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?

[keithprosser3]

Thirdly, your explanation lacks explanatory power as a group of disillusioned cowardly men who just witnessed their leader die a horrible death would hardly be in a state to organize the theft of the body and then run around lying about it in the face of persecution and threat of possible death.

There is no reason to believe there was any grave at all. If there was such a grave, no reliable tradition has developed about where it was. If you accept the crucifixion as likely a historical truth anything could have happened to his body after it was taken down. As was pointed out, Jesus' followers had good reason to avoid any chance of being associated with him. Taking the body and reverently burying it would be dead give-away. Jesus' body probably ended up in some unmarked mass grave along with the rest of the many crucified criminals with no one to claim their body.

[Danmark]

I’m not arguing your rejection of the resurrection is disingenuous.... I’m saying your argument against the resurrection is disingenuous . . . .
Firstly, with resurrections we have documented medical cases – the Lazarus Syndrome....

After this confusing bit of doublespeak you launch into the 'Lazarus Syndrome' again, a notion that has been previously shown on this forum to have nothing to do with bodies that have been dead and buried and decaying for three days. Then you go on to dispute the flying reindeer comparison saying no one sane believes this. Again you appeal to the argument of popularity. Whether flying reindeer or flying Jesus, the appeal to the supernatural is identical.

What you fail to deal with is the essence of the issue and a comparison YOU suggested should be made; comparing evidence of the resurrection with evidence that might be admitted in a court of law. I have challenged that comparison and you have dodged it by ignoring it and harkening back to your debunked 'Lazarus Syndrome.' You have failed to join issue on my contention your hearsay 'evidence' would not even be admitted into evidence in a court of law.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goose]

Further, I disagree with your assessment that both the resurrection and flying reindeer are equally unrealistic. Here’s why. Firstly, with resurrections we have documented medical cases – the Lazarus Syndrome - which show a resurrection (however short from time of death to resurrection they may be) is at least plausible. Of course the Lazarus Syndrome is far off from establishing Jesus’ resurrection, if we assume the text is accurate in that Jesus was dead for three days, mind you. But it is enough to, at the very least, nudge us off the premise that dead people always stay dead thus establishing a baseline of plausibility for a resurrection. Now, compare this to flying reindeer. Do we have similar evidence which might establish a baseline that at the very least it is plausible for a reindeer to, say, even levitate off the ground for even a few seconds thereby at least nudging us off the premise that reindeer always stay grounded? I don’t think we do.

The Lazarus Syndrome refers to cases where individuals have been pronounced dead, only to recover a short time later. These people were never fully dead, and so were NOT resurrected from the dead. The problem here is with physicians basing their call on the patient's apparently stilled heart. A person is not truly dead however until all autonomic brain function ceases and total brain death occurs. Until this happens partial resuscitation is possible. If your are attempting to make the point that Jesus was not fully dead, I am willing to listen to you.

Secondly, I’m not aware of any sane adult who holds to flying reindeer let alone any historian who does whereas we have sane professional historians who do hold to the bodily resurrection of Jesus. That itself is not evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead of course but it is at the very least good reason to think flying reindeer and the resurrection of Jesus are not on equal footing in terms of plausibility.

The claims are similar. Of course the team of reindeer is supposed to be made up of eight, or occasionally nine flying reindeer, according to the stories. As opposed to the single flying reanimated corpse of Jesus. But then the reindeer did not have to come back to life first, which works to level the implausibility playing field. If your point is that of course flying reindeer are not true, but the fact that sane adults believe in the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus story somehow works to make it inherently more plausible, allow me to point to the story of Al-Bur�q, the flying steed, and Muhammad's night journey to heaven. According to Muslim belief, Muhammad rode Al-Bur�q the flying steed up to heaven, where Muhammad met all the other prophets, the archangels, and eventually had a face to face meeting with God Himself. The night journey of Muhammad is described in the Isra and Mi'raj portion of the Qu'ran, and is believed to be true implicitly by two billion Muslims. Does this fact somehow serve to make it more plausible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Buraq

For these two reasons, at least, to argue as you have done �[t]he story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus is very comparable to the story of the team of flying reindeer in terms of reason, logic, and observable fact� is quite clearly fallacious.

Fine. Let's compare it to the flying steed Al-Bur�q and Muhammad's night journey to Heaven story in term of reason, logic and observable fact then.

