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]

Double post.

[Goose]

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.

Mountain of evidence eh? Okay, we’ll remember that term when it comes time to compare with the evidence for the resurrection.

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.

I think you're badly missing the point. Did you actually bother to read what any of them wrote about the assassination if they even wrote anything about it all?

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")

You mean this bit?

�And of so many wounds none turned out to be mortal, in the opinion of the physician Antistius, except the second one in the breast.� – Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars 82.3 - writing a mere 170 years after the event.

Nicolaus, writing sometime in the early 1st century, claims Caesar received 35 stab wounds. The later writers Plutarch (c.70AD) and Suetonius (c. 120AD) both agree against Nicoluas that is was only 23 stab wounds. There seems to be some discrepancies among the accounts and embellishment on the part of Nicolaus.

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

That's material evidence which supports the veracity of the accounts. It's not material evidence it actually happened. Don't get the two confused.

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.

You believe it was probably true based on the premise it wasn’t unusual for a Roman to be stabbed to death? t's unusual for anyone to be stabbed to death, even a Roman. At any rate, I can make a similar argument as resurrection claims in that era weren’t really that unusual either. Heck, there’s multiple claims in the Bible alone.

[Goose]

No, to be frank, I've never heard of [Nicolaus of Damscus] 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.

Let’s look at some of your reasoning and apply it to the evidence for the resurrection.

You consider Nicolaus a “contemporary� of Caesar even though he never met Caesar nor was he an eyewitness to the assassination. I find this quite ironical considering it was you that, for some reason, felt it quite noteworthy that Paul never met Jesus. In light of this I’m inclined to claim Paul as a contemporary source for the resurrection since he, like Nicolaus, existed during the era of his respective event. I don’t see how you can now argue against this without committing a Special Plea fallacy. I’m further inclined to claim all four Gospels as contemporary sources as well in light of your view on Nicolaus.

You appear to think it a positive point that Nicolaus at least interviewed eyewitnesses though we don’t know who those witnesses were and you fail to show us where he cites his eyewitness sources. It’s worth mentioning Paul met and interviewed the witnesses within just a few years as well. More than that Paul also provides the names of those witness in Galatians 1 and 2.

Then, because a website says Nicolaus’ account was written “a few years after the event� you assume that cannot mean as many as 60 years but presumably must mean something much less. But you offer no argument as to why that would be the case. Notice Nicolaus’ account of Caesar’s assassination is given in his Life of Augustus which was a tribute to the life of Caesar Augustus who died in 14AD. Thus giving us a likely earliest year of completion of c. 14AD, a mere 58 years after the event. So by your reasoning Paul’s letters and the Gospels should be considered to have been written only “a few years after the event� as well since they are well within the 60 year mark (the possible exception being the Gospel of John).

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.

�A lot of writers who wrote accounts� huh? You must mean Nicolaus because he is the only one who gave a full account within a similar time to the assassination as the Gospels are to the resurrection. If you are willing to expand out the time horizon to include writers such as Plutarch (c. 70AD) and Suetonius (c. 120 AD) this opens up a flood gate of evidence for the resurrection from the second century. In either case, by your reasoning the resurrection likewise must have “a lot of writers� as well since there are at least as many as for the assassination.

“Fairly congruent� huh? Let me give you just a small sampling of the discrepancies between accounts.

1. In what manner did Tullius first come at Caesar?
Nicolaus: Tullius Cimber came at Caesar as though to make an urgent appeal
Plutarch: no comment on the issue
Suetonius: Tullius came as though to ask something

2. What happened to the Caesar's Toga?
Nicolaus: Tullius seized Caesar's toga to prevent him from standing up and using his hands.
Plutarch: Tullius seized Caesar's toga with both hands and pulled it down from his neck.
Suetonius: Tullius caught Caesar's toga by both shoulders.

3. Where was Caesar first stabbed?
Nicolaus: on the left shoulder a little above the collar bone.
Plutarch: to the neck.
Suetonius: below the throat.

4. Did Caesar initially jump up to defend himself or remain seated?
Nicolaus: Caesar sprang up to defend himself once the attack began
Plutarch: Caesar turned around presumably while seated (no mention of standing up)
Suetonius: Caesar tried to leap to his feet, but was stopped by another wound

5. Did Casca, one of the attackers, yell to his brother for help in the assassination once it began?
Nicolaus: Casca called to his brother in Greek, but we aren't old what he said.
Plutarch: Casca yelled to his brother, "Brother, help!"
Suetonius: silence on the issue (we aren't even told if his brother was involved)

6. Where did Brutus strike Caesar if at all?
Nicolaus: Brutus struck Caesar through the thigh.
Plutarch: Brutus struck Caesar in the groin
Suetonius: Brutus only rushed at Caesar (no mention of striking)

7. Was Brutus accidentally struck on the hand?
Nicolaus: Cassius Longinus accidentally struck Brutus on the hand
Plutarch: conspirators were wounded by one another (no further details)
Suetonius: silence on the issue

8. Did Caesar speak or yell to Brutus if anything at all?
Nicolaus: Silence on the issue
Plutarch: Caesar cried aloud to Brutus, but we aren't told what.
Suetonius: Caesar said to Brutus in Greek, "You too, my child?"

