If you'd read the first part of my post, you'd see a reasonable explanation for that. They saw this man die horifically, a man they thought quite remarkable and they couldn't not accept that he was gone so they convinced themselves that he had been reborn just like so many other gods and demi-gods they would have been aware of.

That is the very definition of self-deception.

How is it self-deception on their part? No absolutely it wasn't because they saw firsthand the works of the Master. They believed Him yes, they loved Him absolutely they followed Him and did the works they saw Him do. But even being with Jesus did not fully converted his disciples. Only until they were given the gift of the Holy Ghost did they became so.

So were they fully converted even when Jesus was them for the space of three years? No they were not and Jesus clearly knew that they were not. He knew their hearts were pure but He also knew that they were human and all the weaknesses that goes with the terroritory of mortality. Jesus knew that and told even Peter that he had little faith and would deny even the Master 3 times before the rooster crowed. Peter denied Jesus because he feared for his life and when he realized his weakness he wept bitterly.

It was only when Jesus gave the Comforter, the Holy Ghost before He left only then they were fully converted in their faith even to face their death by whatever horrific means.

And if you read MDanel's, 1oldminer's, or my responses to your post, you'd see reasonable explanations refuting it. They saw this man die horrifically, yes, but within a few days of that they continued on, knowing that if they did so, they would die just as horrifically. Not out of some fanatical indoctrination, but out of personal knowledge of the Lord.

Now, before we both get all in your face with each other once again, let's clear a few things up. First, I read what you wrote. Just because I didn't specifically address what you said in that first part of your comments that doesn't mean that I didn't read it. I just had other things that I felt had to say, which regarded the second part of your comments. Second, I do actually assume that you read what MDan, 1old, and I wrote in our posts. I don't expect you to agree with what we said, but I do trust that you took the time to read them.

Excuse me folks, but how is any of this (the past page or 2) relevant to the topic of the thread?

And your conclusion is the very definition of circular reasoning.

Jesus could not have resurrected, therefore the apostles must have been self-deceiving. If fact, upwards of 500 men and women must have been self-deceiving because Jesus could not have resurrected. Any witness given and sacrifice made by these disciples must have been self-deceiving because what they saw could not be true.

Because something has not personally been observed happening by our generation we must deny it? I would like to see more people apply that same way of thinking to scientific theories.

You evolution deniers do that all the time. Fortunately, we have evidence and you have anecdotes and the deeply flawed system of "eye witness accounts" written decades after the events.

And, by sheer accident, we find ourselves back on topic

So it seems...

Unfortunely there is the disavantage of those eyewitnesses being dead for 2000 years. But that doesn't prove that what what they saw was delusional.

As an archealogist you firmly beleive that Imotep (which I do btw...) existed right? But they never found his tomb let alone his body..and we only have hyroglyphic writings of eyewitness accounts of very few if any contemparies of his time. But where is the evidence really? If we are to take your method of providing evidence.

Speaking of denialists...you seem to love that word btw.

As for accusing us as being evolution denialists if we believers try to explain as to why we believe what those eyewitnesses saw was quite real.

Well...you'd only deny it.

For me the additional problem is not the veracity of 'eye-witness' accounts, or the lack of corroboration - but the nature of the accounts in the first instance. They purport things for which we have absolutely no precedent or frame of understanding.

For instance, if I read an account that said, "Imhotep was a person who lived in ancient Egypt, who oversaw the construction of the Pyramids", I would have no immediate reason to doubt it. Even if there were no pyramids, I could speculate there were once pyramids because it is possible to build a pyramid.

If I read an account that said "While the pyramids were being made, the workers got hungry and Imhotep took one piece of bread and was able to break it into enough pieces to effectively feed several thousand workers." I would immediately know the source was in some way fallacious or exaggerated. Mass cannot be created spontaneously, and therefore a piece of bread - unless it was of vast size to begin with - could not feed several thousand people. If this could happen by some process beyond our current knowledge of the universe, then we start to enter into wild speculation in which all kinds of religious myths and legends become nondisconfirmable.

This is why I find it curious when religious people scoff 'nobody has seen evolution occurring!' Well, first of all, evolution has been extensively analyzed and demonstrated at a bacteriological level and indeed in the variation and speciation of larger species. The mechanism of mutations and selection and inheritance is sound. Secondly, for any weakness that still exists with the methodology of evolutionary biology, it is safe to say that we have no precedent whatsoever of divine creation and intervention. Nobody has ever seen a fully formed creature spring into existence, or explained scientifically how this could occur, but they have seen - to a limited extent - complexity arise via evolution, and demonstrated the mechanisms by which it operates.

Not to disparage what you say, but there has never been anything approaching total agreement, has there? I mean you and Wes are very skilful at explaining what particular parts of the Bible mean, yet those explanations are generally the positions of your respective churches on these matters. For much of what you say, will there not exist a theologian with a different set of beliefs who will be able to argue his case with equal cogency and scriptural evidence? I realize I am making an argument from ignorance here - what I am essentially asking is whether you personally recognize the Bible to be a source that supports potentially conflicting explanations and interpretations; or do you think your church has everything nailed down precisely as God intended, and that any other interpretation is incorrect and heretical?

It strikes me that the main determinant of which parts of the Bible Christians in general take to be 'metaphorical' or 'literal' has been the advance of science and understanding of the natural world. For instance if, 200 years ago, a Christian genuinely believed the world was created in 6 days, then this would have seemed perfectly reasonable. Now, to believe the same essentially requires an ignorance of science that is either wilful or enforced by the circumstances of one's upbringing.

I know that 1oldminer is going to ignore this inconvenient explanation as he has the three or four other occasions he has used the same one. Furthermore, he is supposed to be ignoring my posts in the first place, so I'm addressing this explanation to you cobalt. Any comparison of the life of Jesus with Imhotep fails miserably for two major reasons.

Firstly, the overwhelming majority of inscriptions about Imhotep were written at the time of the events, and almost certainly while he was still alive. They were not written down decades later, nor were they transmitted word of mouth for decades after his death, nor were they copied time and time again with the oldest surviving copy being centuries after the events... these problems do face the Bible.

The other difference is that the sum total of our evidence for Imhotep does not only come from those who venerated him. There are external sources. Not only do we have inscriptions at the actual Pyramids he oversaw, but there are a number of statues identified with the Pharaoh he served and temple inscriptions. Therefore, we have contemporary evidence that he exists. We may not have found his tomb, but texts place his burial at Saqqara.

The only parallel you can draw is that like Jesus, he seems to have been attributed with events and actions that in all likelihood he was not responsible. He was a remarkable man in life and to aid his deification it is most likely that pivotal events in Egypt's advancement were assigned to his genius even if had nothing to do with them.

And to get back on topic, no we don't have eyewitness accounts for the dawn of the universe, but we do have plenty of corroborating evidence.