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]

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.

Where is your evidence they weren’t fully dead? Let me guess, your evidence is they came back to life? In every Lazarus Syndrome case (there have been 25 documented cases in the literature since 1982) a qualified medical person determined the patient fit the criteria of death to then later spontaneously return to life. Your only rebuttal argument to this is foundationally circular assuming they weren’t truly dead because dead people don’t come back to life. You then raise the bar by arguing someone isn’t truly dead until they are brain dead. However, there are brain dead Lazarus Syndrome cases such Zack Dunlap which obliterate your objection. Again, your only counter argument against this is foundationally circular - Zack couldn’t have been truly brain dead because brain dead people always stay dead and he came back to life. On these grounds alone your comparison of Jesus’ resurrection to flying reindeer fails in terms of equal levels of plausibility since we have at the very least a baseline of plausibility for Jesus resurrection in the Lazarus Syndrome but none for flying reindeer.

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

You’re glossing over the counter argument. I’ve appealed to the authority of professional historians who hold to a bodily resurrection of Jesus and lack of any historians who hold to flying reindeer as prima facie evidence that the two respective claims are not on equal footing in terms of plausibility. I’m also sure you could find a Muslim historian somewhere who holds to a literal Al-Buraq. This would also be prima facie evidence that Al-Bur�q is not on the same level as flying reindeer in terms of plausibility.

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.

Be my guest. I’ve already given my assessment of the evidence in support of Al-Bur�q here. I’ve acknowledged Muhammad may have had some type of supernatural experience on that night. If you were able to show the historical evidence for a literal Al-Bur�q was as strong as the evidence for the resurrection thereby forcing me to accept Al-Bur�q it wouldn’t be a problem for me.

Again, your comparison of Jesus’ resurrection to flying reindeer in terms of plausibility fails quite miserably. These juvenile attempts at an argument by ridicule may score points with your buddies (nenb seems to be a big fan of them) and the uninitiated but that’s about the extent of their worth.

-------

On to the treatment of the evidence and my argument.

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 personal doubts regarding Jesus’ resurrection fail to address the counter argument that your criterion of time proximity of when the text was written to the event itself not only makes the resurrection evidence seem weak it also makes the assassination evidence seem weak. Since historians tend to think the evidence for the assassination is quite strong the reasoning behind you methodology must be flawed. You’ve utterly failed to address this.

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.

Yet again you’ve utterly failed to address the counter argument and instead have attempted to pass off your lack of personal doubt for the assassination as an argument for it. Your argument from silence regarding lack of abundant eyewitness accounts for the resurrection, despite the number of witnesses, not only makes the evidence for the resurrection seem weak it makes the evidence for the assassination seem even weaker than the resurrection since the assassination had more possible witnesses and no eyewitness accounts that have come down to us whereas the resurrection does have eyewitness accounts that have come down to us. Since historians tend to think the evidence for the assassination is quite strong the reasoning behind you methodology must be flawed.

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.

You seem to be flip-flopping back and forth between explanations you feel are more plausible and the assessment of how strong the evidence is. But let’s sift out your criterion here. The criterion seems to be there was an agenda. Your argument seems to be the followers of Jesus had a possible motive to steal the body and make up the resurrection and this motive weakens the evidence. So the question then, is did the writers for the assassination potentially have a motivation to possibly make up the assassination as well? I think they did. Nicolaus for instance was very much pro-Emperor. He spoke of Caesar and Augustus in adorning terms and tells from the beginning his purpose for writing was to, “set forth the full power of [Augustus’] intelligence and virtue…so that all can know the truth.� By making up the assassination Nicolaus vilified Caesar’s enemies (and subsequently Augustus’ enemies) and made Caesar an immortal martyr with just a few paragraphs of storytelling. Once we also consider most people die by natural causes and not murder, let alone stabbing, we now have good grounds to doubt the assassination. Think about it. Which is more likely? Caesar dying of natural causes or him being stabbed to death by eighty senators in full view of the senate where noone interfered? Voila, the assassination disappears. See how easy it is to argue against something on the grounds of what we think is more probable?

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?

What? All indications are that Paul was in good health at the moment of his experience with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus.

What evidence are you referring to? Please provide it.

I gave it to nenb in this post. He chose to ignore it.

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

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.

