Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Alien]

It is as wrong (incomplete) now as it was back then, but at least then they had an excuse, which you now don't have. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156

We have masses of evidence of people lying

So what? I've never claimed people don't lie.

and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.

Apart from, ooh, say, the resurrection of Jesus.

If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.

Or genuinely mistaken. Alternatively, we can try to find out more about the alleged miracle and draw our conclusions based on more evidence (if there is any).

How do you know Jesus was resurected?

As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.

How have you ruled out the more likely answers?

Which "more likely answers"? How do you know they are "more likely"?

[Alien]

and no evidence that the laws of nature ever get suspended.

Apart from, ooh, say, the resurrection of Jesus.

A story in a book is not evidence.

More accurately, it is a number of accounts in several books written within the lifetime of many of those claiming to have met the risen Jesus.

If you know nothing else about some alleged miracle that somebody says they witnessed, you must assume they are lying.

Or genuinely mistaken.

You can split hairs if you want.

So accuracy is not important for you? People who lie and those who are genuinely mistaken have different motives.

Lying or simply mistaken, it's still more likely than that the laws of nature got suspended.

Why?

Alternatively, we can try to find out more about the alleged miracle and draw our conclusions based on more evidence (if there is any).

And when you don't find any, you can say" the person was mistaken or lying" or you can say "goddidit".

And when we do find some, we can say, "It isn't evidence because that sort of thing doesn't happen"?

[Sassy]

There is nothing the religious can force you to do, or not to do, if it is against your wishes.

There are things they can prevent you doing, and until recently there were a lot more, and if some of them (not all) had there way then there would be attempts to force people to comply with their religious edicts.

HOW?  How can Christianity force anyone to comply? It is impossible.
You are surely not using an argument which does not apply to Christians as an argument against Christianity, are you?
How useless does that become and how lacking does it make your understanding of Christianity and sincerity in replying to BA?

And for you to assume that the Bible, or aspects of it are unreal by comparing them to pots of gold and leprechauns, is rather silly.

For you to simply assert that they're different is meaningless. They have exactly as much justification, there's just fewer words and pages used to fail to demonstrate any validity when it comes to unicorns or pixies.

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.
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.

If you do not accept it, I say again, walk away.

Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate. Walk away from the Lords, and from schooling.

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.... How does any of those things reflect in the topic started by an atheist? 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 really believe blathering on about it all on here, is in any way doing anything to alter anything, outside of the occasional poster here, and even that's most unlikely!.

Make a difference to anyone else? Who knows, I do this for practice and personal amusement.

Explains the red herring and lack of understanding regarding other faiths, Christianity and what the topic thread is really about...

And I still maintain that with such an attitude, it is highly unlikely that you have spent any appreciable time bothering to read it all in a meaningful and open manner.

You can maintain as much as you like, but that which is asserted without basis can be dismissed on the same grounds.

O.

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.

[Alien]

Good question.  What is the right order?  Is it the order in which they were written; the order in which the events they describe allegedly happened; the order they are in now; some other order?

You need to ask Farmer Thrud - 'twas he who started the thread, and indicating that there is a 'correct order'.

I thought, by posing the question on this thread, I was asking him.

Since you were replying to Hope, I took it that you were asking him. I'll PM Thrud.

[jeremyp]

As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb

But as explained many times before you have a bad case of confirmation bias.  Just because you see it, doesn't make it true.

[jeremyp]

More accurately, it is a number of accounts in several books written within the lifetime of many of those claiming to have met the risen Jesus.

But you do not know the provenance of these accounts.  You do not know that they cannot be traced back to Peter fabricating an account or having a case of denial and imagining the events.

So accuracy is not important for you? People who lie and those who are genuinely mistaken have different motives.

They have different motives but they still tell stories that are ultimately false.

Lying or simply mistaken, it's still more likely than that the laws of nature got suspended.

Why?

I come across people who are lying or mistaken practically every day.  I never see miracles and my experience is typical of most people.  Those people that do see miracles never quite seem to be able to substantiate them.

[Sassy]

Are you really telling me Christians appreciate & respect ALL other faiths even if they're contrary to Christianity ?!?!?

