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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1359 by Goose]

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.

Does overwhelming medical research count as evidence? There is nothing mysterious about what occurs to the brain when it is deprived of oxygen. The synapses and neurons fall completely apart. A brain deprived of oxygen for more then an hour begins to take on the consistency of jelly. By three to four hours a brain that has been completely deprived of oxygen essentially is a mass of non functioning jelly. There is no hope of recovery at that point. In Lazarus cases this clearly has not occurred. Heart activities clearly have continued. These people were misdiagnosed as dead because doctors are only human. Death occurs when a brain has been totally deprived of oxygen long enough for the synapses and neurons to be destroyed. Not because a doctor says so.

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-Burq is not on the same level as flying reindeer in terms of plausibility.

The story of Al-Burq the flying steed is certain historical fact to ALL Muslims. The story is mentioned in the Holy Qu'ran, the literal Word of God, so it occurred just as certainly as the rising of the sun each day. Christians proclaim that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is certain historical fact, true to a certainty because the details of the resurrection of Jesus are contained in their holy book, the Word of God. Apparently, according to you, all that is required to make events true is that enough people believe in them. We do run into a bit of a logical dilemma here however. Because the Word of God, the Holy Qu'ran, specifically denies that Jesus was even crucified, much less resurrected from the dead. "That they said (in boast) "We have killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah";-- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:--" (Koran, Su 4:157). So the Word of God is contradicted by the Word of God. That's very distressing.

Modern secular historians rather uniformly take a cop out here and recognize NO supernatural events as a part of recorded history.

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.

Christians contend that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was an event well known to all at the time and witnessed by hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals. According to Matthew 27:52-53, the corpses of "many" dead saints came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem, where they were seen by "many." Night of the living dead in old Jerusalem! And yet these spectacular "occurrences" provoked not the slightest ripple of comment at the time they were supposed to have occurred. Not to sustain them. Not to deny them. Not even to mention them in passing. Rome had a well established Postal system throughout the empire, as established by Paul's letters to the various churches. And yet not a single correspondence, memo, diary, or official document even mentioning these astounding and glorious "events" in passing has ever been discovered or known to exist. A quarter of a century later, Paul writes of the resurrection of Jesus to the Christian church in Corinth. It was not an event for which he was personally present to witness, but it does tell us something that really is not in dispute anyway: That the story of the resurrected Christ was in circulation by the second half of the first century. And this is what the Gospels represent. Documentation of the nature and condition of the stories about Jesus as they existed circa 70-90 AD. Stories like hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem. An incredibly spectacular claim which is to be found ONLY in the Gospel of Matthew, and nowhere else. How terribly odd. Because one would think that such an incredible and frankly terrifying experience would have made some kind of an impression on those who had experienced it at the time. Enough to have left SOME SORT of record of it, one would think. But no, there is no such record. It's almost as if it were a tradition entirely made up by later generations of Christian true believers and never actually occurred at all!

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.

You keep referring to the number of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, when in fact there are only five generally accepted sources for the story in total; Paul and the four Gospels. Unless of course you are willing to accept the various non canonical works, of which there were many dozens. Various Gospels, Acts of, Epistles of; all attributed to various of the principals of the familiar story. And all recognized as pure hogwash and make believe even by the most conservative of Christians. Guess what? PEOPLE LIE AND FALSIFY!

Paul clearly was not a personal eyewitness to any resurrection. The four Gospels were written anonymously decades later still. The Assassination of Julius Caesar caused a major civil war within the Roman empire. The origins of Christianity are based on stories of a corpse that came back to life and subsequently flew away. There are rather large differences in these two things, historically. Significantly, history does not rest on supernatural claims. For example, aside from the story of the resurrection of Jesus, which we are here in the process of debating, what OTHER generally established historical "event" can you name which is based on the occurrence of the supernatural?

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?

The information at hand overwhelmingly indicates that Julius Caesar was assassinated and did not die from natural causes. Could this preponderance of information be wrong? Could all of these various sources be nothing more then a massive conspiracy to delude future generations? It's possible I suppose, although one would have to wonder why such a massive and coordinate hoax was perpetrated. Is there any real reason to suppose that the whole story of the assassination of Caesar was actually made up? No, there is not. Is there any reason to question the story of a corpse that comes back to life and flies away? SERIOUSLY! Can YOU see any reason to question that story? Or do you consider it perfectly reasonable?

