detector and multiple independent witnesses, respectively.

But surely, if said eye-witness had other eye-witnesses to corroborate what they all experienced, then it doesn't 'only do(es) this for the eyewitness himself'.

[jeremyp]

Why do you think they are not independent? You said earlier that the resurrection accounts are independent, yet you say the empty tomb accounts are not. Why do think that, please?

Educate yourself Alan. Read about the synoptic problem.

You don't know who wrote the stories or who their sources were.

As before, you and I disagree on this.

That doesn't make you any less wrong.

But it is not claimed that "a dead man got up and walked away," but rather than God raised him from the dead and then that he walked away/around. We have accounts of him meeting up with people on about a dozen occasions.

I have an account of Harry Potter defeating Lord Voldemort. 

By the way, you cannot both claim that Jesus was resurrected because God and God exists because Jesus was resurrected as you do.  Your argument is circular.

The basis of your whole defence of the resurrection accounts is goddidit.  If you believe in God and God can do anything then, of course, your resurrection fairy tales are possible but so is everything else, except rational discourse.

[jeremyp]

But surely, if said eye-witness had other eye-witnesses to corroborate what they all experienced, then it doesn't 'only do(es) this for the eyewitness himself'.

Agreed.  Let's see your authenticated eye witness accounts of Jesus having a meal with the disciples.

[Hope]

But surely, if said eye-witness had other eye-witnesses to corroborate what they all experienced, then it doesn't 'only do(es) this for the eyewitness himself'.

Agreed.  Let's see your authenticated eye witness accounts of Jesus having a meal with the disciples.

OK, we'll start with Luke 22:7ff, this is corroborated by Matthew 26: 17ff and Mark 14:12ff.

But you actually missed the point of my post.  If an eye-witness's evidence is corroborated by one or more other eye-witnesses' evidence, it isn't the only original eye-witness' evidence that is corroborated.

[BeRational]

But surely, if said eye-witness had other eye-witnesses to corroborate what they all experienced, then it doesn't 'only do(es) this for the eyewitness himself'.

Agreed.  Let's see your authenticated eye witness accounts of Jesus having a meal with the disciples.

OK, we'll start with Luke 22:7ff, this is corroborated by Matthew 26: 17ff and Mark 14:12ff.

But you actually missed the point of my post.  If an eye-witness's evidence is corroborated by one or more other eye-witnesses' evidence, it isn't the only original eye-witness' evidence that is corroborated.

But you do not have ANY eye witnesses, you have a book that days there were some.

[Hope]

But you do not have ANY eye witnesses, you have a book that days there were some.

Don't we?  I accept that Luke would not have been an eye-witness, but Mark may have been one of the group of followers that included the 12 disciples and who would likely have taken part in the meal; Matthew may have been one of the 12.  Add to that the possibility that Mark's Gospel is the gospel according to Peter, we actually end up with the possibility of 2, possibly even 3 eye-witnesses.

OK, all this is educated surmise, but then your assertion that we don't have ANY eye-witnesses is simply surmise.

[Gordon]

But you do not have ANY eye witnesses, you have a book that days there were some.

Don't we?  I accept that Luke would not have been an eye-witness, but Mark may have been one of the group of followers that included the 12 disciples and who would likely have taken part in the meal; Matthew may have been one of the 12.  Add to that the possibility that Mark's Gospel is the gospel according to Peter, we actually end up with the possibility of 2, possibly even 3 eye-witnesses.

OK, all this is educated surmise, but then your assertion that we don't have ANY eye-witnesses is simply surmise.

Claims of eye-witnesses, Hope, just claims and not facts.

In addition, these are claims made in a book put together by supporters of Jesus - I'm sure you can see the risks here.