Tomb of Jesus being opened.

[Nearly Sane]

Frank Morrison: an English journalist and author who set out to disprove the myth of Christianity over 80 years ago. His book “Who moved the stone?” is a classic and has led many people to Christ.

Lee Strobel:Chicago Tribune journo who set out to disprove Christianity, but ended up becoming a Christian and creating the “Case for…” series.

Josh McDowell: set out to write a paper in college to expose Christianity as a myth, but ended up being so convinced that he became a Christian himself and wrote the book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”.

Andre Kole: created tricks for the greatest magicians in the world including making the statue of liberty disappear for David Copperfield. He was commissioned to study the miracles of the bible to expose them as magic tricks and thus disprove its legitimacy. Through this investigation, Andre Kole became a Christian.

Charlie Cairoli: wore a red nose

Chic Charnley: quite fat footballer

Arthur Montford: great use of word 'stramash'

Sydney Devine: 'Crystal Chandeliers'

[jeremyp]

Sadly, for both Floo and yourself, Walter, there are a number of examples where people have been pronounced dead on the evidence of modern medical equipment, but returned to life same time later.  This alone suggests that the 'As it isn't credible ...' argument is open to debate.

Sadly for you Hope, floo qualified her statement by saying "well and truly dead". There are no credible accounts of well and truly dead people coming back to life.

[jeremyp]

Why should I be embarrassed

Because your ability to think critically on any subject relating to Christianity is severely compromised by your faith.

when a number of people - several of them starting from the POV that you hold (and seeking to disprove the whole thing once and for all) have done exactly what you have suggested, Walter, and come to the conclusion that it is true.  Frank Morrison, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell and Andre Kole spring to mind.

I read Who Moved the Stone as a teenager. At the time I was very impressed by it. Unfortunately, it is a house built on sand in that it relies heavily on the gospels for evidence and the gospels are just not reliable.

[Walter]

Because your ability to think critically on any subject relating to Christianity is severely compromised by your faith.
I read Who Moved the Stone as a teenager. At the time I was very impressed by it. Unfortunately, it is a house built on sand in that it relies heavily on the gospels for evidence and the gospels are just not reliable.

using the bible to prove its authenticity is always going to lead to nothing. Its like eating burgers everyday to prove to someone there's no other food but burgers

[Anchorman]

Charlie Cairoli: wore a red nose

Chic Charnley: quite fat footballer

Arthur Montford: great use of word 'stramash'

Sydney Devine: 'Crystal Chandeliers'

Note:
Please desist in using foul and obscene language...."Sydney Devine" is unfit for o
public - or most private use - at any time......

[Hope]

Because your ability to think critically on any subject relating to Christianity is severely compromised by your faith.

This could be levelled at anyone, jp - you included.  That said, the fact that I have studied the material and made a conscious decision to accept it as truth suggests that I have already thought critically; the fact that I then get challenged on sites like this and still manage to come up with rational arguments, both for and agin my faith, suggest that my ability to think critically hasn't been compromised.

I read Who Moved the Stone as a teenager. At the time I was very impressed by it. Unfortunately, it is a house built on sand in that it relies heavily on the gospels for evidence and the gospels are just not reliable.

Whereas others, scholars included (some who aren't even believers) regard them as reliable.  How do you square your opinions with theirs?

[Nearly Sane]

This could be levelled at anyone, jp - you included.  That said, the fact that I have studied the material and made a conscious decision to accept it as truth suggests that I have already thought critically; the fact that I then get challenged on sites like this and still manage to come up with rational arguments, both for and agin my faith, suggest that my ability to think critically hasn't been compromised.
Whereas others, scholars included (some who aren't even believers) regard them as reliable.  How do you square your opinions with theirs?

do you or they have a method for evaluating supernatural claims? You know, the one that you have been asked for hundreds of times?

[Gordon]

This could be levelled at anyone, jp - you included.  That said, the fact that I have studied the material and made a conscious decision to accept it as truth suggests that I have already thought critically; the fact that I then get challenged on sites like this and still manage to come up with rational arguments, both for and agin my faith, suggest that my ability to think critically hasn't been compromised.