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.

I've been sick a few times over the course of my life. Most of my life has been spent in good, robust health. But there have been those times when I was taken ill, and down I went. I have even been sick with a high fever and delirious a few times. I hallucinated things. Acts 9:9 specifically says that Paul: "was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink." Whatever the cause of his affliction, Paul was clearly dehydrated. When the brain is deprived of a sufficient amount of water it begins to malfunction. People who are deprived of fluids for three days commonly hallucinate. The question to you was: Is it more likely that at a time when Paul was 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, AND WHILE BEING CARED FOR AND PRAYED OVER BY A CHRISTIAN MAN, that Paul might have hallucinated a vision of the years dead Jesus? Or is it more likely that Paul actually had a conversation with a DEAD MAN? The question is one of likelihood, and not of personal preference. Can you answer the question honestly? WILL you answer it honestly?

What evidence are you referring to? Please provide it.

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

Here is what you wrote:

For now I’ll submit as historical evidence:
1. The letter’s and testimony of Paul who met eyewitnesses
2. The testimony of Peter who was an eyewitness
3. An eyewitness account in John
4. An eyewitness account in Matthew
5. The account of Luke who met witnesses
6. The account of Mark who met witnesses
7. Clement’s first letter.

1. The letter’s and testimony of Paul who met eyewitnesses:
Paul claimed to have met with and known individuals who claimed to have been witness to to a reanimated dead man who subsequently flew away. Paul's claim to authority is his claim that he personally met with and talked to a dead man.

2. The testimony of Peter who was an eyewitness:
Provide this testimony.

3. An eyewitness account in John:
The Gospel of John was written anonymously. Crediting the Gospel to the apostle John is a matter of tradition and Christian convenience. There is no direct link between the Gospel and the apostle John.

4. An eyewitness account in Matthew:
The Gospel of Matthew was written anonymously. Crediting the Gospel to the apostle Matthew is a matter of tradition and Christian convenience. The actual author of The Gospel of Matthew is entirely unknown.

5. The account of Luke who met witnesses:
The author of The Gospel of Luke, also the author of Acts of the Apostles, and was very clearly a disciple of Paul, who was not himself an eyewitness. Let it be stipulated that Acts of the Apostles clearly indicates that there were individuals spreading the rumor of the risen Jesus as early as six weeks after the crucifixion.

6. The account of Mark who met witnesses:
The second century Christian historian Papias indicated that Mark was a disciple of the apostle Peter, but that Mark did not personally know the lord. Let it be stipulated that the apostle Peter is prominent in Acts of the Apostles as being a leader of the individuals spreading the rumor of the risen Jesus as early as six weeks after the crucifixion.

7. Clement’s first letter:

Although traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome,] this view has been questioned by modern scholarship. The letter is anonymous, however the stylistic coherence suggests a single author.] Many scholars believe 1 Clement was written around the same time as the Book of Revelation, c. 95-97 AD. Neither 1 nor 2 Clement was accepted in the canonical New Testament, but they are part of the Apostolic Fathers collection.

The First Epistle does not contain Clement's name, instead being addressed by "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth." The traditional date for Clement's epistle, which has been elicited by the Epistle to the Hebrews' call for leadership from the church in Rome and is permeated with the earlier letter's influence,] is at the end of the reign of Domitian, or c. 96 AD, by taking the phrase "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1) for a reference to persecutions under Domitian. An indication of the date comes from the fact that the church at Rome is called "ancient" and that the presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has also passed on (44:3). However, some scholars hold to a wider and earlier range of dates, but limit the possibilities to the last two decades of the 1st century.

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

An anonymously authored document attributed to a particular author according to Christian tradition and Christian sensibility, and nothing much else. Could a pattern be emerging here? I do also stipulate to the existence of Christians and their unfounded traditions by the middle of the first century.

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.