Okay let’s look at your reasoning for why you apparently think the evidence for the resurrection is weak and run the evidence for the assassination through that methodology as a control. If your methodology also makes the evidence for the assassination seem weak then I’m still justified in holding that the evidence for the resurrection is strong since it will be no worse than the evidence for the assassination and the evidence for the assassination is generally considered quite strong. In other words, if your methodology renders the assassination evidence also weak your methodology must be flawed since the historical evidence for the assassination is considered quite strong by historians.

Your first criterion seems to be the time proximity of the text to the event. You argue the first mention of the resurrection comes from Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians about 20 years after. I could argue here that some scholars, yes even some critics, argue 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is a creedal passage dating back to within only a few years of Jesus’ death. But for the sake of argument let’s say the dating of Paul’s letters represent the first mention. How does this compare to the assassination then? Well, the first mention apparently comes from Cicero’s speeches and letters within a few years which would make it earlier than the resurrection. But the trouble here is Cicero never actually says “Caesar was assassinated.� He alludes to a murder but his references are quite cryptic and if we did not have the later writers such Nicolaus and Plutarch through which to interpret Cicero we wouldn’t really have any idea what or who Cicero was referring to. The first full account of the assassination is about 60 years later by Nicolaus as compared to the Gospels which are all well inside that mark with the possible of exception of John.

Did anyone claim that Caesar came back to life and flew away after his assassination? Did anyone claim that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Rome? If such accounts existed we certainly would have every right to question them. Given the way history played out as a direct result of the claimed assassination of Caesar however, there certainly is no reason to doubt it. It violates neither reason nor the laws of physics. Much the same can be said of the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. It violates neither reason nor the laws of physics. It's where corpses come back to life and fly away that we have a serious problem. There is no such problem with the story of the assassination of Caesar.

Your second criterion seems to be lack of abundant mentions considering the nature of the event and number of possible witnesses. But the same argument could made against the evidence for the assassination. Caesar’s assassination was arguably one of the most infamous events in ancient history allegedly involving as many as eighty senators taking place in front of the senate which may have had as many as 900 at the time of Caesar. Yet, despite the nature of this event, the high rank of the person who was murdered and the large number of potential witnesses there is but a few cryptic peeps from Cicero (who wasn’t a witness) and not one single eyewitness account of the event has come down to us. Nicolaus is the first to give a full account almost 60 years later. He was not a witness either and he never met Caesar. “Surely hundreds of witnesses cannot be dismissed� – where have I heard that before?

Given the rest of the story, historically, is there any particular reason to doubt that the
assassination took place? Could the entire sequence of events which directly resulted from the assassination of Caesar be nothing but a tall tale? Of course, that's possible. Is there any reason to suppose that none of it is true? No, there is not.

Your third criterion seems to be that only Jesus’ followers witnessed the resurrection. We’ll set aside for the moment that strictly speaking this isn’t true as Paul was not a follower, but rather an enemy, at the time he reports to have had his experience with the risen Jesus. Not to mention, only Romans apparently witnessed the assassination so I don’t see how this is a problem for the evidence for the resurrection. I suspect you are fundamentally driving at the criterion of bias here? If you are I concede the writers for the resurrection were biased. But so were the writers who recorded the assassination. So the criterion of bias is moot.

My point was that the chief priests and Pharisees predicted that the followers of Jesus intended to move the body and use the fact that the corpse was missing as a platform to spread the rumor that Jesus had returned from the dead. And that is in fact exactly what occurred. It also explains the origins of the story of the risen Jesus perfectly well. Because an empty grave and a missing corpse are realistically FAR more likely to be the result of actions taken by the living, then of actions taken by the corpse. And since, even in the story at hand we can clearly see that there existed a group of obvious suspects with the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the corpse and spread what is in fact a perfectly preposterous story, there is no real reason to suppose that the preposterous occurred at all. Bias is not the problem. An agenda is the problem.

Paul underwent his conversion at a time when he was seriously ill, incapacitated, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian man. Again, it is a question of probability and likelihood. Sick and delirious, unable to drink for three days and exhibiting symptoms of dehydration which would naturally accompany being unable to take in fluids for three days, Paul experienced a hallucination of the years dead Jesus. Or, that Paul ACTUALLY HAD A CONVERSATION WITH A DEAD MAN! Which of these possibilities is reasonably more likely?

Firstly, nothing you’ve stated here undermines the strength of the evidence for the resurrection itself.

What evidence are you referring to? Please provide it.

So it isn’t really relevant to my argument. Secondly, your explanation doesn’t account for why the disciples believed Jesus had appeared to them nor does it account for Paul’s conversion experience thus it lacks scope as compared to the hypothesis Jesus rose from the dead.