That if they could 'change' them they wouldn't ?

Christianity is not about changing the views of other faiths.
Nor does the other faiths outside the Abrahamic faith have anything to do with Christianity.

Christianity does not judge the world. The world was already judged when Christ died. No other way back to God but the ways of the covenants.

You need to understand that Christianity is about personal change and that every person has to have their own relationship with God and Christ. Christianity is concerned with those who know the LORD God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Love not the world or anything in it...

1 John 2:15-17King James Version (KJV)

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

We cannot change the world or one iota of what a person believes.
The individual can only be changed by a personal experience of God.
To take a persons beliefs away would only substitute it for something else if not in a relationship with God and Christ. It would be futile to try and stop other religions existing... But it is clear that people who once believed those things have changed when they came to believe the truth about Christ and Gods love to save them.
Understanding is helpful. Christians do not try to remove beliefs... They know that only the person who finds life in Christ can do that for themselves.

[jeremyp]

Good question.  What is the right order?  Is it the order in which they were written; the order in which the events they describe allegedly happened; the order they are in now; some other order?

You need to ask Farmer Thrud - 'twas he who started the thread, and indicating that there is a 'correct order'.

I thought, by posing the question on this thread, I was asking him.

Since you were replying to Hope, I took it that you were asking him. I'll PM Thrud.

My reply started with the words "good question".  This was in reference to Hope's post which asked the same question as I did except I expanded it it a little.  I wasn't asking Hope.

[Sassy]

I wouldn't, where did you get THAT from ?

NO-ONE comes to My Father BUT BY ME !!!

What does this mean?

Nothing, the father of Jesus was most likely Joseph, who got Mary in the family way.

There speaks the voice of IGNORANCE....you cannot answer anything without showing two things... Your complete incompetence and lack of knowledge when it comes to the contents of the NT or even why your answer has nothing to do with what was asked...

Certain posters with be squeaking that non believers haven't understood the NT, whilst they believe every word Jesus is supposed to have spouted, without any evidence to prove it was actually said by him.

Ignorance and total lack of understanding... We have nieces sent home to die who lived. Both anointed both had terminal heart disease and one has now been completely cleared of that heart disease it has miraculously disappeared. So don't presume to know what evidence we as individuals have. The heart condition DOES NOT get better. And the scans which were taped prove that they did have the disease. We know that Jesus healed we know that today the dead are being raised and terminal illness healed.  Should you answer posts you cannot actually understand or keep on track with?

The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers. Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off. The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.

Seems that you have an inability to really comprehend anything with an open mind.

In his SPOUTING OFF it got you right, didn't he...

Matthew 13:13King James Version (KJV)

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Why NOT make this your moniker... Because he was right about you when he spoke these words wasn't he?
 

[Hope]

You made an unsupported assertion about it earlier.  As I recall, when you have been asked to tell us about these miracles, your stories turn out to be less convincing than you are pretending now.

Oddly enough, jeremy, people on this very forum refer to the self-same events, but just give them a different name - 'spontaneous healings' as opposed to 'miracles'.  Even they acknowledge that there is no rational reason for the healing. 

But what is it evidence of?  a miraculous event or somebody good at spinning a yarn?

And that is where the whole cycle of questioning starts again.  The problem is that the nay-sayers have absolutely no evidence to indicate that the former isn't the case; the aye-sayers have the evidence of the laws of nature combined with the understanding that if those laws of nature were established by a supra-natural deity, said deity would be quite capable of suspending them for specific purposes, in much the same way that governments that establish temporal laws given situations.   

The suspension of laws is in no way an impossible event if they are established by an external force.

[Leonard James]

The heart condition DOES NOT get better.

Yes it does, providing you follow the doctor's recommendations.

[Hope]

The heart condition DOES NOT get better.

Yes it does, providing you follow the doctor's recommendations.

And only if the recommendations relate to non-genetic conditions!!     I was rcently diagnosed as having high levels of lipoprotein{a} (sorry about the use of 'wrong' brackets - use of normal ones results in the system thinking I'm trying to start some new formatting).  This is a genetic issue that I have no control over, though scentists are investigating means of artificially controlling the substance.  I might even be invited to take part in clinical trials if they come up with something.

