Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Christian's encounter with Christ makes the resurrection not only possible but if you think about it the only explanation for the encounter.

What about the Mormon's encounter with Moroni? The Muslim's encounter with Allah?

If you look at Joseph Smiths ''Articles of faith'' for the Mormon Church there is no requirement for an experience of Moroni. Nor in fact is there a widespread experience of said Angel. The Mormon church is a Christian variant presumably it is it's encounter with God .

A Moslem encounters God at the level where he or she is convicted there is one. I cannot odds that, merely his or her position on the Christian experience of God. 

[jeremyp]

What do you think Matthew and Mark's purpose was in adding the phrase, 'let the reader understand' when talking about that event? The whole point of including the Olivet discourse in the gospel was to relay the information Jesus had given the disciples (about when to leave Jerusalem) to the rest of the church, so that they would be preserved.

What better way to convince credulous sheep than to include in your gospel a prophecy of something that has already happened and pretend the gospel was written before it happened. 

[jeremyp]

If you look at Joseph Smiths ''Articles of faith'' for the Mormon Church there is no requirement for an experience of Moroni. Nor in fact is there a widespread experience of said Angel. The Mormon church is a Christian variant presumably it is it's encounter with God .

A Moslem encounters God at the level where he or she is convicted there is one. I cannot odds that, merely his or her position on the Christian experience of God.

You are just throwing up a smoke screen because you have been exposed on this one.
  It's got nothing to do with experiences and everything to do with how people will believe a blatantly nonsensical story if it suits them.  That includes the resurrection.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you look at Joseph Smiths ''Articles of faith'' for the Mormon Church there is no requirement for an experience of Moroni. Nor in fact is there a widespread experience of said Angel. The Mormon church is a Christian variant presumably it is it's encounter with God .

A Moslem encounters God at the level where he or she is convicted there is one. I cannot odds that, merely his or her position on the Christian experience of God.

You are just throwing up a smoke screen because you have been exposed on this one.
  It's got nothing to do with experiences and everything to do with how people will believe a blatantly nonsensical story if it suits them.  That includes the resurrection.

But you have not successfully demonstrated that your revisionist versions are necessarily true favouring instead to go for the big philosophical rebuttals namely
it's propaganda, It's ''nonsense'', It's the survivor fallacy.

Firstly, rather than being a strong selling point the epistles acknowledge that that part of the narrative is in fact problematic. So one problem for the propaganda argument is the embarrassment of this. The second problem is that Christianity at the time of the epistles does not fit the usual organisational profile...in other words Christianity at this time is more of a reverse extrapolated papal monolith. That was not the case at the time of the epistles.

The ''It's nonsense'' assertion is just stating what was understood then so rather than a selling point it is and was an embarrassment. The bald nonsense line is one that you end on without explaining why it is other than it goes against the doctrine of philosophical
materialism. If nothing else. IMHO this view has led many into historical revisionism and deliberate ignorance of what the accounts of the early Christian communities in the epistles are actually telling us...In short what they tell us is that an orthodox Christianity existed, that it is established within a couple of decades.

Why did Christianity survive?. To posit the Survivability of ideas is an offshoot of Darwinian thought but that is either wrong or People proposing it have come up with the wrong conclusion and Christianity has survived history because of it's fitness. Again Gordon is trying to use of big broad theory to disprove one history and substitute another. This will no doubt include Christianity thriving except where philosophical materialism thrives. Why does philosophical materialism thrive?...careful now....is it a ''survivor'' Gordon?

[Hope]

If you look at Joseph Smiths ''Articles of faith'' for the Mormon Church there is no requirement for an experience of Moroni. Nor in fact is there a widespread experience of said Angel. The Mormon church is a Christian variant presumably it is it's encounter with God .

A Moslem encounters God at the level where he or she is convicted there is one. I cannot odds that, merely his or her position on the Christian experience of God.

'Encounter with God' doesn't mean something is a Christian variant.  As you say, Muslims believe that they encounter God, but that doesn't mean that Islam (or Judaism, or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism for that matter) are Christian variants.

[jeremyp]

But you have not successfully demonstrated that your revisionist versions are necessarily true favouring instead to go for the big philosophical rebuttals namely
it's propaganda, It's ''nonsense'', It's the survivor fallacy.

You're a broken record.  It's as simple as this:

Dead man coming alive (probability it actually happened ~0%):  Vlad believes it

Angel with Golden Tablets (probability it actually happened ~0%):  Vlad doesn't believe it.