The disciples CLAIMED to believe that Jesus had appeared to them, according to later accounts. First, show me the accounts that these individuals left detailing what they claimed to believe, and we can proceed from there. I'm speaking only of the group of original disciples of Jesus here.

Thirdly, your explanation lacks explanatory power as a group of disillusioned cowardly men who just witnessed their leader die a horrible death would hardly be in a state to organize the theft of the body and then run around lying about it in the face of persecution and threat of possible death.

Acts puts the number of followers of Jesus at about 120 individuals six weeks after the crucifixion. All 120 were uniformly too discombobulated to act? In fact the Gospels detail the followers of Jesus acting quickly and decisively immediately to gain possession of the body of Jesus, right off of the cross. Your argument is confounded by those damned contradictory details contained in your own book of undeniable truth. Read Acts. The followers of Jesus went running about openly proclaiming the risen Jesus, and got away with it pretty well for a good number of years.

[Doulos]

#First: I am not asking for proof. I'm asking for evidence.#

Please do not play with words.

#You are absolutely right that stuff for which we have ZERO evidence, and against which we have a LOT of evidence, could nonetheless turn out to be true.#

So?

#For example we only have the lyrics to "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer" as evidence that reindeer can fly, #

It is not. The purpose of the lyric has always been to amuse children. It has never been a claim to the truth and no one ever seen that happen. It is therefore not based on an historical account either.


#and we have everything we know about gravity as evidence AGAINST reindeer flying.#

That part is correct. So if we would ever see reindeer fly it would in fact be regarded as an supernatural occurance.

#It could be that actually reindeer can fly. #

No reindeer cannot fly - except in children stories that are only stories not based in the actual truth or historical claims - or people on drugs maybe.


#All I am saying is that there is no good evidence that reindeer can fly,#

No, there is NO evidence that reindeer can fly and NO ONE is claiming that - except in children stories that are not a claim to the truth.

#and there is VERY strong evidence that they cannot.#

Correct - so if it would ever be observed it would be classed as un-natural = supernatural.


#But maybe I'm wrong.#

Yes you are - as far as your rejection of the accounts of the supernatural in Scripture.

#Maybe there is some evidence for your supernatural claims #

There were many observations of supernatural events in Scripture. The authors of Scripture also observed in interpreted those events as above the normal = supernatural and they described it as such.

It is you who refuse to accept (believe in) the description of those accounts. I.e. you reject the evidence.


#that I am not aware of.#

No, you are well aware of it - you do not believe it and therefore reject it.

# Care to present it?#

Read the Bible - there is a description of an supernatural event on almost every Bible page.


#I believe that no adequate evidence for the supernatural has ever been presented. #

You are right - you believe. That is the crux of the matter.


#The instant you present some, I will change my belief and thank you for educating me.#

Wrong - your order is wrong. You do not believe it and not evidence will make you believe - as I have just shown.


Yet again – you initial question is flawed and is therefore a fallacy. You also very cleverly shift the burden of evidence and proof.

Let’s take the virgin birth of Christ. The evidence can only be found in a single historical occurrence which is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born meaning she has never been with a man until Jesus was born. That the only evidence for that Biblical claim.

There are only two options here: - She was a virgin or she was not. The claim in front of us is that she in fact was a virgin. Christians accept that as the truth. We do not ask for further evidence or proof. We believe it is true.

You on the other hand reject the truthfulness of the descriptions of the account. You do not *believe* it is true. Anything we accept as ‘fact’ is based on a belief. The burden of proof is on you to show that the biblical authors were *in fact* mistaken.

Your assumption is fallacious because you expect from Christians to ‘recreate’ the evidence – i.e. an historical occurrence. We all know it is not possible. History can never be repeated in that manner and you are dishonest to expect that.

[no evidence no belief]

#First: I am not asking for proof. I'm asking for evidence.#

Please do not play with words.

#You are absolutely right that stuff for which we have ZERO evidence, and against which we have a LOT of evidence, could nonetheless turn out to be true.#

So?

#For example we only have the lyrics to "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer" as evidence that reindeer can fly, #

It is not. The purpose of the lyric has always been to amuse children. It has never been a claim to the truth and no one ever seen that happen. It is therefore not based on an historical account either.


#and we have everything we know about gravity as evidence AGAINST reindeer flying.#

That part is correct. So if we would ever see reindeer fly it would in fact be regarded as an supernatural occurance.

#It could be that actually reindeer can fly. #

No reindeer cannot fly - except in children stories that are only stories not based in the actual truth or historical claims - or people on drugs maybe.


#All I am saying is that there is no good evidence that reindeer can fly,#

No, there is NO evidence that reindeer can fly and NO ONE is claiming that - except in children stories that are not a claim to the truth.

