Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Jenny A]

Uh huh.

Like he had no problem doing before the invention of cameras. Straight up smiting people, too.

Just another weak excuse. The fact that you need to make it makes your god even less plausible.

Sorry, but that's the snake rattle of the charlatan.  It's the fall back to most unprovable supernatural phenomenon--if you don't want it or won't accept it, it won't appear for you.  Every medium who claims to speak to the dead, or read your mind does it.  Skeptic and camera shy claims, are nothing more than hot air.

Before you get hot under the collar, I'm not suggesting you are lying about your beliefs, only that the excuse you offer is used by people who do, because it's the excuse of very last resort when trying to prove the unprovable.

You will both want to respond but you seem to be raising the same objection. I'm happy to attempt an answer but I want to be sure that I understand exactly what the objection is.

Are you asking: Why doesn't God reveal himself dramatically today like he did in the Old Testament?

I'm not begging god to show himself just noting that the more science are recording equipment we have the less he does, which suggests he is the product of primitive understanding.

This is NOT my answer, but if Abraham, Moses, the prophets and others had a personal encounter with God that managed to get written up in the various books which we know collectively as the Bible, why do you count those as somehow "legitimate" whereas the Near Death Experiences or other supernatural occurences in the lives of modern believers are discounted?

What's the difference?

There is no difference in the claims.  Neither is remotely likely to have experienced the supernatural.  The only difference is that in the case of modern NDEs we can study what is going on neurologically, and in the case of Moses we can't.  You may view them differently, I don't. Do you view Mohammad or Joseph Smith's claims differently than NDE's or Moses' burning bush? Why?