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]

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.

Are you a physician? What overwhelming medical research are you referring to? The medical community doesn’t really know what causes the Lazarus Syndrome. Sure they have some theories, but they really don’t know.

As I predicted you’ve argued in a circle – the doctors must have misdiagnosed death in all the cases. Your argument assumes the premise you intend to prove is true – dead people always stay dead. You haven’t actually shown the doctors were mistaken you’ve merely assumed they were based on a circular argument. The bottom line is that the Lazarus Syndrome establishes a baseline of plausibility for a resurrection whereas flying reindeer do not have that thus making your comparison between the two utterly fallacious

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.

All very interesting but exactly how does any of this address my argument from authority for why the resurrection and flying reindeer are prima facie not on the same footing in terms of plausibility? Also, where on earth have I argued “all that is required to make events true is that enough people believe in them.� I haven’t, so please save the straw for the cows.

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

Which doesn’t undermine the argument in the slightest since we do have historians who hold to a literal resurrection. Granted they are theists but this doesn’t change the argument.

Are we done with the fallacious comparison of Jesus’ resurrection to flying reindeer yet?

-----

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!

Again this is merely a regurgitation of your argument from silence regarding lack of abundant early mentions of a spectacular event allegedly witnessed by many. I’ve already shown this argument for diminishing the strength of the evidence fails as the assassination evidence does not pass the criterion either yet the evidence for the assassination is considered strong. The assassination was one of the most infamous events in ancient history involving one of the most infamous characters. It changed the course of ancient history and allegedly occurred in the view of as many as 900 people. Yet, what do we hear for the first several decades? Almost nothing.

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!

It’s almost funny that you complain there are only five generally accepted sources for the resurrection. Let’s compare that to the assassination shall we? What do we have written in the same time frame as the Gospels? Nicolas and perhaps a few mentions from Cicero.

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?

Cicero was not an eyewitness to the assassination neither was Nicolas. So again your objection doesn’t hold water.

You assert the Gospels were anonymous but offer no methodology for why that is the case. I presume your argument for anonymity is because they fail to self identify? If we run Nicolas’ Life of Augustus for the assassination through that criterion it would be just as anonymous since is does not self identify either. So again, your objection doesn’t hold water if it is meant to make the evidence for the resurrection seem weak.

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?

So your argument Caesar was assassinated is the information at hand indicates that’s what happened. Interesting, since I could certainly say the same for the resurrection.

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?

It’s not an honest question in the first place since it falsely assumes Paul had his experience while he was not drinking or eating. However, the text is quite clear that Paul had his experience with the risen Jesus before – BEFORE - he had arrived at Damascus where he did not eat or drink for three days. By all indications Paul was in perfect health at the moment he had his experience on the road to Damascus.

� As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?� And he said, “Who are You, Lord?� And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.� The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.� – Acts 9:3-9

How you can’t see your argument is based on an utterly horrible reading of the text is beyond me.

(Okay, I’m going to break this next part of your post off into a separate post to shorten the length of this one and also because the next bit directly addresses my argument.)

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 1 by no evidence no belief]

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

With pleasure.

These are two of over 390 unique incidents and events referenced in Supernatural events which proves God’s power over created matter.

Some examples:

Snake Talks -- Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

Donkey Talks - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Global Flood Kills All But Eight People – - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Total Darkness for Three Days - - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Devastating Plagues Strike Egypt – Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

Mass Migration and the Red Sea Suddenly Parts for Crossing - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Strange Food (Manna) Provides Daily Bread - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

Commandments Etched on Stone Tablets - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

Moses Talks With God on Mount Sinai - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Jericho City Walls Collapse at Loud Sound - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

Joseph Interprets Dreams of Prisoners - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Man Vanishes and Reappears 12 Miles Away - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


The Face of Moses Shined - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Jesus Ascends Into Heaven - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Enoch Never Dies - - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Tabitha, Get Up! - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.



Dead Man Brought Back to Life - - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Virgin birth - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Resurrection - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

Need I say more??

NOW, can you give natural explanations for these events?

Easy. Didn't happen. These events simply did not happen and even many if not most Christian scholars of the Bible agree that many of these events simply did not happen. Many of these events were taken wholesale from earlier traditions and myths and simply plugged into Genesis. The same is true of other books. Lets take Job. Do you really believe God and Satan literally strolled together and God allowed Satan to bait him into allowing the torture of a good man?