Are you disputing the disciples believed Jesus appeared to them? On what grounds? That it was written later? We’ve been over the criterion of late reporting above and how that dismantles not only the assassination but most of ancient history since most of it was written much later. So that argument won’t hold water. Not to mention it would be disingenuous for you to reject the fact the disciples believed Jesus appeared to them while appealing to the reliability of the accounts in what they report at Matthew 27 and the number of disciples (120) reported in Acts. To reiterate your explanation doesn’t account for the disciples belief Jesus appeared to them thus it fails to the resurrection explanation on the criterion of scope as it accounts for the disciples belief, Paul’s conversion and the empty tomb.

[Goat]

Are you disputing the disciples believed Jesus appeared to them? On what grounds? That it was written later? We’ve been over the criterion of late reporting above and how that dismantles not only the assassination but most of ancient history since most of it was written much later. So that argument won’t hold water. Not to mention it would be disingenuous for you to reject the fact the disciples believed Jesus appeared to them while appealing to the reliability of the accounts in what they report at Matthew 27 and the number of disciples (120) reported in Acts. To reiterate your explanation doesn’t account for the disciples belief Jesus appeared to them thus it fails to the resurrection explanation on the criterion of scope as it accounts for the disciples belief, Paul’s conversion and the empty tomb.
.

Apparently, none of the the Gospels were written by the disciples , so we don't have any of their testimony directly. OTher than the unsupported claims of the bible, can you show that any of the disciples actually believed Jesus appeared to them.

Can you compare and contrast the second hand (or more) claims about Jesus appearing to the disciples with the fact people claims they sighted Elvis after he died?

http://elvissightingsociety.org/

[no evidence no belief]

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.

Where is your evidence they weren’t fully dead? Let me guess, your evidence is they came back to life? In every Lazarus Syndrome case (there have been 25 documented cases in the literature since 1982) a qualified medical person determined the patient fit the criteria of death to then later spontaneously return to life. Your only rebuttal argument to this is foundationally circular assuming they weren’t truly dead because dead people don’t come back to life. You then raise the bar by arguing someone isn’t truly dead until they are brain dead. However, there are brain dead Lazarus Syndrome cases such Zack Dunlap which obliterate your objection. Again, your only counter argument against this is foundationally circular - Zack couldn’t have been truly brain dead because brain dead people always stay dead and he came back to life. On these grounds alone your comparison of Jesus’ resurrection to flying reindeer fails in terms of equal levels of plausibility since we have at the very least a baseline of plausibility for Jesus resurrection in the Lazarus Syndrome but none for flying reindeer.

Look. You've convinced us, ok? Jesus's resurrection wasn't a supernatural event. We get it. Thank you!

Brain dead corpses can occasionally come back to life, like in the well documented cases of Jesus of Nazareth and Zack Dunlap of Oklahoma City. These are just medically rare events, not supernatural miracles.

My OP asks for evidence of the supernatural. You took the specific example of the resurrection of Jesus and demonstrated that it is NOT a supernatural event.

I think we all agree with you. Resurrections are not supernatural events.

Move on to a different one. Can we talk about the talking donkey?

[Goose]

Apparently, none of the the Gospels were written by the disciples , so we don't have any of their testimony directly. OTher than the unsupported claims of the bible, can you show that any of the disciples actually believed Jesus appeared to them.

What is your methodology for determining the authorship of an ancient text? Mine would be external evidence supported by internal. All the external evidence suggests, for example, Matthew was written by a disciple and so was John. Add to this John internally claims to be an eyewitness account. Let's compare this to the evidence for the assassination. What is the evidence that Cicero wrote his letters or that Nicolaus wrote Life of Augustus?

Can you compare and contrast the second hand (or more) claims about Jesus appearing to the disciples with the fact people claims they sighted Elvis after he died?

http://elvissightingsociety.org/

Like aside from the fact that the witnesses to Elvis' death are still alive and can confirm he was dead? If you could produce several witnesses that knew Elvis intimately (not merely fans) before his death and were willing to risk the possibility of their own death for the belief that Elvis had come back to life, I'd have to take the claim seriously and investigate further that's for sure.

[keithprosser3]

Can we talk about the talking donkey?

There's one in Shreck, but I don't think that was really real.

[no evidence no belief]

Can we talk about the talking donkey?

There's one in Shreck, but I don't think that was really real.

How DARE YOU! Of course it was real! If it wasn't real, than how do you explain the fact that I think it's real?

See???

Logic.

Wins every time.

[Doulos]

[Replying to post 1358 by no evidence no belief]

Because the evidence for virgin births is sooooooooooooooooooo weak...

What weak evidence?????

