Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Danmark]

And when comparison is made to the life and death of Caesar we find the evidence much better in the case of Julius Caesar then for Jesus. "Running the evidence along side" should lead you to conclude you are wrong, there is much less evidence for even the existence of Jesus compared to the evidence of the life of Julius Caesar, let alone for a supernatural event such as the resurrection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Cae ... assination

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html

[Re: this last, I don't cite it for its "Jesus didn't exist" rant, but for its list of evidence about the life of Julius Caesar.

If that's the case perhaps you can explain to us why not one single eyewitness account of Caesar's assassination has come down to us despite the fact it took place in front of the senate and as many as eighty senators were reported to be involved. The earliest full narrative comes almost 60 years later. Why is that?

Why do you discount Nicolaus of Damascus?
Nicolaus of Damascus wrote his account of the murder of Caesar a few years after the event. He was not actually present when the assassination occurred but had the opportunity to speak with those who were. He was a friend of Herod the Great and gathered his information during a visit to Rome. His account is thought to be reliable.http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/caesar2.htm[/b]

[Goose]

Although it is speculation, it is a very well evidenced speculation based on the exponential growth of malaria in that area. It is also a speculation based on his self reported outbreaks of the "thorn in the flesh" when he reaches lower altitudes with higher humidity. His vision problems (the Damascus event and his inability to identify a member of the Sanhedrin) are more than coincidence. We cannot possibly pinpoint Malaria as the cause but his symptoms match none other than Chronic Malaria. Science works in much the same manner. It makes a hypothesis and tests it. We have evidence from carriers of malaria that show that his symptoms are comparable. Nothing else is as accurate as the malaria theory. The only other explanation comes from religous folk who claim satan, because there is no other natural explanation than malaria.

Actually, what you've done here (probably without realizing it) is committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

[Goose]

We have a date for Caesar's assasination. March 15 44 BC. Can you say the same for Jesus?

Uh, wouldn't it be approximately 2013 years ago? Since we know so much about Caesar's assassination maybe you could tell me how many senators were involved. Was sixty or eighty?

[Goose]

Contemporary Witnesses to Caesar

Cicero

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was almost an exact contemporary of Julius Caesar.

In Caesar's struggle with Pompey, Cicero, governor of Cilicia, sided with Pompey but was subsequently pardoned by Caesar.

In March of 44 BC Cicero was a witness to Caesar's murder, though he was not a part of the conspiracy.

Following the assassination, Cicero made a series of speeches known as the "Philippics" which called on the Senate to support Octavian against Mark Antony. Cicero's "Second Phillipics" was an eulogy of Caesar's conquest of Gaul.

Unfortunately for Cicero Octavian reached a temporary rapprochement with Antony, who then ordered Cicero's murder.

Among some 900 preserved letters to and from Cicero are correspondence both about and with Caesar.

"... if Caesar does lose his head all the same, Pompey feels only the deepest contempt for him, trusting in his own and the state's troops ..."

– Cicero to Atticus, 7.8, 50BC.

Sallust

Caius Sallust (86-34 BC) tribune, provincial governor and supporter of Caesar. His testimony is in a history "Bellum Catalinae".

Nepos

Cornelius Nepos (c100-24): "Life of Atticus".

Catullus

Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC): "Carmina".

Asinius Pollio

Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD) was an ally of Caesar and founder of the first public library in Rome. He was a source used by Plutarch.

Virgil

Virgil (70BC-17AD): "Aeneid".

Ovid

Ovidius Naso (43BC-17AD): "Metamorphoses".

Near Contemporary Witnesses

Paterculus

Velleius Paterculus (c19 BC-32 AD): "Historiae Romanae".

Lucan

Lucan (Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, 39-65 AD) followed the example of his grandfather, Seneca the Elder – a young contemporary of Caesar – who in later life wrote a history of Rome.

Lucan wrote his own Pharsalia approximately a century after the civil war it chronicles, using Seneca's work as an eye-witness source.

Plutarch

Plutarch of Chaeronea (45-120 AD) was a Greek moralist, historian and biographer (and priest of Delphi). He wrote his Parallel Lives (matching Greek with Roman lives) during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. He describes in detail the life and assassination of Julius Caesar (as well as Marcus Brutus and Mark Antony).

Appian

Appian of Alexandria (c.95-165 AD): Civil Wars.

Suetonius

The most famous biographer of Caesar, Tranquillus Suetonius, wrote his Lives of the Twelve Caesars during the reign of emperor Hadrian (117-138).

Suetonius was in charge of the imperial archives and in this capacity, had access to some of the best possible information.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html[b][/b]

Cutting and pasting from www.jesusneverexisted.com? You're kidding right?

Maybe you're not, so why don't you do some of your own research and pull up the earliest and best narrative of Caesar's assassination in that list. Let's have a look at it.