I don't think that Doulos is even willing to explore that explanation. Occams Razor easily dismantles all of these stories. He is first assuming the stories to be true. Then instead of exploring any natural explanations, he immediately applies a supernatural explanation.

[Goose]

(see above for the first half)

For the sake of clarity let me restate what it is I’m arguing. I’m arguing the Christian’s belief in the resurrection of Jesus is justified because the historical evidence is strong. Now, instead of merely asserting the historical evidence is strong I’m using another event from the era which is evidentially strongly supported and extraordinary in its own right as a control – i.e. the assassination of Caesar. If the historical evidence for the resurrection is at least as strong as the evidence for the assassination then I’ve justified my position that the evidence for the resurrection is strong.

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.

Right. Paul claims to have met the risen Christ thus he represents an eyewitness. Even if we do not grant Paul’s encounter with Jesus was the same type as the disciples, at the very least, Paul was a former enemy and contemporary source who met witnesses.

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

�Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…� – 1Peter 1:3-4

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death…� – Peter, as recorded by Luke in Acts 2:22-24

�The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.� – Peter, as recorded by Luke in Acts 3:13-15.

Since on numerous occasions you’ve assumed the reliability of Acts to make your arguments I don’t see how you can now assume Acts is unreliable in recording Peter’s testimony and still be seen as remaining intellectually honest.

You’ll no doubt dispute Peter’s authorship of 1 Peter. But Peter internally identifies the author as Peter and the external evidence is again as strong as the evidence for other works. I’ll refer you to my next argument on point (3) for a fleshing out of this argument.

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.

Not exactly true. We can establish a link.

�Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.� – Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1, c. 180AD.

Irenaeus tells us he met Polycarp who knew the disciples including John. So we have an unbroken line coming down to us from around 100 years after the last Gospel was probably written.

Let’s use the Gallic Wars as a control as no one questions that Caesar authored it and the assassination regrettably suffers from no eyewitness accounts anyway. Let’s compare the evidence. The earliest clear attribution of Caesar having written the Gallic Wars is from Suetonius.

�[Caesar] left memoirs too of his deeds in the Gallic war and in the civil strife with Pompey; for the author of the Alexandrian, African, and Spanish Wars is unknown; some think it was Oppius, others Hirtius, who also supplied the final book of the Gallic War, which Caesar left unwritten.� – Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar, 56, c. 120AD.

With Suetonius we can’t establish a direct line in the same way we can with John’s Gospel. The authorship of some of it is disputed according to Suetonius and it comes to down to us around 165 years after. If you’ll argue the external evidence is not strong enough to establish John’s authorship then certainly the evidence to establish Caesar’s authorship of the Gallic Wars is not strong enough either. Thus rendering it hopelessly anonymous. But no one argues the Gallic Wars is anonymous therefore your methodology must be flawed or you are holding the evidence for the resurrection to an unfair higher standard.

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.

Same argument as above regarding John.

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.

Don’t forget Luke tells also us he received his information from witnesses. It’s also very likely Luke was one of those 120 followers you’ve been harping on.

�Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.� – Luke 1:1-4

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.

Check.

7. Clement’s first letter:

<snipped argument by cut and paste from wiki>

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.

Clement represents a source written within the lifetime of possible witnesses (c. 96AD) – though I acknowledge at the edge of the possible eyewitness lifetime envelope - and it confirms the resurrection. If Clement carries no weight for the reasons you’ve given then likewise neither does Nicolas carry any weight for the assassination since Life of Augustus is just as anonymous and was written just as late as 1 Clement.

In the end I can’t see anything you’ve presented sufficiently undermines the evidence for the resurrection without also equally undermining the evidence for the assassination. We see through this comparison the historical evidence for the resurrection is strong. Thus the Christian's belief is justified.

[Goose]

I've pointed out numerous sources confirming Caesar's assassination,

Are you referring to this post where you did a cut and paste job from jesusneverexisted.com listing contemporaries to Caesar? Where exactly did all these people confirm the assassination? Please quote them from the primary source.

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.

