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?

[Goose]

You are correct.
Numbers 22 is evidence that donkeys can talk.
Matthew 27 is evidence that zombies are real.
The lyrics to Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer is evidence that reindeer can fly.
The latest Marvel summer blockbuster is evidence that Wolverine is real.
Ancient indian mythology is evidence that the earth rests on a giant plate on the back of a turtle
The website www.theflatearthsociety.com is evidence that the earth is flat.
This youtube clip is evidence for Bigfoot
The fact that I am hereby claiming "I HAVE AN INVISIBLE DRAGON IN MY BASEMENT" is evidence that I have an invisible dragon in my basement.
A drawing of a worldmap that my 6 year old made is evidence that New York City is in the Mid West.

What exactly are you arguing here with this little rant?

There are three major problems with considering this evidence valid.

First, as you said, it's non empirical.

And that’s a problem because…

Second, it's solidly and overwhelmingly countered, debunked and destroyed by an AVALANCHE of opposing empirical, testable, discrete, measurable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence.

Wrong. What you’ve listed here doesn’t make the evidence itself invalid. What you have listed here would be evidence in favour of the case against a particular claim.

Third, in terms of basic worldview, if you choose to lower your standard to the point that you accept one example of ridiculous and completely debunked "Evidence" as true, then for the sake of consistency, you are required to accept all similarly "strong" evidence for other claims.

I don’t think I need to lower the historical standard to accept, for example, the resurrection. In fact, on a historical evidential basis not many events from ancient history enjoy such strong evidence.

First mistake. "It's quite strong by ancient historical standards". Ancient historical standards are sufficiently high for determining the accuracy of claims that DO NOT VIOLATE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Not high enough to courter overwhelmongly strong and conclusive physical, chemical, biological, medical evidence.

Allow me to clarify as that was poorly worded on my part. The evidence we have for the resurrection by way of comparison to the evidence for other ancient events is quite strong. Is that better?

Oh God. This is gonna be gruesome.

Ok, buddy. Imagine a scenario for me if you could:

Two guys are sitting in front of you.

The first one says to you: Hi my name is Steve, I won the lottery and am now a millionaire.

The other one says to you: Hi my name is John, I have the ability to fly without any mechanical assistance, I can become invisible at will, I can transform iron into gold just by touching it, I have the ability to breathe underwater, I can teleport to any moon of Saturn just by willing it, and my dog Fido poops diamonds every thursday.

The evidence for the story by Steve and the evidence of the story by John is equally strong: Direct first hand testimony.

They are both rather extraordinary testimonies.

Does the fact that your evidence for both claims is first hand testimony, and the fact that both claims are extraordinary, mean that you should take both claims equally seriously? Does it mean they have the same likelihood of being true?

How does any of this meaningfully address the evidence for the resurrection? You’re beating around the proverbial bush you complained about in your own OP.

But to answer your question I would take both claims seriously in as far as I would reserve judgment until I had investigated the evidence, especially if I had reason to trust the person giving the testimony in the first place. I would do this despite the fact the one claim might run against everything I know to be true. How else can we discover knew things about the universe? Perhaps we’ve uncovered the difference between us. You appear to dismiss the evidence for a particular claim a priori on the basis you don’t believe that claim to be likely. Presumably because the claim itself doesn’t fit your world view.

Because the first story, while unlikely and extraordinary, DOES NOT VIOLATE EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, MEDICINE, MATHEMATICS AND PRETTY MUCH EVERY OTHER EVIDENCE-GATHERING DISCIPLINE KNOWN TO MAN.

Okay, okay, we get it. You don’t think the resurrection is likely because it violates what we know about the universe even though that knowledge base is incomplete. Fine. Do you have a meaningful argument to make against the evidence for the resurrection though since this thread is about the evidence?

So lets look at the resurrection:

Now you’re talking. And let’s do it using the control of another historical event.

Evidence for: An anonymous author from the iron age who had never met anybody who had ever met anybody who had ever met anybody who had ever met anybody who ever met Jesus wrote it down.