I am unable to say WHAT the earliest disciples uniformly believed. A huge part of the problem here is that the earliest disciples left no written record of their thoughts and beliefs. There are some tantalizing glimpses in the Gospels however. For example, Luke 24 tells of two disciples of Jesus on the road to Emmaus who meet with and travel with another man they met on the road, only to realize later that it was the risen Jesus himself. What I am saying to you is that the entire story of the risen Jesus is based on the secret removal of the body of Jesus to another location by an unknown number of his followers. That his key disciples, his apostles, and some few other of his followers were involved is necessary and likely. If the estimate in Acts of some 120 followers six weeks after the crucifixion is close to accurate, then this secret Act of some few may not have been generally known to all. When the core cadre of conspirators began declaring that they had experienced the risen Jesus, the pressure on the others to believe that they had met with and experienced the risen Jesus as well must have been very great indeed. No one wants to be left out of a glorious shared experience. Did a good many of the earliest disciples actually believe in the risen Jesus? That may well be true. Some few at least were well aware of the actual facts however. The tomb was empty because some few of his followers relocated the body. It happens to be the obvious conclusion.

[Goose]

Where does John internally identify? Here?

I'm not arguing John internally identifies the author. I'm arguing it internally claims to be an eyewitness account and the external evidence supports John's authorship.

John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

This would be an early affirmation that the author was a disciple.

This is telling the reader that this is second hand information at best. To internally identify, you need to say something like "My name is John, and I walked and talked with Jesus while he was on earth." "This is my recollection of the events surrounding the man while he was on the earth."

I've got something pretty darn close.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14.

Now, on the other hand, back to our controls, where does Nicolaus, for example, self identify in Life of Augustus or where does Caesar self identify in the Gallic Wars?

[Nickman]

Where does John internally identify? Here?

I'm not arguing John internally identifies the author. I'm arguing it internally claims to be an eyewitness account and the external evidence supports John's authorship.

Where does it internally claim to be an eyewitness account? John 21:24 directly disproves that claim.

This would be an early affirmation that the author was a disciple.

An unknown author, which is confirmed by unknown people saying "we know that his story is true." Not very convincing or reliable.

I've got something pretty darn close.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14.

How is this pretty darn close?


[quotd]Now, on the other hand, back to our controls, where does Nicolaus, for example, self identify in Life of Augustus or where does Caesar self identify in the Gallic Wars?[/quote]
I am not familiar with these texts so why don't you tell me.

[Star]

I am unable to say WHAT the earliest disciples uniformly believed. A huge part of the problem here is that the earliest disciples left no written record of their thoughts and beliefs. There are some tantalizing glimpses in the Gospels however. For example, Luke 24 tells of two disciples of Jesus on the road to Emmaus who meet with and travel with another man they met on the road, only to realize later that it was the risen Jesus himself. What I am saying to you is that the entire story of the risen Jesus is based on the secret removal of the body of Jesus to another location by an unknown number of his followers. That his key disciples, his apostles, and some few other of his followers were involved is necessary and likely. If the estimate in Acts of some 120 followers six weeks after the crucifixion is close to accurate, then this secret Act of some few may not have been generally known to all. When the core cadre of conspirators began declaring that they had experienced the risen Jesus, the pressure on the others to believe that they had met with and experienced the risen Jesus as well must have been very great indeed. No one wants to be left out of a glorious shared experience. Did a good many of the earliest disciples actually believe in the risen Jesus? That may well be true. Some few at least were well aware of the actual facts however. The tomb was empty because some few of his followers relocated the body. It happens to be the obvious conclusion.

Or, none of it even happened.

Secular history is unreliable enough as it is. Although this is a plausible scenario, it's still speculation. We don't even know if these people were real.

[Star]

Shrug. I see you are avoiding the issue, rather than actually answering the question. I have never made a study of Nicoloas of Damascus, so I am not going to address that.. but I will note that rather than actually provide evidence, you deflect the issue.

Give me the evidence you have, and let's see if it holds up to scrutiny. Rather than do that, you deflect.

I'm not avoiding the issue goat. I was under the impression you were already aware of the evidence. What I'm trying to do is frame the argument correctly. I'm sure you have your arguments against authorship memorized. But we have no way knowing if those arguments hold water if we have no control. How about Caesar's Gallic Wars as a control if you aren't familiar with Nicolaus of Damascus then?