[Danmark]

It is good to keep in mind that Paul never met Jesus, ever. His conversion had nothing to do with seeing Jesus. His conversion came, according to Paul and the account by Luke, after Paul had some kind of seizure and illness and later reported he'd seen Jesus in a vision. It is also good to keep in mind that Paul's writings pre date the gospel accounts and that Paul seems oblivious to those accounts.

We don't need Paul to have met Jesus. In fact, I would argue it strengthens the case that he did not since we need a powerful explanation for his conversion. Setting aside the fact the NT in no way records Paul as having a seizure, even if he had you then need other ad hoc explanations for James' conversion and the disciples belief that Jesus had appeared to them.

The NT accounts are at some variance with each other, but let's just look at Acts 9:

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?�

“Who are you, Lord?� Saul asked.

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,� he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.�

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
The others did not see anyone, nor did they hear voices, just a 'sound.'

Sun stroke and seizure have been proposed as an explanation among many others.
In 1987, D. Landsborough published an article in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry,[10] in which he stated that Paul's conversion experience, with the bright light, loss of normal bodily posture, a message of strong religious content, and his subsequent blindness, suggested "an attack of [temporal lobe epilepsy], perhaps ending in a convulsion ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion ... he_Apostle

There are certainly other non supernatural explanations.

Keep in mind that Paul did not report this experience until days of convalescence, unconsciousness, blindness, limited food and water. During this time for years leading up to it, he may have felt great guilt about the stoning of Stephen.

[Goose]

Your conversion argument is the perfect example of an argument from ignorance.

You don't understand how Paul could have converted if your religion isn't true.

What? Clearly you are not fully grasping what constitutes an argument from ignorance since I'm not arguing my position is true by virtue of it not being shown false. Further, what I am arguing would entail Paul's conversion was caused by his experience with a risen Jesus on the road to Damascus.

We, on the other-hand, see people converting to and from various religions all the time. It's not proof of anything other than your disingenuousness. People are easily fooled, especially superstitious people who lived thousands of years ago

How does this counter the point that the arguments presented so far to account for Paul's conversion are unnecessary and ad hoc in light of the fact we have a single explanation that powerfully explains all the facts - Jesus rose from the dead?

[Danmark]

Cutting and pasting from www.jesusneverexisted.com? You're kidding right?

Maybe you're not, so why don't you do some of your own research and pull up the earliest and best narrative of Caesar's assassination in that list. Let's have a look at it.

and argues . . . what?
I probably missed it, where you posted your original research on this topic. Please refresh my mammary.

[Star]

Cutting and pasting from www.jesusneverexisted.com? You're kidding right?

Maybe you're not, so why don't you do some of your own research and pull up the earliest and best narrative of Caesar's assassination in that list. Let's have a look at it.

Sorry, I tried "raising" these Romans from the dead so they can talk to you, but I wasn't able. We'll just have to make due with the mountain of evidence they left behind.

I don't just take the word of any source I happen across. I Googled every one of those names to ensure they were real contemporaries of Caesar. You can do it, too. Use your favorite search engine.

Caesar was stabbed 23 times, the second being fatal, according to the oldest known official autopsy report. He died from blood loss as a result. (Elizabeth D. Schafer, 2008 "Ancient science and forensics")

Archeologists even found the place it allegedly happened, which is material evidence.

A Roman being stabbed to death wasn't unusual in those days, so I believe it's probably true. No laws of physics were broken, and we know that many other Romans had similar fates. We know Caesar disappeared after the alleged event. And even if it didn't happen (eg. he killed himself, or died of disease) that's OK too, because it's not central to my belief system.

http://www.wantedinrome.com/news/200168 ... -rome.html

[Goose]

It is not ad hoc. Do you believe a person who says that they were abducted by aliens? Say that a person comes to you and tells you they were abducted by aliens. They tell you that they used to be a militant adversary to those who claimed they were abducted by aliens. But one night, when they were sleeping, they were abducted by aliens. Now they are witness to alien abduction. They tell you that their life has been changed forever and that the aliens want us to be good to each other. Would you believe them?

It certainly is ad hoc. You have one theory to explain the disciples belief Jesus appeared to them. You then need to conjure up another additional theory (commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent along the way for good measure) in trying to explain Paul's conversion and that of James.

Regarding the aliens question. If that person was willing to endure persecution and even face possible death for their belief it would be irresponsible of me not to at the very least take their statements at prima facie value until I had an opportunity to really examine the evidence.

[Goose]

Why do you discount Nicolaus of Damascus?
Nicolaus of Damascus wrote his account of the murder of Caesar a few years after the event. He was not actually present when the assassination occurred but had the opportunity to speak with those who were. He was a friend of Herod the Great and gathered his information during a visit to Rome. His account is thought to be reliable.http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/caesar2.htm[/b]

So your contention is that Nicolaus of Damascus represents the standard of good historical evidence then?