[Andy]

And that is where the whole cycle of questioning starts again.  The problem is that the nay-sayers have absolutely no evidence to indicate that the former isn't the case; the aye-sayers have the evidence of the laws of nature combined with the understanding that if those laws of nature were established by a supra-natural deity, said deity would be quite capable of suspending them for specific purposes, in much the same way that governments that establish temporal laws given situations.   

The suspension of laws is in no way an impossible event if they are established by an external force.

If the laws themselves were established by a god then their existence is miraculous too, which renders absolutely everything to be miraculous, leaving your little pointers to specific events as miraculous meaningless because you have removed all contrast.

[jeremyp]

You made an unsupported assertion about it earlier.  As I recall, when you have been asked to tell us about these miracles, your stories turn out to be less convincing than you are pretending now.

Oddly enough, jeremy, people on this very forum refer to the self-same events, but just give them a different name - 'spontaneous healings' as opposed to 'miracles'.  Even they acknowledge that there is no rational reason for the healing. 

Apart from the fact that the human body has a biological self repair mechanism.

And that is where the whole cycle of questioning starts again.  The problem is that the nay-sayers have absolutely no evidence to indicate that the former isn't the case;

Except that the laws of nature have been tested extensively and never found to be broken.  This is only a cycle because you will not accept basic fact.

the aye-sayers have the evidence of the laws of nature combined with the understanding that if those laws of nature were established by a supra-natural deity, said deity would be quite capable of suspending them for specific purposes, in much the same way that governments that establish temporal laws given situations. 

If there is a god that is prepared to break the laws of nature, you and I are both wasting our time.  The laws of probability go straight out of the window.  Why are you even arguing here?  You should just say you have faith that your god can do anything.  That is what your argument is coming down to anyway.  Same for Alan.
 

[Leonard James]

The heart condition DOES NOT get better.

Yes it does, providing you follow the doctor's recommendations.

And only if the recommendations relate to non-genetic conditions!!     I was rcently diagnosed as having high levels of lipoprotein{a} (sorry about the use of 'wrong' brackets - use of normal ones results in the system thinking I'm trying to start some new formatting).  This is a genetic issue that I have no control over, though scentists are investigating means of artificially controlling the substance.  I might even be invited to take part in clinical trials if they come up with something.

I'm sorry to hear that, Hope, and hope that all the results are successful and satisfactory for you.

However, I repeat that nearly everything is genetic in origin, although not always directly. Heart disease is mostly caused by faulty diet and lack of exercise, but it must always be remembered that the next guy may well live the same way but doesn't develop the disease because he is not genetically susceptible to the causes.

[Outrider]

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

[Alien]

As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb

But as explained many times before you have a bad case of confirmation bias.  Just because you see it, doesn't make it true.

How about we look at the actual evidence rather than play at sound bites?

[Alien]

More accurately, it is a number of accounts in several books written within the lifetime of many of those claiming to have met the risen Jesus.

But you do not know the provenance of these accounts.  You do not know that they cannot be traced back to Peter fabricating an account or having a case of denial and imagining the events.

Eh? You are suggesting that all the accounts of people meeting Jesus may be traced back to Peter making something up?

So accuracy is not important for you? People who lie and those who are genuinely mistaken have different motives.

They have different motives but they still tell stories that are ultimately false.

And?

Lying or simply mistaken, it's still more likely than that the laws of nature got suspended.

Why?

I come across people who are lying or mistaken practically every day.  I never see miracles and my experience is typical of most people.  Those people that do see miracles never quite seem to be able to substantiate them.

Who would those people be that you are describing?

I've never seen the Big Bang, but am confident it happened. Just because I don't see any Big Bangs now should not lead me to assume that there was not one way back.

[Alien]

Good question.  What is the right order?  Is it the order in which they were written; the order in which the events they describe allegedly happened; the order they are in now; some other order?

You need to ask Farmer Thrud - 'twas he who started the thread, and indicating that there is a 'correct order'.