Literal flight to Medina (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad doesn't believe it.

Why?  Because Vlad is a Christian. 

Firstly, rather than being a strong selling point the epistles acknowledge that that part of the narrative is in fact problematic.

Yeah, that's like adding "You'll never believe this but...."

So one problem for the propaganda argument is the embarrassment of this.

Not as embarrassing as "this is our Messiah, unfortunately he got executed and that's that".

Why did Christianity survive?. To posit the Survivability of ideas is an offshoot of Darwinian thought but that is either wrong or People proposing it have come up with the wrong conclusion and Christianity has survived history because of it's fitness.

Fitness is not a synonym of truth.

[Hope]

You are just throwing up a smoke screen because you have been exposed on this one.
  It's got nothing to do with experiences and everything to do with how people will believe a blatantly nonsensical story if it suits them.  That includes the resurrection.

The problem here, jeremy, is that this is all surmise on your part.  You have no definitive evidence that God does not exist (and no, I'm not trying to built a negative proof argument here) yet you are unable to explain so much of life and life's experiences - such as our purpose in being here, why the universe even exists (though many scientists believe that they are getting closer to an explanation of how).  This is no 'God of the Gaps' argument either, as science - according to several here - deals with physical questions such as chemical make-ups, developmental stages of life, etc. but not with the more abstract, philosophical aspects of life such as those mentioned above.

[Hope]

Dead man coming alive (probability it actually happened ~0%):  Vlad believes it

And the problem here is that the probability factor is attached to something that isn't even being claimed, causing the 'probability' argument to fall flat on its face.

[jeremyp]

You have no definitive evidence that God does not exist

Stop right there. 

If you are going to pull God, we might as well give up any pretence of having a rational discussion right now. We have no methodology to determine whether statements involving God are true or not so we can't say whether the resurrection is probable in a scenario with God. 

yet you are unable to explain so much of life and life's experiences - such as our purpose in being here, why the universe even exists (though many scientists believe that they are getting closer to an explanation of how).

Neither can you, but I, at least have a  methodology that may one day lead me to the answers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you look at Joseph Smiths ''Articles of faith'' for the Mormon Church there is no requirement for an experience of Moroni. Nor in fact is there a widespread experience of said Angel. The Mormon church is a Christian variant presumably it is it's encounter with God .

A Moslem encounters God at the level where he or she is convicted there is one. I cannot odds that, merely his or her position on the Christian experience of God.

'Encounter with God' doesn't mean something is a Christian variant.  As you say, Muslims believe that they encounter God, but that doesn't mean that Islam (or Judaism, or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism for that matter) are Christian variants.

1: I never say that Mormons nor Moslems are Christians although I am aware of one person who underwent a conversion to Christ while a member of a Mormon congregation.
He was immediately moved to separate from them. I merely used the term to outline that God is the focus of Mormonism, that Christ is presented as the revelation of God rather than the business with the angel and the gold plates. My own thought is that a Christianity which is a variant of Christianity isn't Christianity.
2: I don't believe I stated that Islam was a Christian variant so you are wrong there.

[jeremyp]

Dead man coming alive (probability it actually happened ~0%):  Vlad believes it

And the problem here is that the probability factor is attached to something that isn't even being claimed, causing the 'probability' argument to fall flat on its face.

What do you mean?  You don't think Jesus was dead or you don't think he rose from the dead?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you have not successfully demonstrated that your revisionist versions are necessarily true favouring instead to go for the big philosophical rebuttals namely
it's propaganda, It's ''nonsense'', It's the survivor fallacy.

You're a broken record.  It's as simple as this:

Dead man coming alive (probability it actually happened ~0%):  Vlad believes it

Angel with Golden Tablets (probability it actually happened ~0%):  Vlad doesn't believe it.

Literal flight to Medina (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad doesn't believe it.

It's the squiggle bit in front of the percentage though isn't it Jezzer?

I have told you the grounds on which I tend to disbelief of the tablet story (i.e. not one based on a blanket dismissal of the supernatural)

[jeremyp]

But you have not successfully demonstrated that your revisionist versions are necessarily true favouring instead to go for the big philosophical rebuttals namely
it's propaganda, It's ''nonsense'', It's the survivor fallacy.