#and there is VERY strong evidence that they cannot.#

Correct - so if it would ever be observed it would be classed as un-natural = supernatural.


#But maybe I'm wrong.#

Yes you are - as far as your rejection of the accounts of the supernatural in Scripture.

#Maybe there is some evidence for your supernatural claims #

There were many observations of supernatural events in Scripture. The authors of Scripture also observed in interpreted those events as above the normal = supernatural and they described it as such.

It is you who refuse to accept (believe in) the description of those accounts. I.e. you reject the evidence.


#that I am not aware of.#

No, you are well aware of it - you do not believe it and therefore reject it.

# Care to present it?#

Read the Bible - there is a description of an supernatural event on almost every Bible page.


#I believe that no adequate evidence for the supernatural has ever been presented. #

You are right - you believe. That is the crux of the matter.


#The instant you present some, I will change my belief and thank you for educating me.#

Wrong - your order is wrong. You do not believe it and not evidence will make you believe - as I have just shown.


Yet again – you initial question is flawed and is therefore a fallacy. You also very cleverly shift the burden of evidence and proof.

Let’s take the virgin birth of Christ. The evidence can only be found in a single historical occurrence which is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born meaning she has never been with a man until Jesus was born. That the only evidence for that Biblical claim.

There are only two options here: - She was a virgin or she was not. The claim in front of us is that she in fact was a virgin. Christians accept that as the truth. We do not ask for further evidence or proof. We believe it is true.

You on the other hand reject the truthfulness of the descriptions of the account. You do not *believe* it is true. Anything we accept as ‘fact’ is based on a belief. The burden of proof is on you to show that the biblical authors were *in fact* mistaken.

Your assumption is fallacious because you expect from Christians to ‘recreate’ the evidence – i.e. an historical occurrence. We all know it is not possible. History can never be repeated in that manner and you are dishonest to expect that.

Buddy, hasn't mommy had the birds and the bees conversation with you yet? Do you TRULY not know where babies come from?

Mommy and daddy love each other very much, and one way they show that they love each other is by holding each other tight in bed without clothes. It may look like mommy and daddy are wrestling, but actually they are expressing their love. And that's where babies come from.

No buddy, it's not the stork and it's not the holy spirit. No buddy, it doesn't matter if your friend in school says it's the stork. No buddy, it doesn't matter if some anonymous iron age scribe who never ever met anybody who ever met anybody who ever met anybody who was monitoring Mary's sex life 9 before Jesus was born, says it was the holy spirit. The only way for mommy to have a baby is for daddy to hug her without clothes on.

[Doulos]

[Replying to post 1353 by no evidence no belief]

Buddy, hasn't mommy had the birds and the bees conversation with you yet? Do you TRULY not know where babies come from?

Mommy and daddy love each other very much, and one way they show that they love each other is by holding each other tight in bed without clothes. It may look like mommy and daddy are wrestling, but actually they are expressing their love. And that's where babies come from.

No buddy, it's not the stork and it's not the holy spirit. No buddy, it doesn't matter if your friend in school says it's the stork. No buddy, it doesn't matter if some anonymous iron age scribe who never ever met anybody who ever met anybody who ever met anybody who was monitoring Mary's sex life 9 before Jesus was born, says it was the holy spirit. The only way for mommy to have a baby is for daddy to hug her without clothes on.

What is your argument? You clearly do not have one and therefore revert to patronizing rubbish.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 1353 by no evidence no belief]

Buddy, hasn't mommy had the birds and the bees conversation with you yet? Do you TRULY not know where babies come from?

Mommy and daddy love each other very much, and one way they show that they love each other is by holding each other tight in bed without clothes. It may look like mommy and daddy are wrestling, but actually they are expressing their love. And that's where babies come from.

No buddy, it's not the stork and it's not the holy spirit. No buddy, it doesn't matter if your friend in school says it's the stork. No buddy, it doesn't matter if some anonymous iron age scribe who never ever met anybody who ever met anybody who ever met anybody who was monitoring Mary's sex life 9 before Jesus was born, says it was the holy spirit. The only way for mommy to have a baby is for daddy to hug her without clothes on.

What is your argument? You clearly do not have one and therefore revert to patronizing rubbish.

That would be that pesky little thing called reality. Have you heard of it?

[Clownboat]

#First: I am not asking for proof. I'm asking for evidence.#

Please do not play with words.

#You are absolutely right that stuff for which we have ZERO evidence, and against which we have a LOT of evidence, could nonetheless turn out to be true.#

So?