For the sake of argument and to make it easier on you I’ll grant your assessment of the evidence for the resurrection.

Now, let’s compare that to the evidence for the assassination of Caesar. Not one single eyewitness report has come down to us despite the fact this event took place in front of the senate and allegedly involved dozens of senators. The first full narrative comes down to us about 60 years later and was written by Nicolaus of Damascus who, incidentally, was not a witness either. The only relatively early mentions of Caesar’s assassination are a few cryptic allusions in speeches by Cicero who was, you guessed it, not a witness.

Evidence against: Everything we know about science.

Your argument against the resurrection here would carry more weight if you could demonstrate that our knowledge base of the universe was complete.

Evidence against the assassination: Well, a leader of a country has never been observed to be stabbed to death in broad daylight in front of the senate by dozens of senators where no one came to the aid of the leader. Indeed, I can only think of one case that fits that description.

Alright. How was that? Are we done?

Nope. I'm just gettin’ started.

[JohnA]

Goose, thumb through your little Lazarus book for me again. Were any of these medically documented occurrences recorded of men or women who'd been dead for 3 days, and further leveraged your soul in the afterlife based on whether or not you believed it?

Inigo Montoya et al. thumb through the thread for me again and you’ll notice the Lazarus Syndrome was introduced by me as a counter example to falsify the premise in Nickman’s argument against the resurrection which began with “people don't rise from the dead.� It was not introduced as evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

Now if you wish to pigeon hole me into a defending a literal three day time period I’m okay with that as long as you acknowledge that in doing so you are tacitly conceding the reliability of the text in its presentation of secondary details. You don’t get argue the text is accurate in its details only when it suites you.

So Goose, you are arguing that the bible is wrong when it says faith is a belief based on no evidence (Heb11:1) since you have evidence for the resurrection of Jesus to claim to KNOW that Jesus was a supernatural god.

You are merely arguing that your scripture is wrong. Since you argue that, what else is wrong in your scripture? If you arguing to reject your faith, how can you argue that Jesus was a supernatural god? That makes no sense, you are arguing in circles.

As mentioned before to Doctor instantc:
If you hear about two mystical events/things, then you can not take the 2nd event to explain the 1st one. You can not explain your rejection of faith to explain your faith.

Are we done now?

Or do you want to continue arguing with Doctor instantc as it seems to me both of you are not short of being a genius with self-refuting dogma claims. Well done!

[Nickman]

Tell you what, Goose. I'm NOT familiar with the minimal facts approach, so mayhap you'd be kind enough to go ahead and lay out your proofs for me?

The Minimal Facts Approach is to look at historical facts that a wide range of scholars tend to hold to, even some critics. They are roughly as follows.

1. The disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead and made appearances.
2. Paul converted because of his experience.

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.

Biblical and external evidence indicates that Paul had contracted Chronic Malaria because of where he was born, Tarsus. This swampy place was a breeding ground for the disease. We notice that his "thorn in his flesh" was only ignited in hot and humid regions which cause symptoms to return. In the first century, many people carried malaria but didn't exhibit the symptoms until they reached certain climates, hot and humid.

Symptoms of malaria include fever and flu-like illness, including shaking chills, headache, muscle aches, and tiredness. Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may also occur. Malaria may cause anemia and jaundice (yellow coloring of the skin and eyes) because of the loss of red blood cells. Symptoms usually appear between 10 and 15 days after the mosquito bite. If not treated, malaria can quickly become life-threatening by disrupting the blood supply to vital organs. Infection with one type of malaria, Plasmodium falciparum, if not promptly treated, may cause kidney failure, seizures, mental confusion, coma, and death. In many parts of the world, the parasites have developed resistance to a number of malaria medicines.

I would avoid making speculations like this. While it may be plausible, its a weak argument that is unnecessary.

We don't need to give some alternative scenario for why Paul or thr writers of the gospel wrote/believed what they did. Rather, we can just point out the insufficient justification for believing what they believed/wrote.