You've just demonstrated otherwise.

Whereas others, scholars included (some who aren't even believers) regard them as reliable.  How do you square your opinions with theirs?

What methods did these scholars use to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

do you or they have a method for evaluating supernatural claims? You know, the one that you have been asked for hundreds of times?

yes. If it isn't natural then it's supernatural. Wanky terms natural and supernatural but if you insist on using them................

[Nearly Sane]

yes. If it isn't natural then it's supernatural. Wanky terms natural and supernatural but if you insist on using them................

So no answer, what a surprise!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So no answer, what a surprise!

If you ever get round to stating what you mean by methodology which doesn't look suspiciously like science then we can probably start to get somewhere.

[Nearly Sane]

If you ever get round to stating what you mean by methodology which doesn't look suspiciously like science then we can probably start to get somewhere.

so once again, as I have done for Vlad so many times before, what set of methods (methodology) do you have to separate a methodological  naturalism from a supernaturalism? And stop lying about this not having been given before!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

so once again, as I have done for Vlad so many times before, what set of methods (methodology) do you have to separate a methodological  naturalism from a supernaturalism? And stop lying about this not having been given before!

What?
Look.....almost as many times as You have asked me for a method.......... I've asked for methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism..........apart from pretending one isn't a philosophical naturalist........or claiming Vlad doesn't understand the term ''philosophical naturalist''.

[Nearly Sane]

What?
Look.....almost as many times as You have asked me for a method.......... I've asked for methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism..........apart from pretending one isn't a philosophical naturalist........or claiming Vlad doesn't understand the term ''philosophical naturalist''.

Not a philosophical naturalist, that would be you lying again! Do you ever get bored of lying?

See the clue in the 'methodology' question is about methodology. You know the term methodological that you have used multiple times? Was that you lying about understanding methodological?


Got any methodology for supernatural claims yet? Or just happy to try and evade by lying yet again?

[Walter]

NS

he does not have the capacity to understand what is being asked of him. its pointless repeating the question, maybe asking in a loud voice might help but I doubt it.
It seems some peoples brains are wired with a short circuit loop.

[Walter]

.
Whereas others, scholars included (some who aren't even believers) regard them as reliable.  How do you square your opinions with theirs?

 Inserting the word 'scholars' into your sentence does not add any gravity to its value and their opinions remain only that, opinions. I'm not interested in their opinions any more than I am in yours.

[jeremyp]

This could be levelled at anyone, jp - you included.

Nope. I don't have a faith so it can't compromise my critical thinking abilities.

That said, the fact that I have studied the material and made a conscious decision to accept it as truth suggests that I have already thought critically;

No it doesn't. Your acceptance of the gospels at face value is based on wishful thinking on your part.

the fact that I then get challenged on sites like this and still manage to come up with rational arguments,

Don't make me laugh. You have never come up with a rational argument for the resurrection. The fact that you claim you did on another secret site or on this one but it got deleted is no better than my claim that the dog ate my homework.

Whereas others, scholars included (some who aren't even believers) regard them as reliable.  How do you square your opinions with theirs?

Name a non apologetic historian who regards the gospels as reliable.

[floo]

But you have already indicated that you are not prepared to accept it, no matter how obvious it was. Your words again

So even if you could go back in time and see everything that happened from the moment Jesus died on the cross, to the moment He rose from the dead, your conclusion would be that He wasn't really dead.

If it was obvious I would have to accept it. When Jesus was strutting his stuff it was only his followers who believed him to be who he said he was, even his family weren't convinced. Surely if he was some sort of god it would have been obvious to everyone who met him, but clearly it wasn't, now I wonder why that was?

[Hope]

Nope. I don't have a faith so it can't compromise my critical thinking abilities.

Faith is just one form of mindset, jp.  Critical thinking can be effected by any such mindset.  The very fact that you can't see that suggests that your abilities have been compromised.

No it doesn't. Your acceptance of the gospels at face value is based on wishful thinking on your part.

The very fact that you use the term 'at face value' shows how little you understand about faith and mine in particular.  Again, an example of your particular mindset compromising your critical thinking abilities.