There is No evidence for that at all - not even weak evidence. That implies that the virgin birth of Christ must have been a supernatural event.

It is that simple.

[Danmark]

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.

Where is your evidence they weren’t fully dead? Let me guess, your evidence is they came back to life? In every Lazarus Syndrome case (there have been 25 documented cases in the literature since 1982) a qualified medical person determined the patient fit the criteria of death to then later spontaneously return to life. Your only rebuttal argument to this is foundationally circular assuming they weren’t truly dead because dead people don’t come back to life. You then raise the bar by arguing someone isn’t truly dead until they are brain dead. However, there are brain dead Lazarus Syndrome cases such Zack Dunlap which obliterate your objection. Again, your only counter argument against this is foundationally circular - Zack couldn’t have been truly brain dead because brain dead people always stay dead and he came back to life. On these grounds alone your comparison of Jesus’ resurrection to flying reindeer fails in terms of equal levels of plausibility since we have at the very least a baseline of plausibility for Jesus resurrection in the Lazarus Syndrome but none for flying reindeer.

Look. You've convinced us, ok? Jesus's resurrection wasn't a supernatural event. We get it. Thank you!

Brain dead corpses can occasionally come back to life, like in the well documented cases of Jesus of Nazareth and Zack Dunlap of Oklahoma City. These are just medically rare events, not supernatural miracles.

My OP asks for evidence of the supernatural. You took the specific example of the resurrection of Jesus and demonstrated that it is NOT a supernatural event.

I think we all agree with you. Resurrections are not supernatural events.

Move on to a different one. Can we talk about the talking donkey?

Where is your evidence donkeys don't talk? Let me guess, your evidence is that you've never heard one. In every Balaam Syndrome case (there have been 25 documented cases in the literature since 1982 BCE) a qualified medical person determined the patient fit the criteria of being a donkey, while no one had evidence they had been with the donkey every second of the donkey's life; therefor they could not determine the donkey could not speak.
www.bvj.com/content/balaam/syndrome
There is also widespread veterinary knowledge of the closely related Irritable Balaam Syndrome.

[no evidence no belief]

Apparently, none of the the Gospels were written by the disciples , so we don't have any of their testimony directly. OTher than the unsupported claims of the bible, can you show that any of the disciples actually believed Jesus appeared to them.

What is your methodology for determining the authorship of an ancient text? Mine would be external evidence supported by internal. All the external evidence suggests, for example, Matthew was written by a disciple and so was John. Add to this John internally claims to be an eyewitness account. Let's compare this to the evidence for the assassination. What is the evidence that Cicero wrote his letters or that Nicolaus wrote Life of Augustus?

Dude, stop it! We get it! You persuaded us.

The resurrection of Jesus was a perfectly natural and well documented historical event, just like the assassination of Caesar and the resurrection of Zack Dunlap.

Neither of these three events is supernatural, we get it. Thank you.

I ask the question "do you have any evidence for the supernatural", and your answer is a clear and resounding "NO", because you proved that the resurrection of Christ is NOT supernatural, but a regular natural event like Zack Dunlap's resurrection or Caesar's assassination.

Now that you've firmly established that Jesus is not the Son of God, but just an average dude like Zack Dunlap, can we please talk about the talking donkey?

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 1358 by no evidence no belief]

Because the evidence for virgin births is sooooooooooooooooooo weak...

What weak evidence?????

There is No evidence for that at all - not even weak evidence. That implies that the virgin birth of Christ must have been a supernatural event.

It is that simple.

Ok, so you admit there is no evidence that Mary was a virgin.

Somebody that never ever met anybody who ever met anybody who ever met her just wrote down in a book that she was a virgin.

So what you're saying is that if somebody writes down something for which there is no evidence (and against which there is overwhelming evidence) then the only possible conclusion is that the writer is NOT making it up, and the event happened supernaturally.

So if I write "the earth is flat", and there is no evidence the earth is flat, and overwhelming evidence the earth is not flat, then the only possible explanation is that the earth is supernaturally flat?

That's what you're saying, right?

You're saying that if somebody writes "Mary was a virgin", and there is no no evidence she was a virgin, and there is overwhelming evidence that she was NOT a virgin, then the only possible explanation is that she was a supernatural virgin?

Couldn't it be that if there is overwhelming evidence she was NOT a virgin, and there is no evidence she was a virgin other than some guy who never met her saying that she was, then maybe, just maybe..... she wasn't a virgin?

Ever thought of that?