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]

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?

No, to be frank, I've never heard of him before. I just did some googling and found that he was a contemporary of Julius Caesar and interviewed eyewitnesses just a few [not 60] years after the assassination, according to the site. It appears there are a lot of writers who wrote accounts of the death of Caesar and they all are remarkably detailed and fairly congruent. And we actually know who those writers were.

This is in great contrast to the stories we have about the death of Jesus and his 'resurrection' where we only have interested, conflicting accounts from unnamed early Christians. BTW, re: Caesar, I have not run into any accounts that claim supernatural events. And of course accounts of supernatural events that defy everything we know about science and nature deserve extra scrutiny.

[Goose]

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.

Without even getting into why the sunstroke and seizure explanations fail you're still in the position of having multiple theories which do not account for all the evidence. One theory for the disciples belief and another for Paul's conversion and yet another for James' conversion. That's at least three separate theories none of which account for an empty tomb requiring a possible fourth theory. You lose on parsimony alone as I have one single explanation that powerfully explains all the facts - Jesus rose from the dead.

Look at it this way. What if I were to offer you the explanation that Caesar survived the stabbing and later died of natural causes because it's more likely since most people die of natural causes anyway. I'd then have to come up with another theory to explain why all the evidence unanimously suggests Caesar was assassinated. Why would we accept those rather ad hoc theories as a composite explanation when we have one single hypothesis that powerfully explains all the data - that Caesar was assassinated?

[Star]

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.

So you take the default position of belief?

That's not logical.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 1118 by Whatistruth75]

Moderator Comment

This post would be considered to not comply with the guidelines on preaching. Please read through the guidelines and abide by them.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Star]

Look at it this way. What if I were to offer you the explanation that Caesar survived the stabbing and later died of natural causes because it's more likely since most people die of natural causes anyway. I'd then have to come up with another theory to explain why all the evidence unanimously suggests Caesar was assassinated. Why would we accept those rather ad hoc theories as a composite explanation when we have one single hypothesis that powerfully explains all the data - that Caesar was assassinated?

You still don't seem to understand the difference between natural events (like assassinations) and supernatural events (Jesus rising up from the dead and literally disappearing).

Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.

Murder in Ancient Rome was par for the course, even for emperors.

The amount of evidence for Caesar's assassination absolutely shadows that of Jesus.

[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.

Without even getting into why the sunstroke and seizure explanations fail you're still in the position of having multiple theories which do not account for all the evidence. . . .

Sure we do. We have exactly the same accounting for evidence we have in a court room trial today:
1. Some of the 'evidence' is not even evidence. It is not allowed into the courtroom because it is hearsay or otherwise unreliable and does not meet the requirements of the Rules of Evidence.
2. Even the evidence that is submitted to the trier of fact is weighed regarding its credibility, reliability and accuracy. In any trial, juries do not have to account for all the evidence presented. There is frequently if not usually some conflict in testimony and other evidence. Jurors either cannot reach a verdict, or they discount some of it.

I can guarantee you that if I put on a defense in a murder case where I produced witnesses who claimed they heard other persons claim they saw the murder victim actually rise up and walk around after the murder, I would lose my case.

Unless perhaps I actually produced the dead guy.

"Your honor!" I plead. "Just wait a bit. I can produce him. Just give me a little more time.
"Counsellor, we've been waiting 2000 years and he hasn't shown up yet."

[JohnA]

double post, sorry.

[JohnA]

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.

Firstly, I don't agree with your interpretation of Hebrews 11. Secondly, and more importantly, this is a Red Herring since the thread is asking for Christians to give evidence for their beliefs or admit they have none.

Can you give your interpretation of Heb 11:1 then?
Also, can you give us your definition of FAITH?
Can you convince me that faith is based on evidence for anything (e.g. your god/supernatural) and not based no evidence/proof? (I am asking for the definition of faith, not for evidence for your god/supernatural)

"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. - Bertrand Russell
Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof - Oxford Dictionary
The word faith generally refers to a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason or evidence. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality


My post was not a red herring since, by your own admission, this thread asks for evidence or to admit you only have faith (i.e. no evidence). Why have faith when you have evidence?

Secondly, and more importantly, this is a Red Herring since the thread is asking for Christians to give evidence for their beliefs or admit they have none.

Nice try, but actually you are straw manning the thread. You are not being asked for evidence for your belief, you are being asked for evidence for your god/supernatural. (We know you have evidence for you belief simply when you state you are religious since you hold a faith based belief).

Can you answer now?

Thank you.

[instantc]

What in your view makes the bodily resurrection more plausible than, say, mass hallucination? I'm asking this because I want to discus the matter with you and not attack someone else's thoughts that I may already know.

We should be asking what is the best explanation that accounts for all the facts with scope and power. A mass hallucination hypothesis would not account for Paul's conversion. You'll need another ad hoc explanation for Paul.

Right, I'll submit that a chain of mass-hallucinations has the same explanatory power as the resurrection and it is more plausible.

[McCulloch]

You'll need another ad hoc explanation for Paul.

Paul's conversion is easily explained. Paul, an avowed enemy of the movement Jesus headed up, without meeting Jesus himself or his disciples, invented a supernatural meeting with this dead messiah, mashed the Jesus myth with his own philosophies gained a following among Jews and non-Jews and railroaded Christianity into a shape that would not have been recognized by its founders.