9. How many stab wounds?
Nicolaus: Caesar received 35 stab wounds.
Suetonius and Plutarch: both agree on 23 stab wounds.

10. Was Caesar silent or did he speak at the first strike?
Nicolaus: no comment on the issue.
Plutarch: Caesar cried out at the first strike from Casca, "Accursed Casca, what does thou?"
Suetonius: Caesar "utter[ed] not a word, but merely a groan at the first stroke..."

And we actually know who those writers were.

You do huh? Tell me how you know who wrote the Life of Augustus or Parallel Lives for instance. What is your methodology for establishing authorship of ancient work?

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.

Have you read Nicolaus’ account? You should sometime. It’s very biased. He certainly seems very eager to portray Caesar in a positive and glowing light. Not to mention Nicolaus conflicts on major points with other writers and show signs of embellishment. Let’s further add that Life of Augustus is, strictly speaking, just as anonymous as the Gospels if our criteria for anonymity is merely the work does not self identify the author.

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.

Really? Have you actually read the accounts? Nicoluas speaks of omens surrounding the assassination. Plutarch speaks of the divine ordering of a seven night comet, obscuring of the sun’s rays, and the phantom who appeared to Brutus to name but a few instances of the supernatural in the accounts.

[instantc]

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.

Mountain of evidence eh? Okay, we’ll remember that term when it comes time to compare with the evidence for the resurrection.

You falsely assume that every claim has to be accepted on equal standard of evidence. A simple practical experiment reveals that this is not the case at all. For example, it doesn't take much evidence to sufficiently show that I drove my car to work this morning. It takes considerably more evidence to show that I flew to work this morning with an invisible jet pack.

So you cannot simply assert that since we have x evidence for A and x evidence for B, we should either reject or accept both of them. You have to show that Ceasar's assassination is analogous to Jesus's resurrection in terms of standard of evidence. You cannot just assert that. Dubious references of them both being 'unusual' doesn't do much anything.

Bottom line, your evidence has to be sufficient to overcome the initial implausibility of the claim. I submit that any rational person would hold a bodily resurrection prima facie far less plausible than the assassination of an ancient ruler.

This conversation has no end game. You are going to keep asserting that extraordinary events shouldn't require more evidence than ordinary events, and everybody without prejudice will reject your view on the obvious grounds that the standard of evidence for a bodily resurrection is far higher than that of an assassination.

[PghPanther]

In regards to supernatural evidence there is nothing in past history we can validate...........I would demand that any apologist demonstrate evidence that the supernatural first exist in the present before we say it existed in the past.

I have yet to see anything that is supernatural or a miracle (in defiance of the laws of physics) event in today's world.

Don't give me any medical healings..................they happen to non believers and those of other religions as well......they have a natural base that is not fully understood yet such as cancer regression.

Now show me an amputee that grows a limb back and we might have something to investigate further.

There are a few apologists that claim the age of miracles ended with the bible.......wonderful, how convenient.............that is the verbal equivalent of saying, "hey look over there......." and then run away..........

The bottom line is that if miracles occur from prayer then we have never used science to ever find out anything about how our environment works........because prayers and miracles would occur so frequently that the laws of physics would be too inconsistent to be reliable to test.

[Goose]

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.

And you still don't seem to grasp the fact that anything beyond the usual is by definition extraordinary. The definition of extraordinary is not limited to only that which is supernatural which you erroneously appear to be arguing it is. Since the most ordinary and usual way a person can die, even for a Caesar, is by natural causes any death outside of natural causes is by definition extraordinary. Caesar's assassination is especially extraordinary if we consider the surrounding details. Thus it is subject to the same demand for extraordinary evidence. Now if you argue assassinations are usual and ordinary on the grounds they have been reported throughout history I'll simply make the same argument for resurrections thus making them ordinary as well.

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 1120 by Star]

It is debating Christianity.

Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

The reason I would disagree with a holocaust denier is SPECIFICALLY because I find it incredible that he would deny it.

The reason I disagree with people who believe in talking donkeys and zombie invasions is SPECIFICALLY because I find it incredible that they would believe such things.

This isn't church. It's DEBATING Christianity. We are here because we disagree with you.

[Philbert]

This isn't church. It's DEBATING Christianity. We are here because we disagree with you.

To be more precise...

The focus of this forum is primarily on those aspects of Christianity which make for a good debunker experience. The aspects of Christianity which don't make for a good debunker experience are almost entirely ignored.

This pattern reveals an emotion driven bias foundation for the conversations which is not really reason, but ideology.

A reasoned based examination of Christianity would examine all aspects of the religion in an open minded objective detached manner, without an agenda to reach any particular conclusion either for or against.

Reason is a good alternative to Christianity, but that's largely not what's being offered in most of the postings from critics.

[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. . . .

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."

You conveniently snipped out most my post and rambled on here. Haven't got a clue how this addresses my point.

[Goose]

Why have faith when you have evidence?

I have faith because I have evidence.

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.

The OP demands: "Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?"

I have provided some evidence for my belief in the supernatural via the evidence for the resurrection. Feel free to jump in the water is warm.