You're a broken record.  It's as simple as this:

Dead man coming alive (probability it actually happened ~0%):  Vlad believes it

Angel with Golden Tablets (probability it actually happened ~0%):  Vlad doesn't believe it.

Literal flight to Medina (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad doesn't believe it.

It's the squiggle bit in front of the percentage though isn't it Jezzer?

The thing is that the probability that it is fiction is higher.  We have experience of people making things up for all sorts of reasons, but you'll never see a dead man coming alive again.

I have told you the grounds on which I tend to disbelief of the tablet story (i.e. not one based on a blanket dismissal of the supernatural)

But these are grounds that are dependent on you already being a Christian.  A Hindu or Muslim would use exactly analogous reasoning to dismiss the resurrection.   

[Gordon]

Again Gordon is trying to use of big broad theory to disprove one history and substitute another. This will no doubt include Christianity thriving except where philosophical materialism thrives. Why does philosophical materialism thrive?...careful now....is it a ''survivor'' Gordon?

Don't be silly Vlad - it has yet to be shown that the portrayal of events and dialogue in the NT are historical facts to begin with: so I'm not 'substituting' anything. I'm simply querying the claim of historical fact in relation to the miracle bits, so I'm asking you who accept the NT as being historical fact to explain how you have excluded the possibility of mistakes or propaganda. All I seem to see though is a mix of confirmation bias, special pleading, fallacious arguments from authority/tradition - and your own woeful attempts at diversion.

I've made it quite clear that I think the claim of Jesus being resurrected is nonsense because it is naturally impossible, and that I think the NT claims are best seen as propaganda for Jesus since it is known that people are fallible (see my post 612). So, on what basis can you demonstrate (since you guys are making the claim)  that you have; a) a method to provide evidence that is demonstrable confirmation of a non-natural event, and b) a means of eliminating the risks of mistakes lies in the NT accounts.

It seems to me that expressions of personal faith is as far as Christians can ever get here: which is fine for those who stop at 'its true for me'. However, for those who go further and claim that, say, the resurrection of Jesus in historical fact - so that is must be 'true for everyone' - then they fall flat on their faces in the absence of both a suitable method to evidence their claim and their inability to deal with the risks of human artifice.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you have not successfully demonstrated that your revisionist versions are necessarily true favouring instead to go for the big philosophical rebuttals namely
it's propaganda, It's ''nonsense'', It's the survivor fallacy.

You're a broken record.  It's as simple as this:

Dead man coming alive (probability it actually happened ~0%):  Vlad believes it

Angel with Golden Tablets (probability it actually happened ~0%):  Vlad doesn't believe it.

Literal flight to Medina (probability it actually happened ~0%): Vlad doesn't believe it.

It's the squiggle bit in front of the percentage though isn't it Jezzer?

The thing is that the probability that it is fiction is higher.  We have experience of people making things up for all sorts of reasons, but you'll never see a dead man coming alive again.

But alas and alack that leaves you using how you believe the universe works against the historical inference and you becoming both revisionist and historically ignorant.

Cop this....The percentage of a moment in history being repeated squiggly sign zero percent.

[Hope]

What do you mean?  You don't think Jesus was dead or you don't think he rose from the dead?

Neither; you have (conveniently?) ignored the 3rd element of your own probability statement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again Gordon is trying to use of big broad theory to disprove one history and substitute another. This will no doubt include Christianity thriving except where philosophical materialism thrives. Why does philosophical materialism thrive?...careful now....is it a ''survivor'' Gordon?

Don't be silly Vlad - it has yet to be shown that the portrayal of events and dialogue in the NT are historical facts to begin with: so I'm not 'substituting' anything.

Well I'm not saying that the impossibility angle isn't an angle because I have said it always has been. You are not substituting an alternative history Gordon? You said period and location was fertile ground because belief in this stuff was eminently believable.

That is an alternative view to the epistles where the problem of belief in a resurrection was well known. That is a substitute history which needs a historical research base.

One cannot say that a history is fiction without the suggestion that history went another way. There is no burden of proof with a history offered since to say that one account wasn't is to say that an alternative was and that is a positive assertion. You and Jeremy have to then provide an alternative history. If you don't then your objections remain philosophical.

[jeremyp]

But alas and alack that leaves you using how you believe the universe works against the historical inference and you becoming both revisionist and historically ignorant.

We have no means of understanding how the Universe works other than observing and testing it.  We have asked the Christians here many times to provide us with a means of testing supernatural claims and so far there has been zero response.