Don't make me laugh. You have never come up with a rational argument for the resurrection. The fact that you claim you did on another secret site or on this one but it got deleted is no better than my claim that the dog ate my homework.

You are entitled to your opinion, jp, but since folk here have noted in the past that my arguments (and those of other Christians) have been rational - even if they disagree with them - suggests yet again that your critical faculties are compromised.

Name a non apologetic historian who regards the gospels as reliable.

'Scholars' don't have to be historians, but you know that already.  However, since Roman writers referenced the events without providing any evidence to disprove it (something that both they and the Jewish leaders of the time could very easily have done) the historical reliability of the stories would seem to be greater than lesser.  Interestingly, the very fact that the 3 synoptic gospels differ is some ways indicates, from a legal evidentiary pov, a greater chance of reliability than if they were all identical.

[Gordon]

So even if you could go back in time and see everything that happened from the moment Jesus died on the cross, to the moment He rose from the dead, your conclusion would be that He wasn't really dead.

Which presumes that these aspects of the NT story are historical facts: perhaps then you can answer the question that I've asked the likes of Hope numerous times with nary a reply: how have you assessed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT accounts you seem to be presenting as historical fact?

[Hope]

If it was obvious I would have to accept it. When Jesus was strutting his stuff it was only his followers who believed him to be who he said he was, even his family weren't convinced. Surely if he was some sort of god it would have been obvious to everyone who met him, but clearly it wasn't, now I wonder why that was?

Oddly enough Floo, there is little or no evidence to suggest that 'even his family weren't convinced'.  Apart from the roles that Mary, his mother, and James - a brother - took in the years of ministry( Mary) and the early church (James) we hear nothing about his family.

As for "Surely if he was some sort of god it would have been obvious to everyone who met him", what makes you say that?  After all, there are plenty of people whose genius isn't really appreciated or recognised until late in their lives or even posthumously.  People are often blind to the abilities and nature of others.

[floo]

As all these centuries later it is not possible to know for a fact what Jesus did say and do when he was alive, one has to treat with great scepticism the things, which are attributed to him that don't seem remotely credible.

[Gordon]

You are entitled to your opinion, jp, but since folk here have noted in the past that my arguments (and those of other Christians) have been rational - even if they disagree with them - suggests yet again that your critical faculties are compromised.

Who here noted that your arguments are 'rational'?

However, since Roman writers referenced the events without providing any evidence to disprove it (something that both they and the Jewish leaders of the time could very easily have done)

You've been told this before - at the time of the alleged events involving Jesus he was of no great immediate significance so that those involved at the time wouldn't have needed to deny anything.

...the historical reliability of the stories would seem to be greater than lesser.  Interestingly, the very fact that the 3 synoptic gospels differ is some ways indicates, from a legal evidentiary pov, a greater chance of reliability than if they were all identical.

Then you'll at long last tell me what specific steps have been taken to assess the risks of mistakes and lies in these post-hoc anecdotal accounts: so, on what basis are these accounts distinguishable from fiction?

[Walter]

Oddly enough Floo, there is little or no evidence to suggest that 'even his family weren't convinced'.  Apart from the roles that Mary, his mother, and James - a brother - took in the years of ministry( Mary) and the early church (James) we hear nothing about his family.

As for "Surely if he was some sort of god it would have been obvious to everyone who met him", what makes you say that?  After all, there are plenty of people whose genius isn't really appreciated or recognised until late in their lives or even posthumously.  People are often blind to the abilities and nature of others.

is that your best attempt at a SERIOUS reply.HOPE sort yourself out .

[Owlswing]

Not a philosophical naturalist, that would be you lying again! Do you ever get bored of lying?

NS

Herein lies the greatest problem.

As Christians they do not see it as lying! They cannot see that their "truth" is anything but "truth" - it a matter of faith not fact. Otherwise why would it be called the Christian faith, why do they espose Christian belief?

The answer is so simple that even Vlad and Hope, if they had the elevated levels of intelligence that they claim, they would be able to see this, but as both you and I and millions and millions of others well know - there are none so blind s those who will not see.

And they will remain blind as they are determined not to see,