I didn't ignore you. I responded to you in this post. Remember it was me that showed you where to find the reference to the autopsy? Which wasn't an autopsy per se but was Suetonius telling us around 165 years after the event the opinion of the physician. If evidence coming down to us from 165 years after is credible that opens up a flood gate of data for the resurrection.

[Danmark]

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.

Are you a physician? What overwhelming medical research are you referring to? The medical community doesn’t really know what causes the Lazarus Syndrome. Sure they have some theories, but they really don’t know.

As I predicted you’ve argued in a circle – the doctors must have misdiagnosed death in all the cases. Your argument assumes the premise you intend to prove is true – dead people always stay dead. You haven’t actually shown the doctors were mistaken you’ve merely assumed they were based on a circular argument. The bottom line is that the Lazarus Syndrome establishes a baseline of plausibility for a resurrection ....

No, it does not. Autoresuscitation [sometimes called the 'lazarus phenomenon] has no comparison with a body that has been dead and buried for 3 days. In the dozen or so cases I have looked at, the longest time from the cessation of efforts to resuscitate and autoresuscitation has been 45 minutes. One need not be a physician to know that the definition for 'death' has long been in flux. Perhaps a century ago death was pronounced when the heart stopped beating. But physicians and scientists have long known that the ability to declare 'death' is in part determined by our ability to observe.

Brain electrical activity can stop completely, or drop to such a low level as to be undetectable with most equipment. An EEG will therefore be flat, though this is sometimes also observed during deep anesthesia or cardiac arrest.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RYe4GB ... ia&f=false

The idea that 'death' is some absolute and definitive moment that can easily be defined is an example of not drinking deeply enough at the Pierian spring.

This issue the determination of death is not just an academic one, particularly in this day and age where the harvesting of human organs presents an ethical and practical challenge.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by no evidence no belief]

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

With pleasure.

These are two of over 390 unique incidents and events referenced in Supernatural events which proves God’s power over created matter.

Some examples:

Snake Talks -- Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.

Donkey Talks - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.

Global Flood Kills All But Eight People – - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Total Darkness for Three Days - - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.

Devastating Plagues Strike Egypt – Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.

Mass Migration and the Red Sea Suddenly Parts for Crossing - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.

Strange Food (Manna) Provides Daily Bread - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

It, actually is a natural phenomena. Desert dwellers would not about. Those city folk from Egypt would not.

Commandments Etched on Stone Tablets - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.

Moses Talks With God on Mount Sinai - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.

Jericho City Walls Collapse at Loud Sound - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.
For that matter, archeologists have shown , while Jericho has been a walled city, and a non-walled city for a number of times, in the time period for the exodus, it wasn't walled. So, it has been dis proven archeologically[/quote]

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.

.

Joseph Interprets Dreams of Prisoners - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Man Vanishes and Reappears 12 Miles Away - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


The Face of Moses Shined - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.

Jesus Ascends Into Heaven - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Enoch Never Dies - - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Tabitha, Get Up! - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.



Dead Man Brought Back to Life - - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Virgin birth - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Resurrection - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.

Need I say more??

NOW, can you give natural explanations for these events?

It's a story told to teach people, it's only a story. It is fictional. IT didn't happen.

[Jax Agnesson]

(see above for the first half)

For the sake of clarity let me restate what it is I’m arguing. I’m arguing the Christian’s belief in the resurrection of Jesus is justified because the historical evidence is strong. Now, instead of merely asserting the historical evidence is strong I’m using another event from the era which is evidentially strongly supported and extraordinary in its own right as a control – i.e. the assassination of Caesar. If the historical evidence for the resurrection is at least as strong as the evidence for the assassination then I’ve justified my position that the evidence for the resurrection is strong.
. . . .
. . . .
In the end I can’t see anything you’ve presented sufficiently undermines the evidence for the resurrection without also equally undermining the evidence for the assassination. We see through this comparison the historical evidence for the resurrection is strong. Thus the Christian's belief is justified.