You're saying that it is too hard for you to provide evidence of the resurrection and therefore I should believe you.  Sorry, but no.

[Gordon]

Well I'm not saying that the impossibility angle isn't an angle because I have said it always has been. You are not substituting an alternative history Gordon? You said period and location was fertile ground because belief in this stuff was eminently believable.

That is an alternative view to the epistles where the problem of belief in a resurrection was well known. That is a substitute history which needs a historical research base.

One cannot say that a history is fiction without the suggestion that history went another way. There is no burden of proof with a history offered since to say that one account wasn't is to say that an alternative was and that is a positive assertion. You and Jeremy have to then provide an alternative history. If you don't then your objections remain philosophical.

All I'm doing here is expressing my doubts by asking those making these claims to both explain what exactly it is they are claiming (e.g. by what method have they evidenced the supernatural) and how have they addressed the problems of human fallibility. So I'm not proposing and alternative version - so I'm simply expressing reasonable doubt regarding what is claimed by Christians.

So I'm asking those, like you, who support the claims to explain them but the combination your/their apparent inability to do so, along with the fantastical nature of the claims, but since all I've seen by way of replies is an amalgam of fallacies then I can only conclude that in relation to the divine claims made in the NT we are in the realms of superstition.

[Outrider]

You are just throwing up a smoke screen because you have been exposed on this one.
  It's got nothing to do with experiences and everything to do with how people will believe a blatantly nonsensical story if it suits them.  That includes the resurrection.

The problem here, jeremy, is that this is all surmise on your part.  You have no definitive evidence that God does not exist (and no, I'm not trying to built a negative proof argument here) yet you are unable to explain so much of life and life's experiences - such as our purpose in being here, why the universe even exists (though many scientists believe that they are getting closer to an explanation of how).  This is no 'God of the Gaps' argument either, as science - according to several here - deals with physical questions such as chemical make-ups, developmental stages of life, etc. but not with the more abstract, philosophical aspects of life such as those mentioned above.

In the absence of explanations, though, the appropriate answer is 'I don't know', not 'therefore gods'.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are just throwing up a smoke screen because you have been exposed on this one.
  It's got nothing to do with experiences and everything to do with how people will believe a blatantly nonsensical story if it suits them.  That includes the resurrection.

The problem here, jeremy, is that this is all surmise on your part.  You have no definitive evidence that God does not exist (and no, I'm not trying to built a negative proof argument here) yet you are unable to explain so much of life and life's experiences - such as our purpose in being here, why the universe even exists (though many scientists believe that they are getting closer to an explanation of how).  This is no 'God of the Gaps' argument either, as science - according to several here - deals with physical questions such as chemical make-ups, developmental stages of life, etc. but not with the more abstract, philosophical aspects of life such as those mentioned above.

In the absence of explanations, though, the appropriate answer is 'I don't know', not 'therefore gods'.

O.

And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.

[Outrider]

And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.

Is this the omnipresent, omnibenevolent God that so loves us that he wants each and every one of us to accept his benifecence and enter Heaven^TM? Or one of the other depictions of a god?

O.

[Hope]

In the absence of explanations, though, the appropriate answer is 'I don't know', not 'therefore gods'.

I suppose it depends on whether one believes that one has explanations, in which case 'I don't know' is inappropriate.  Mind you, 'therefore gods' is equally inappropriate, as it implies that there is an alternative.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.

Is this the omnipresent, omnibenevolent God that so loves us that he wants each and every one of us to accept his benifecence and enter Heaven^TM? Or one of the other depictions of a god?

O.

Omnibenevolent? Is that an antitheist construct or what?

[Outrider]

In the absence of explanations, though, the appropriate answer is 'I don't know', not 'therefore gods'.

I suppose it depends on whether one believes that one has explanations, in which case 'I don't know' is inappropriate.  Mind you, 'therefore gods' is equally inappropriate, as it implies that there is an alternative.

Begging the question (Why are we here? Why does the universe exist?) does not justify the assumption that there must be an answer, we just don't know what version of a god it is yet.

There is no reason to think there is a 'why', only hows. In that instance, not  only is there an alternative for a god, you have to justify the reasoning behind the assumption of a god in the first place.

We have evidence for naturalistic cause and effect, we have no evidence for supernatural causes. We have no evidence of a purpose to existence or reality, there is no reason to presume 'why' is a valid question in the first place.

O.