"because they survive serious accident after receiving medical treatment or they wish to join a group of people who they see with good manners"

This still comes across as a distorted view of Christian testimonies born of lack of knowledge. Remember I brought this up to make the point that very few converts profess Christianity solely as a result of the  evidence in the NT.

"such feelings and intuitions can easily be seen in other religions."

You need to provide evidence for this statement and beware quote mining!

I'm not saying you're wrong but without proper evidence it is unsubstantiated assertion.

"such subjective accounts are very unreliable"

I'm not sure what this means either. I don't think you can be saying that such testimonies don't reasonably accurately reflect what the people giving them believe? I wasn't putting them forward as evidence for the NT but rather information of why people convert.

"what it means to be a God and what it means to be a man"

This is still just your own opinion.

uncertainty with regards to certain things

The uncertainty is about how to interpret the Bible. It is a given that people have different interpretations of parts of the Bible.

Surely a God that could do one could do them all

I agree with this, of course. You are not far from the kingdom of God.

"What I'm saying is that their conversion isn't solely as a result of the evidence in the New Testament"

I agree: it's what I said earlier.

A baptismal testimony is a convert's answer to why they became a Christian. Mysticism may be described as religious practices aimed at achieving a greater sense of divinity. Christianity is a religion so is bound to share certain characteristics with other religions e.g. belief in God. I'm asking you to compare testimonies between different religions. What do the differences tell you?

"equally valid reasons for their beliefs."

Trouble is there are practical reasons why not to believe in UFOs: primarily the vast distances in space and the lack of more widespread detection. Aliens are going to be physical beings like us - to them, if they exist, we are the aliens.

do you think God has cells?

By denying the incarnation of Jesus you are putting a limitation on God that you cannot know is valid.

"Been there done that."

I don't know what this means.

the reason behind their conversion doesn't somehow make the New Testament stories true

I agree.

I wonder why they aren't skeptical of the NT stories

I prefer to let people speak for themselves rather than putting my own opinions in their mouths. I've already shown that the gospels describe the followers of Jesus as sceptical about the resurrection until they met the risen Lord Jesus. Your point also seems to assume that everybody should necessarily come to the same conclusion about the historicity of the resurrection. History isn't like that - one cannot repeat the experiment in history, unlike much of science. There are other controversial events in history (e.g. the Princes in the Tower) over which objective historians hold different views.

Aliens like us will be subject to the laws of physics i.e. nothing travels faster than light. God can defy the laws of physics since He created the universe. This is not true of aliens.

I'm showing that one cannot both be a God and a human.

All your doing is asserting an opinion.

"Been there done that."

What I meant to ask is what is your experience of "being there" and "doing that" in relation to the kingdom of God.

the justification of the Christian dogma after whatever experience it was that they had.

Christian dogma or belief does not depend on personal experience.

I think it is clear that the gospel accounts are very problematic

Other people disagree e.g. R Bauckham, N Wright

historians hold different views on the Princes in the Tower

That was my point. Historians disagree about the historicity of many events. You cannot establish with certainty using objective historical methods that many events (miraculous or not) actually happened or not. So you cannot say that historian X has proved that the Resurrection did not happen neither can you say that historian Y has proved that it did happen. Do you agree?

historians always prefer the most likely event

This seemed to be Ehrman's thesis in http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-ehrman-college-of-the-holy-cross

Now I don't think that either Ehrman or Craig are particularly good at statistics. Craig's probability terms would have been better using words rather than symbols to explain the terms. Ehrman was wrong to say that Craig was trying to mathematically prove God's existence. This "most likely" argument is flawed statistically. Many natural phenomena (e.g. adult heights) follow the familiar normal or Gaussian bell curve distribution.

So though it is true that any one sample is most likely to have the mean value it is not true that all the samples are most likely to have this one mean value. In fact this is most unlikely. Ehrman does not account for outliers and also seems to fall foul of Black Swan theory. Jesus' life is only one case in the many human lives that have been lived.

Hello blank,

This is becoming too repetitive.

I'm making a closing statement. I imagine you will reply to give yourself the satisfaction of having the last word.

"if one rigorously follows the appropriate historical methodology, one still wouldn't be justified in believing that someone rose from the dead"

I've already given examples of where professional historians do this and reach different conclusions. Do you agree or do you think that for any historical event one can determine what actually happened without any room for reasonable disagreement?

"given certain concepts about the universe"

This seems to be code for believing that God does not exist. An assumption since it has not been proved.

"ancient aliens or labourers?"

An example of repetition. I've  already responded about aliens. Remember we're aliens in the sense of travelling to distant planets. Aliens would have to travel to earth.

an exception for Christianity

By denying this possibility you are trying to dictate to God how he should or should not act. Why shouldn't God choose to communicate to humankind through Jesus? Why should God act in a way that you think is more appropriate. Other human beings have views that differ from yours so why should you think that you can determine how God should act. The message is for all mankind.

"the dead roaming the city?"

"The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Mt 27:52,53 NIV

Now these verses are difficult, not because God is incapable of doing such a miracle, but because of a lack of information. However, one shouldn't think in terms of some kind of zombie movie. Rather one should think more like the raising of Lazarus in Jn ch 11. You have mentioned this example many many times but it is not the key event at the end of the gospels. Jesus' resurrection is the key event. That doesn't mean that I don't believe this could or did happen: but it's much more important to think about Jesus' resurrection. I've tried to make this point before and you have never taken this obvious point on board preferring to divert down side issues.