#For example we only have the lyrics to "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer" as evidence that reindeer can fly, #

It is not. The purpose of the lyric has always been to amuse children. It has never been a claim to the truth and no one ever seen that happen. It is therefore not based on an historical account either.


#and we have everything we know about gravity as evidence AGAINST reindeer flying.#

That part is correct. So if we would ever see reindeer fly it would in fact be regarded as an supernatural occurance.

#It could be that actually reindeer can fly. #

No reindeer cannot fly - except in children stories that are only stories not based in the actual truth or historical claims - or people on drugs maybe.


#All I am saying is that there is no good evidence that reindeer can fly,#

No, there is NO evidence that reindeer can fly and NO ONE is claiming that - except in children stories that are not a claim to the truth.

#and there is VERY strong evidence that they cannot.#

Correct - so if it would ever be observed it would be classed as un-natural = supernatural.


#But maybe I'm wrong.#

Yes you are - as far as your rejection of the accounts of the supernatural in Scripture.

#Maybe there is some evidence for your supernatural claims #

There were many observations of supernatural events in Scripture. The authors of Scripture also observed in interpreted those events as above the normal = supernatural and they described it as such.

It is you who refuse to accept (believe in) the description of those accounts. I.e. you reject the evidence.


#that I am not aware of.#

No, you are well aware of it - you do not believe it and therefore reject it.

# Care to present it?#

Read the Bible - there is a description of an supernatural event on almost every Bible page.


#I believe that no adequate evidence for the supernatural has ever been presented. #

You are right - you believe. That is the crux of the matter.


#The instant you present some, I will change my belief and thank you for educating me.#

Wrong - your order is wrong. You do not believe it and not evidence will make you believe - as I have just shown.


Yet again – you initial question is flawed and is therefore a fallacy. You also very cleverly shift the burden of evidence and proof.

Let’s take the virgin birth of Christ. The evidence can only be found in a single historical occurrence which is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born meaning she has never been with a man until Jesus was born. That the only evidence for that Biblical claim.

There are only two options here: - She was a virgin or she was not. The claim in front of us is that she in fact was a virgin. Christians accept that as the truth. We do not ask for further evidence or proof. We believe it is true.

You on the other hand reject the truthfulness of the descriptions of the account. You do not *believe* it is true. Anything we accept as ‘fact’ is based on a belief. The burden of proof is on you to show that the biblical authors were *in fact* mistaken.

Your assumption is fallacious because you expect from Christians to ‘recreate’ the evidence – i.e. an historical occurrence. We all know it is not possible. History can never be repeated in that manner and you are dishonest to expect that.

You would make for a good Muslim. If only you were not reading the wrong book.

[Doulos]

[Replying to post 1356 by Clownboat]

You would make for a good Muslim.

Ha ha - I did not see that coming. Sorry, but I will not make a good Muslim. Islam scares me - really scared me.

Are you a Muslim?

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 1353 by no evidence no belief]

Buddy, hasn't mommy had the birds and the bees conversation with you yet? Do you TRULY not know where babies come from?

Mommy and daddy love each other very much, and one way they show that they love each other is by holding each other tight in bed without clothes. It may look like mommy and daddy are wrestling, but actually they are expressing their love. And that's where babies come from.

No buddy, it's not the stork and it's not the holy spirit. No buddy, it doesn't matter if your friend in school says it's the stork. No buddy, it doesn't matter if some anonymous iron age scribe who never ever met anybody who ever met anybody who ever met anybody who was monitoring Mary's sex life 9 before Jesus was born, says it was the holy spirit. The only way for mommy to have a baby is for daddy to hug her without clothes on.

What is your argument? You clearly do not have one and therefore revert to patronizing rubbish.

Really? You don't understand my argument? I'm astonished! It's very simple:

We have overwhelmingly strong evidence that babies come from a man contributing 23 chromosomes and a woman contributing 23 chromosomes in the process of a sperm cell fertilizing an egg. We are as confident of this as we are that the earth is a globe, that water is made of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen and that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared.

There are dozens of virgin births legends, and the one of the Bible is just one of them. All of them are written by people who never ever met anybody who ever met anybody who ever met anybody who had ever met the alleged virgin mom.

Because the evidence for virgin births is sooooooooooooooooooo weak, and because the evidence AGAINST virgin births is soooooooooooooooooooo overwhelmingly strong, we come to the conclusion that the virgin birth story is just a fairy tale.

We come to the exact same conclusion, for the exact same reason, with regards to the stork story, the cabbage patch story, and the "children come out of the anus" story (I heard that one in 1st grade).