And this is the cleft stick into which you have allowed yourself to be pinned. Just like CS Lewis before you,
In order to establish that the evidence for the Resurrection is historically at least as credible as that for the assassination of Caesar, you have had to argue that the two events are of roughly comparable degrees of 'extraordinariness'. But this argument, if sound, completely removes the justification for supposing that one of the two events could not have happened without the direct intervention of God.
Moving on to Matthew's account:
Matthew is unique in describing eye-witnesses other than the (possibly biased) women disciples. But it's a story full of holes!
First we have the chief priest going to the house of Pilate on the day after the crucifixion, to ask for some guards to be placed on the tomb, because he thinks the disciples might steal the body.
Why? What evidence is there that Jesus. or any of his disciples, had predicted a physical resurrection?
Whatever reason we may speculate about the chief priest's trip to Pilate's house, it would have to have been extremely seriou, and presumably secret. Are we really suposed to believe that a temple priest would break the Sabbath, to visit the house of a pagan, if he just wanted to borrow a couple of guards, or wanted permission to post a couple of temple guards at the tomb? Why would he not simply send a message to Pilate?
Whatever. The next day, the guards come running to the temple, describing this angel coming down from the sky, and themselves being struck 'as dead men' for some (unspecified) length of time, and the stone being rolled back, and the body of Jesus being gone.
And how does the chief priest of the temple react to this appearance of incoherently babbling soldiery? Well, you might expect he'd be very cross with these stupid or lazy or dishonest soldiers, and put them under some sort of disciplne, and start a search for the stolen body as soon as possible.
Does he react like that? No.
He bribes the guards to say the disciples came and stole the body.
But that means he, the temple's chief priest, actually believed the soldiers' account! He actually concluded that Jesus really had risen from the dead!
Now this is a man who has spent his entire life in the service of the God of Israel. this Jesus of Nazareth, claiming to be a prophet of the God of Israel, has been executed by the occupying Romans, and has now miraculously risen from the dead.
And the chief priest of God simply bribes the soldiers to claim they fell asleep and let the disciples run off with the corpse.
Which the soldiers, supposedly, do. They go about the streets of Jrerusalem, telling everybody what crap soldiers they are, rather than testifying to having witnessed the most astonishing event in world history.
The centurion at the foot of the cross declared Jesus to be God, just on the basis of seeing him die. These guys supposedly saw Him actually getting resurrected, and went about lying, in a manner that makes them look like total prats, in exchange for a few shekels.
Not a very believable story. And anyway, if it was true, how would 'Matthew' have got to hear about it? From the chief priest? Not likely. From the soldiers, if perhaps they later converted? But if that happened, then why not present this golden eye-witness account from the very earliest converts? And why did not Luke or John present these sterling witnesses? Not even a mention?
Further, if there was any truth in Matthew's account of the 'saints' climbing out of their graves and walking the streets of Jerusalem, wouldn't that utterly astonishing event have prompted the chief priest to reconsider his position very carefully?
This prophet Jesus has reisen from the dead; the dead are walking in the streets; and he, (the chief priest) is using doling out a few shekels to try to cover up the greatest miracle his god has ever performed!
Believable? Not really.
So we have Mark, the first gospeller, who didn't even bother to mention the risen Christ or his post-resurection ministry.
Matthew, the second gospeller, telling a tale so full of holes you could strain spaghetti with it. Or strain credulity, anyway.
Luke, the third gospeller, seems to have copied his account of Jesus from the same source Matthew used, but had the brains to miss out the sillier bits.
And then John, who was a visionary poet of extraordinary power; but (perhaps for that very reason) is not to be taken as a reliable chronicler of quotidian objectivity.
So. There's your resurrection sources. Now where is the evidence that this episode was ever anything more than a rumour flying round Jerusalem at a time of turmoil and destruction (the decades post-Jesus).
One final point; it's a while since I read the NT with any close attention (about 40 years, give or take) but I can't recall anything Jesus is supposed to have said after his death and resurrection that was particularly marvellous.
You'd think, even if the knowledge and understanding of the living man Jesus was limited by his humanity, you'd think, (wouldn't you?) that the Resurrected Son of God would be in a position to tell his disciples a few revelatory things, rather than some veiled (or at least highly inaccurate) stuff about things that he thought would 'come to pass' before 'this generation' passed away.

[Goose]

And this is the cleft stick into which you have allowed yourself to be pinned. Just like CS Lewis before you,
In order to establish that the evidence for the Resurrection is historically at least as credible as that for the assassination of Caesar, you have had to argue that the two events are of roughly comparable degrees of 'extraordinariness'. But this argument, if sound, completely removes the justification for supposing that one of the two events could not have happened without the direct intervention of God.

