Diogenes the Cynic

Could you name some of those reasons?
This sounds like evasion to me.
Your quoted material shows Koukl drawing some distinctions between Christian dogma and other religious paradigms but he doesn't demonstrate any way in which Christian dogma correlates to observed reality. In fact, it's quite at odds with observable reality. By contrast, empiricism correponds perfectly with it.

Patriot7

emphasis mine.

As far as I know, I haven't read anything that suggests God choose any of them specifically. Have you? I would assume God choose to reveal his word through the autographs. And you're a moderator?

Do you have a specific gripe with the traditional canon?

buckshot23

I said the gospels are not always in chronological order. Or something to that effect. I didn't say all of the gospels are randomly put together with no chronology intact. Now if Matthew reports an appearance apparantly after the women visit the tomb and before reaching the disciples and Matthew is not always in chronological order this could be a case in point of that. Luke could be in perfect chronology and Matthew not so perfect and that would explain the omision. However I don't think that is necessary because omission of detail is not an error.

Kosh

Why don't you put all 3 together into a timeline so we can see how it all fits without contradiction or omission?

buckshot23

I was referring to Matthew really. Think about it. There is an event in Matthew at a time where Luke does not record this event. If the women saw Jesus at another time. Then Matthew would be out of order and Luke in order. However I agree that this isn't as valid an explanation as could be made and that is why I didn't really push it. Remember though that Matthew has the event in question while Luke does not. Saying Luke is out of order wouldn't be any kind of explanation whatsoever.

Julian

Did you think I would not notice that you didn't answer the question? Which one do you consider the revealed word of god?

Julian

Kosh

Then you should be more carefull in your wording.

buckshot23

I think he did answer it. The autographs. So none of the above.

Patriot7

emphasis mine.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. How can empiricism correspond to reality if empiricism is the method by which we investigate realiy? You're arguing empiricism as a worldview now because it's convenient and it bails you out. But for the past 4 pages, you've been consistently saying exactly the opposite.

Really. Are you sure?

Yep you sound pretty sure.

By definition the NT is empirical evidence of the resurrection. I'm enjoying the discussion and your objections to the quality of that empirical evidence. But the readers of your posts will be able to understand you much better if you stop arguing with yourself over what empiricism is. Please let us know when you've settled the debate.

Diogenes the Cynic

This explanation still strains credulity to the breaking point. Would the women really tell the disciples they had seen an empty tomb and no body but omit to tell them they had seen a living Jesus?