Your incredulity is absolutely staggering. I've pointed out numerous sources confirming Caesar's assassination, including the first known official physicians autopsy report confirming 23 stab wounds, and you ignore it. It even cites the second stab as likely being the fatal blow.

We might not know exactly how it happened, but he lived, and he died. That is a fact. All evidence points towards stab wounds. Meanwhile, apologists can't provide any secular historical evidence supporting Jesus' existence to begin with, let alone supernatural fantasies regarding his death.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Star]

Or, none of it even happened.

Secular history is unreliable enough as it is. Although this is a plausible scenario, it's still speculation. We don't even know if these people were real.

Perhaps. It's an undeniable fact that the cult of the crucified carpenter makes an abrupt appearance in the first century however. This is more easily explained if it is based on some measure of actual events and real people, rather than supposing that the entire story and cast of characters just spontaneously arose as a pure work of fiction. The Gospels are our only possible source of information, and unfortunately they were written to convert and convince, rather than to be works of history. The portions of the Gospels which have the advantage of being plausible MAY actually have some relationship to what actually occurred. We can't really know for certain. It is those portions which are implausible to the point of nonsense that we have every right to reject and exclude. What is left MAY have some relationship to actual events and actual people.

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat]

The late great Joey K was the author of his own demise, I am afraid.

Yes, but that doesn't mean I can't give him an acknowledgement for the great things he did do.

[JohnA]

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.

You are avoiding my questions. Can you please address these:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 501#602501

[Project I.D.]

I just thought this was interesting, any time I hear someone talking about the bible and Jesus and the stories told about him as proof of God's existence, I am reminded that many Christians do not know or understand that the story of Jesus is taken from earlier stories in mythology and other religions. They just ignore the truth that the Jesus story was borrowed.

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men. He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old. Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist." He had 12 disciples. He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead. He walked on water. Horus was transfigured on the Mount. He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected. He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc. He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish. Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.

How about this one that precedes Christianity by 600 years:

Mithra was born on December 25th. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master. He had 12 companions or disciples. He performed miracles. He was buried in a tomb. After three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year. Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd." He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah." He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ. Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

Sound familiar?

How about Krishna, which also precedes Christianity:

Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") His father was a carpenter. His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh. He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants. He was of royal descent. He was baptized in the River Ganges. He worked miracles and wonders. He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind. Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love. "He lived poor and he loved the poor." He was transfigured in front of his disciples. In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves. He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word." He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father." He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence." Krishna is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth.

If this isn't enough to prove that the writers of the N.T. were just taking from other stories, then there will never be enough evidence to convince them.

[no evidence no belief]

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, I don't think you do get it. To save me the time of having to respond to you on this silly argument of yours I was hoping you’d realize on your own the painfully obvious blunder in your reasoning here. But since you insist on chasing me around with it I guess I have to take the time.

Firstly, you’re assuming Zack’s return to life wasn’t a miracle. I see no reason to draw that conclusion just yet.

You are right! Maybe Zack Dunlap is also the Messiah! He is the second coming of Christ.

The Bible passage ""I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." should be amended to ""I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me or through Zack Dunlap".

You should go find Zack, and wash his feet with your tears and dry them off with your hair.

Secondly, and more importantly, you are fallaciously assuming in your argument that the resurrection of Zack and resurrection of Jesus are perfectly analogous. They aren’t for a variety of reasons most of which should be self evident. Zack’s return to life doesn’t demonstrate Jesus’ return to life was by natural causes anymore than Zack’s resurrection establishes Jesus’. Zack was introduced to create a baseline of plausibility for a return to life after being brain dead thus moving us off the proposition that brain dead people always stay dead. He wasn't introduced to establish Jesus' resurrection. Capiche?

I get it.

You are saying that we don't know if Zack's medical event was natural or supernatural, and we don't know if Jesus's medical event was natural or supernatural, therefore Jesus's event was supernatural.

Your evidence for the supernatural is the fact that Jesus's story could be real or could be totally fabricated, and if it's real it could be natural or supernatural.


Don't agree with my characterization of your position? Then answer these two simple questions:

Is it possible that the story of Jesus's resurrection is fabricated just like the dozens of other resurrection stories preceding and following it?

Is it possible that the story of Jesus's resurrection, if real, is a natural event and not a supernatural one?