You're knocking down a strawman. I’m not arguing “the two events are of roughly comparable degrees of 'extraordinariness'.� I’m arguing the two events are roughly comparable in terms of the strength of the historical evidence. In fact, the evidence for the resurrection might just be even stronger.

So we have Mark, the first gospeller, who didn't even bother to mention the risen Christ or his post-resurection ministry.

Patently false. Here is how the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of Mark end:

�Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’� They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.� – Mark 16:5-8

The risen Christ is most certainly declared and we are given the Reader’ Digest version that appearances will occur as promised.

Matthew, the second gospeller, telling a tale so full of holes you could strain spaghetti with it. Or strain credulity, anyway.
Luke, the third gospeller, seems to have copied his account of Jesus from the same source Matthew used, but had the brains to miss out the sillier bits.

If the argument runs the synoptic Gospels are dependent traditions where there is strong evidence of copying then it follows they are independent traditions at the points in the overall narrative where they differ enough that we might say they even conflict with one another. It’s generally argued by folks like you the resurrection accounts conflict is it not? Sorry, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.

And then John, who was a visionary poet of extraordinary power; but (perhaps for that very reason) is not to be taken as a reliable chronicler of quotidian objectivity.

John is unreliable because you think he's poetic? That’s such a lame objection it isn’t worth a response.

[Danmark]

Here is how the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of Mark end:

�Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’� They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.� – Mark 16:5-8

Indeed. It's a rather abrupt ending, wouldn't you agree? I like Mark. He not only is credited with the earliest of the gospels, but has fewer theological or editorial additions to his narrative.

He neither attempts to make the young man an angel, nor Jesus Himself.

Yet the account ends there. There are no later encounters with Jesus, no ascension. Just the simple fact that Jesus was no longer in the tomb, and the report that He had risen. Perhaps this is why later church authorities added their own ending.

Tell me, isn't this ending exactly what we would expect to hear if this report is part of a fraud, a giant confidence scheme to fake the resurrection of a dead body?

Con artists come and go, but the con job endures and the religious shaman has been with us from the beginning of history, manipulating the credulous.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goose]

Are you a physician? What overwhelming medical research are you referring to? The medical community doesn’t really know what causes the Lazarus Syndrome. Sure they have some theories, but they really don’t know.

As I predicted you’ve argued in a circle – the doctors must have misdiagnosed death in all the cases. Your argument assumes the premise you intend to prove is true – dead people always stay dead. You haven’t actually shown the doctors were mistaken you’ve merely assumed they were based on a circular argument. The bottom line is that the Lazarus Syndrome establishes a baseline of plausibility for a resurrection whereas flying reindeer do not have that thus making your comparison between the two utterly fallacious.

Medical science certainly knows what happens to a brain that his been deprived of oxygen for an extended period. Brain cells do not regenerate, and that is simple and well known medical FACT. There is no medical mystery involved there. But apparently your point is that God occasionally, and quite at random, chooses to resurrect individuals from the dead, if only briefly. And the object of this little exercise is what, keeping in practice? Actually I seemed to have established my connection between flying reindeer and a flying reanimated corpse somewhat better then I had any real reason to expect. Believing in either, or both, of these things clearly does require a special childlike quality not all of us possess.

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.

All very interesting but exactly how does any of this address my argument from authority for why the resurrection and flying reindeer are prima facie not on the same footing in terms of plausibility? Also, where on earth have I argued “all that is required to make events true is that enough people believe in them.� I haven’t, so please save the straw for the cows.

Well then, let's have a gander at what you actually did say. From post #1347 (page 135) of this string:

Goose wrote:
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.

Apparently all that is required to achieve plausibility is a large enough fan club. Whatever the number of fans it takes to reach that magic threshold of plausibility, let's all hope that it is never reaches the magic number which would allow those H.R. Giger aliens, or the alien predators, to become plausible. That would make attempting to sleep at night most uncomfortable, and as an adult I have always been so well protected by my firm belief that implausible things are not real. I would hate to become fodder for the implausible childlike fantasies of others.