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.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1123 by Danmark]

Please supply evidence to prove your belief that there is no God and no miracles were done 1000s of years ago. You will find you are in exactly the same possition as me. You can't.

You've missed the point of my response. That may be my fault. I simply meant to point out that your argument that it is no surprise that god raises people from the dead begs the question, because it assumes there is a god. Many, including me, do not see sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a supernatural being; and that there is no need for a supernatural being to explain the universe. We do not contend that there proof there is no god. This gets to the 'burden of proof arguments. My only point to you is that there are hundreds of subtopics on this issue of whether god exists or not and hundreds on each subtopic. My suggestion is that you focus your issue a little more tightly than simply saying "God exists" or "prove there is no god." I'm not going to engage in that elementary work. It's been done here already. You've got thousands of posts to wade thru first. Hopefully by then you'll have a better argument than "prove there is no god."

[Goose]

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?

[Goose]

There is ample material evidence that people die from mulitple stab-wounds. There are plenty of examples of politicians being assassinated in public. There are even recent examples of political leaders being executed in full view of their supporters. (Saddam Hussein, Nicolae Ceaucescu.)

Sure. But where can I find all of those elements present in a single case? The only one I can think of is Caesar.

There is no example anywhere of a dead guy walking around talking to people, and then flying away into the sky.

Aside, of course, from Jesus.

Unusual is not the same as extraordinary, which is itself not the same as unprecedented, which is not the same as physically impossible.

Merriam-Webster online disagrees with you. Extraordinary - going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary

Murder by definition is an unusual way to die when we consider the usual way most people die is of natural causes. Caesar's death was not only extraordinary in that he was murdered but it is extraordinary in how he was murdered.

But you folks seem to be really upset by my use of the word extraordinary in context to Caesar's assassination. So just ignore it. It's inconsequential to where I'm going with the argument anyways and the relentless focus on it is a distraction from the main thrust of the argument - that the evidence for the resurrection is quite good by comparison to the evidence for other ancient historical events.

[Nickman]

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?

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

[Nickman]

There is ample material evidence that people die from mulitple stab-wounds. There are plenty of examples of politicians being assassinated in public. There are even recent examples of political leaders being executed in full view of their supporters. (Saddam Hussein, Nicolae Ceaucescu.)

Sure. But where can I find all of those elements present in a single case? The only one I can think of is Caesar.

There is no example anywhere of a dead guy walking around talking to people, and then flying away into the sky.

Aside, of course, from Jesus.

Unusual is not the same as extraordinary, which is itself not the same as unprecedented, which is not the same as physically impossible.

Merriam-Webster online disagrees with you. Extraordinary - going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary

Murder by definition is an unusual way to die when we consider the usual way most people die is of natural causes. Caesar's death was not only extraordinary in that he was murdered but it is extraordinary in how he was murdered.

But you folks seem to be really upset by my use of the word extraordinary in context to Caesar's assassination. So just ignore it. It's inconsequential to where I'm going with the argument anyways and the relentless focus on it is a distraction from the main thrust of the argument - that the evidence for the resurrection is quite good by comparison to the evidence for other ancient historical events.

You are playing semantics.

[Goose]

Spontaneous, lets define:
1.performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.

This is different from having Jesus providing the external stimulus. If you want me to concede the issue that I didn't make properly, I will. People do rise from the dead, but they do so spontaneously without external influence. There is no evidence that another human has power to make another person come back to life as told in the Lazarus story.

Fair enough for now.

I explain them the same way that I explain how David Koresh was wrong. Jim Jones was also. They were true believers and gave up their lives also. Marshall Applewhite is no different. People who claim to have been abducted by aliens are just as valid as Paul and James. Do you believe a person who claims to have been abducted by aliens? If not, why?

You are still offering a mash up of strung together ad hoc explanations to account for the all the facts. When there is one single explanation that powerfully explains all the data - Jesus rose from the dead.

[Star]

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?

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]