I thought, by posing the question on this thread, I was asking him.

Since you were replying to Hope, I took it that you were asking him. I'll PM Thrud.

My reply started with the words "good question".  This was in reference to Hope's post which asked the same question as I did except I expanded it it a little.  I wasn't asking Hope.

OK. I've PMed Thrud.

[jeremyp]

As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb

But as explained many times before you have a bad case of confirmation bias.  Just because you see it, doesn't make it true.

How about we look at the actual evidence rather than play at sound bites?

Let's look at the actual evidence:

We have, effectively two stories that claim there was an empty tomb (since the synoptic gospels are certainly not independent).  Even then we can't be sure that they had independent sources because we don't know who wrote them or when or where they got their information from.

The idea that there even was an empty tomb is somewhat tenuous, but possible I guess.  There are many reasons why tombs have been found to be empty, grave robbing, body snatching, moving for legitimate reasons etc.

The problem with your "evidence" of the resurrection is that it comes essentially from the same stories as the empty tomb.  You can't claim that all these people getting martyred is evidence for your story being true when the accounts of martyrdom come from the same story you are trying to prove.

[jeremyp]

More accurately, it is a number of accounts in several books written within the lifetime of many of those claiming to have met the risen Jesus.

But you do not know the provenance of these accounts.  You do not know that they cannot be traced back to Peter fabricating an account or having a case of denial and imagining the events.

Eh? You are suggesting that all the accounts of people meeting Jesus may be traced back to Peter making something up?

Eh?  Are you suggesting that a dead man coming alive again is a serious proposition? Eh?

So accuracy is not important for you? People who lie and those who are genuinely mistaken have different motives.

They have different motives but they still tell stories that are ultimately false.

And?

Eh? And nothing.  There was a full stop at the end of the sentence. 

I come across people who are lying or mistaken practically every day.  I never see miracles and my experience is typical of most people.  Those people that do see miracles never quite seem to be able to substantiate them.

Who would those people be that you are describing?

Eh? Anybody who has ever claimed to witness a miracle.

I've never seen the Big Bang, but am confident it happened. Just because I don't see any Big Bangs now should not lead me to assume that there was not one way back.

Eh?  Nobody is claiming the Big Bang is a miracle.

[Gordon]

As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.

How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?

[Alien]

As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb

But as explained many times before you have a bad case of confirmation bias.  Just because you see it, doesn't make it true.

How about we look at the actual evidence rather than play at sound bites?

Let's look at the actual evidence:

We have, effectively two stories that claim there was an empty tomb (since the synoptic gospels are certainly not independent).  Even then we can't be sure that they had independent sources because we don't know who wrote them or when or where they got their information from.

This is incorrect. The accounts of the resurrection in the four canonical gospels seem to be independent of each other. You yourself have argued that they are incompatible with each other, because they speak of different people going to the tomb at different times and speak of different people seeing Jesus at different times. I agree that much in the Synoptics is not independent, but the resurrection accounts do seem to be independent.

The idea that there even was an empty tomb is somewhat tenuous, but possible I guess.  There are many reasons why tombs have been found to be empty, grave robbing, body snatching, moving for legitimate reasons etc.

If it was not empty, all the authorities had to do was show Jesus' body in the tomb. So, no, not tenuous.

As for why it was empty, you need to come up with a better explanation of all the evidence, not just bits and pieces using mutually incompatible or ad hoc explanations.

The problem with your "evidence" of the resurrection is that it comes essentially from the same stories as the empty tomb.  You can't claim that all these people getting martyred is evidence for your story being true when the accounts of martyrdom come from the same story you are trying to prove.

Do they? The account of James' martyrdom comes from Josephus. The account of Peter's and Paul's come from Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (as recorded by Eusebius). We also have an account of Jesus' death in Tacitus.

[Alien]

As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.

How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?

Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.

It is that simple.

[jjohnjil]

As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.

How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?

Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.

It is that simple.

Of course, Alan, it's very simple.  The authorities not explaining a missing corpse is far less probable than that the corpse came back to life and walked out on his own.  It's so simple - if you happen to have confirmation bias.