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

Which doesn’t undermine the argument in the slightest since we do have historians who hold to a literal resurrection. Granted they are theists but this doesn’t change the argument.

Are we done with the fallacious comparison of Jesus’ resurrection to flying reindeer yet?

What we have established is that people generally believe in their religious beliefs, and are fully prepared to testify to the truth of them. Like the story of the flying steed Al-Buraq. Does the fact that large numbers of people fully and completely believe in otherwise implausible things or events, really serve to make them plausible in the light of objective reason and logic? In your opinion? Or do you all notice the way that obvious make believe has a marked habit of becoming established truth and reality as it increases in popular acceptance?

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!

Again this is merely a regurgitation of your argument from silence regarding lack of abundant early mentions of a spectacular event allegedly witnessed by many. I’ve already shown this argument for diminishing the strength of the evidence fails as the assassination evidence does not pass the criterion either yet the evidence for the assassination is considered strong. The assassination was one of the most infamous events in ancient history involving one of the most infamous characters. It changed the course of ancient history and allegedly occurred in the view of as many as 900 people. Yet, what do we hear for the first several decades? Almost nothing.

You first argued that the flying reanimated corpse story was too well attested to for it to be pure fiction. Now you are arguing that it really isn't necessary for it to be all THAT well attested to for it to be true, at all. Well here is another "well attested" story from ancient times. Hesiod, Homer, Theocritus, Euripides and Virgil all wrote of a race of one-eyed giants known as the Cyclops who lived in a far off and remote land. The existence of this race of giants was widely considered to be an established fact in ancient times. In modern times however many of us have come to recognize the difference between fact and fiction, genuine history and mythology, reality and make believe. Many of us. There is no real reason to question the accuracy of the story of the assassination of Julius Caesar and much to support it. Do you genuinely see no reason to question the accuracy of the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus? Answer the question!

It’s almost funny that you complain there are only five generally accepted sources for the resurrection. Let’s compare that to the assassination shall we? What do we have written in the same time frame as the Gospels? Nicolas and perhaps a few mentions from Cicero.

Five attestations to the existence of one-eyed giants as well, Hesiod, Homer, Theocritus, Euripides and Virgil. Where exactly does that put this in terms of historical fact and accuracy?

Cicero was not an eyewitness to the assassination neither was Nicolas. So again your objection doesn’t hold water.

And yet again your argument that actual eyewitness evidence really should not be regarded as necessary when seeking to establish the truth of a particular claim.

You assert the Gospels were anonymous but offer no methodology for why that is the case. I presume your argument for anonymity is because they fail to self identify? If we run Nicolas’ Life of Augustus for the assassination through that criterion it would be just as anonymous since is does not self identify either. So again, your objection doesn’t hold water if it is meant to make the evidence for the resurrection seem weak.

Could the "Life of Agustus" have been written by someone other then to whom it has been generally attested? Most certainly! "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" (Commentaries on the Gallic War) is Julius Caesar's account of the Gallic wars. The final book, of eight, on the campaign was well known to have been written by one of Caesar's generals, Aulus Hirtius however, and it is suspected by some modern historians that much of the first seven books were actually written by Hirtius as well, perhaps based on Caesar's personal notes. "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" is an amazingly glowing and an indulgent and self congratulatory tribute to Caesar's own brilliance as a general, and a perfect testimony to the fact that history is written by the victors. Aulus Hirtius is also widely suspected to have been the actual author of "De Bello Alexandrino" which history also credited to Caesar.

So your argument Caesar was assassinated is the information at hand indicates that’s what happened. Interesting, since I could certainly say the same for the resurrection.

My argument is that based on the information at hand concerning the assassination of, and the information at hand concerning the direct consequences of the assassination of Julius Caesar. There is no real reason to doubt the information as it stands. No appeals to supernatural make believe is anywhere required.

It’s not an honest question in the first place since it falsely assumes Paul had his experience while he was not drinking or eating. However, the text is quite clear that Paul had his experience with the risen Jesus before – BEFORE - he had arrived at Damascus where he did not eat or drink for three days. By all indications Paul was in perfect health at the moment he had his experience on the road to Damascus.

The information is based upon Paul's recounting of the events as it was understood by the author of Acts, who was not personally present. According to the account in Acts 9:

[3] And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
[4] And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
[5] And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
[6] And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
[7] And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

This is Paul's recounting of the events. But remember, Paul was the afflicted man, by his own account, blinded and disoriented at the time. Both are symptoms of dehydration and heat stroke. Afflictions not unnatural when traveling in a dry arid clime. We can never know what those who were journeying with Paul actually saw or experienced however, since they left no such record. We are left with the understanding that Paul collapsed during his journey to Damascus and had to be brought into the city by his fellow travelers. There is nothing unrealistic about that.

For the sake of clarity let me restate what it is I’m arguing. I’m arguing the Christian’s belief in the resurrection of Jesus is justified because the historical evidence is strong. Now, instead of merely asserting the historical evidence is strong I’m using another event from the era which is evidentially strongly supported and extraordinary in its own right as a control – i.e. the assassination of Caesar. If the historical evidence for the resurrection is at least as strong as the evidence for the assassination then I’ve justified my position that the evidence for the resurrection is strong.

The historical evidence is that nothing especially unusual occurred in Jerusalem circa 30 AD based on the undeniable fact that there is no record at the time of anything of particular interest happening. Certainly nothing so spectacular as various and sundry dead people coming back to life, leaving their graves, and wandering about. It is reasonable to suspect that certain stories might have been in circulation, based on what begins to be recorded a quarter of a century later. The nature of the claims overwhelmingly mitigate against the realistic possibility of them being historically accurate however. This is clearly supported by the fact that the very people who were in the best place to have known what actually happened at the time overwhelmingly and resolutely denied that any such thing occurred.

Goose wrote:
1. The letter’s and testimony of Paul who met eyewitnesses:

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Paul claimed to have met with and known individuals who claimed to have been witness 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.

Right. Paul claims to have met the risen Christ thus he represents an eyewitness. Even if we do not grant Paul’s encounter with Jesus was the same type as the disciples, at the very least, Paul was a former enemy and contemporary source who met witnesses.

Paul had been a very virulent opponent of Christianity, which he considered to be a heresy, prior to his experience in Damacus. But during a period of profound illness, and while he was being tended to and prayed over by a Christian man, Paul believed that he was visited by Jesus. Paul believed that he had a conversation with a dead man. And so after his recovery Paul became a confirmed Christian. It's not especially surprising, really.

Goose wrote:
2. The testimony of Peter who was an eyewitness:

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Provide this testimony.

�Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…� – 1Peter 1:3-4

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death…� – Peter, as recorded by Luke in Acts 2:22-24

�The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.� – Peter, as recorded by Luke in Acts 3:13-15.

Since on numerous occasions you’ve assumed the reliability of Acts to make your arguments I don’t see how you can now assume Acts is unreliable in recording Peter’s testimony and still be seen as remaining intellectually honest.

You’ll no doubt dispute Peter’s authorship of 1 Peter. But Peter internally identifies the author as Peter and the external evidence is again as strong as the evidence for other works. I’ll refer you to my next argument on point (3) for a fleshing out of this argument.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Peter

Peter was a poor rough JEWISH fisherman, remember? Such men are not typically literate, and especially not proficiently multi-lingually literate. It was common of the era however for individuals entirely unconnected to the person to write "pseudonymous" accounts in the name of that other person. And it was considered perfectly valid at the time that a person would write such material while "in the spirit" of the other person. Virtually all of the apocrypha was written pseudonymously. 1Peter happens to be a pseudonymous work that was chosen by the Catholic church to be included in the 27 books of the canon. The other examples you pointed out were written by the author of Gospel Luke, not Peter.

pseu·don·y·mous [soo-don-uh-muhs] adjective:
1.bearing a false or fictitious name.
2.writing or written under a fictitious name.

"Having been nurtured by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisive in the matter of demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to inspiration through the guidance of the spirit. Indeed, until c.AD 150, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously--i.e.. using the name of some acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not considered to be either a trick or a fraud. Apart from letters in which the person of the writer was clearly attested--as in those of Paul, which have distinctive historical, theological and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul--the other writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed, and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the instrument was considered to be irrelevant, because the true author was believed to be the Spirit. By the mid second century however, with the delay of the final coming (the Parousia) of the Messiah as the victorious eschatological (end time) judge and with a resulting increased awareness of history, increasingly a distinction was made between the apostolic time and the present. There also was also a gradual cessation of `authentically pseudonymous' writings in which the author could identify with Christ and the Apostles and thereby gain ecclesiastical recognition." (The Encyclopedia Britannica; "Biblical Literature" p813).

Goose wrote:
3. An eyewitness account in John:

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
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.

Not exactly true. We can establish a link.

�Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.� – Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1, c. 180AD.

As you pointed out, Matthew was reported to have been written especially for the Hebrews "in their own dialect" That would be Aramaic. Both Polycarp and Papias also reported that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in "the language of the Hebrews," and that it was written during the time when Peter and Paul were supposed to be founding the Christian church in Rome, circa 60-64. Which is why Gospel Matthew is traditionally placed as the first Gospel in the NT, with Gospel Mark supposed to have been written second. The canonical "Gospel of Matthew" however, is written in pure Koine Greek, and shows absolutely NO SIGNS of being a translation from any other language. Gospel Matthew is in fact almost entirely "The Gospel Of Mark," with additional information woven In. This is a particularly fine trick if Gospel Matthew was written prior to Gospel Mark as supposed. Gospel Mark is also written in pure Koine Greek, as are Luke and John. So who wrote the Koine Greek gospel contained an all modern New Testaments? NO ONE KNOWS! It has been suggested that the work written by the apostle Matthew is actually the work known to history as "The Gospel of the Hebrews," which was written in Aramaic. Only fragments of this gospel remain today.

Irenaeus tells us he met Polycarp who knew the disciples including John. So we have an unbroken line coming down to us from around 100 years after the last Gospel was probably written.

True. Polycarp claimed to have been converted by the original apostles, and Pollycarp was a close personal friend of Papias. So Papias should have had reasonably knowledge of just who was, and was not, the apostle John.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Authorship (of the Gospel of John)

The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD. According to Victorinus and Irenaeus,[20] the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Jewish Christian groups which they deemed heretical. This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john

Papias indicates that there was a second John, one whom he refers to as John the presbyter (elder). It is to this individual that many of the writings attributed to "John" may be accredited. Because you see, while "The Gospel of John" might have been written anonymously, other works accredited to John were not.

2John.1
[1] The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

3John.1
[1] The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

Writings of Papias; I:

I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

Don’t forget Luke tells also us he received his information from witnesses. It’s also very likely Luke was one of those 120 followers you’ve been harping on.

At a time when the average life expectancy wasn't much over 40, it's not even "very highly likely" that Luke had been born yet when Jesus was executed. I do not deny that there were individuals spreading the story of the risen Jesus. It's what, if anything, that they were actually witness to that is in question, given the nature of what they were claiming.

Clement represents a source written within the lifetime of possible witnesses (c. 96AD) – though I acknowledge at the edge of the possible eyewitness lifetime envelope - and it confirms the resurrection. If Clement carries no weight for the reasons you’ve given then likewise neither does Nicolas carry any weight for the assassination since Life of Augustus is just as anonymous and was written just as late as 1 Clement.

This particular "source" wasn't even considered worthy of being included into the canon of the NT by the early Catholic church. There clearly was material being written about Jesus by the end of the first century and on into the second century. Most of it so transparently fallacious that even committed Christians won't have anything to do with it.

In the end I can’t see anything you’ve presented sufficiently undermines the evidence for the resurrection without also equally undermining the evidence for the assassination. We see through this comparison the historical evidence for the resurrection is strong. Thus the Christian's belief is justified.

In the end it is the VERY NATURE OF THE CLAIM, that of a corpse that came back to life and flew away, which more then sufficiently undermines it. The fact that it went entirely unreported at the time it was supposed to have occurred completely and sufficiently undermines it. Because outrageous claims really do require an outrageous amount of overwhelming evidence to justify believing them. Stories and rumors simply will not do. Given the absurd nature of the claim, such immediate supporting evidence is realistically required to even begin to justify giving such an obviously unrealistic claim any possible credibility. Given the absurd nature of the claim, the total silence at the time at the time it was supposed to have occurred is not merely damning, it is overwhelmingly conclusive. Such stories may have been convincing to ancient superstitious minds, but they are woefully transparent in the 21st century.