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 Goose]

Have you already forgotten why I introduced the Lazarus Syndrome? It wasn’t to argue it proves Jesus’ resurrection. I introduced it to counter your inept analogy that Jesus’ resurrection is on par with flying reindeer in terms of plausibility. The argument ran: at least we have a starting baseline of plausibility for a resurrection with the Lazarus Syndrome whereas we have no such baseline for flying reindeer. Thus your analogy is fallacious. That you’ve now joined the ranks of Danmark, nenb and others who have resorted to incessantly knocking down this same strawman over and over only serves to demonstrate you either can’t grasp the argument or you find it easier to attack strawmen rather than deal with my actual position and counter argument.

If it is your contention that the Lazarus Syndrome represents instances of individuals who were actually fully and truly dead, i.e. zero respiration, zero heartbeat and therefore zero circulation, for several hours in some cases, then yes, your belief in a flying reanimated corpse is on a par with flying reindeer. Because I notice that at least the reindeer were not required to come back to life first. And I also notice that you quietly fail to mention the part of YOUR story that states that the reanimated corpse of Jesus flew off up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. What kind of syndrome fits THAT description?

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Do you expect ancient writers to uniformly write in the idiom of modern historical textbooks?

Goose wrote:
No of course not. But the big pink elephant in the room you are attempting to unsuccessfully circumnavigate is the ancient Greeks were quite good at recognizing the genre of literature. Poetry was understood by the ancient Greeks to be creative storytelling, i.e. a form of fiction. Aristotle wrote a treatise on how to go about constructing a poem in his Poetics. He touched on plot development, character development, the proper metre to be used and so on. Homer’s Odyssey was also critiqued as a case study by Aristotle in Poetics. Here’s what Aristotle said about Homer’s Odyssey.

�Homer more than any other has taught the rest of us the art of framing lies in the right way.� – Aristotle, Poetics,24

What you are fallaciously attempting to do is line up a form of literature, i.e. Greek poetry, understood by those who wrote it and read it to be mythology alongside a form of ancient literature understood to be attempting to record actual history, i.e. ancient biography and letters, as though they carry the same weight as historical evidence.

Do you REALLY suppose that the Greeks didn't consider Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Athena, Hestia, Apollo, Artemis, Ares, Aphrodite, Hephaestus, and Hermes to be fully REAL, and the stories associated with them to be completely true! This was their RELIGION for Pete's sake! They built temples to these individuals and made sacrifices to them. The same may be said for Jupiter and the entire panoply of Roman gods and Roman religious beliefs. In fact the same may be said for EVERY religion and religious belief you can name. The belief may appear to be, or to have been, the rankest sort of obvious myth and nonsense to you and me, but it represents basic reality 101 to the committed believer. Take a hard look at yourself and try to understand what I am saying. It may well be true that Aristotle didn't personally buy into the mythology himself. Well educated, thoughtful and intelligent individuals HISTORICALLY tend to be the most ardent skeptics of implausible stories. But to the common man, stories of supernatural beings and tales of glorious supernatural occurrences are as true and obvious as the fact that the Earth is the center of the universe, or the fact that God would obviously have to use Himself as a blood sacrifice to fulfill his own requirement that a blood sacrifice was needed to atone for the sins of humankind which were a part of His "divine" plan from the very beginning. Which makes perfect sense to you, but might well have seemed absurdly convoluted to the likes of Aristotle.

At any rate, ancient peoples typically conveyed their religious beliefs/myths through oral story telling, poetry and plays. In a time before movies and TV, the theater was hugely popular. Now, notice this:

Mark 14:
[32] And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray.
[33] And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;
[34] And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.
[35] And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.
[36] And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
[37] And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?

Luke 22:
[39] And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.
[40] And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.
[41] And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
[42] Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
[43] And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
[44] And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
[45] And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow.

While in Gethsemane Jesus went off to be by himself and pray to God. And yet we are presented with the full verbatim text of what Jesus said to God while in private. Because you see, the Gospels were not written to be historical documents. We are provided here with Jesus giving a soliloquy! In this case, to an audience of readers. This is story telling, pure and simple.

For some reason you think this is a compelling argument which isn’t surprising in the slightest when we consider how compelling you think your Paul didn’t eat or drink for three days argument is. They’re both horrible arguments.

I am not "arguing" that Paul did not eat or drink for three days. Acts specifically SAYS that Paul did not eat or drink for three days.

Acts 9:9 "And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

Dehydration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Dehydration", is thus a term that has loosely been used to mean loss of water, regardless of whether it is as water and solutes (mainly sodium) or free water. Those who refer to hypotonic dehydration therefore refer to solute loss and thus loss of intravascular volume but in the presence of exaggerated intravascular volume depletion for a given amount of total body water gain. It is true that neurological complications can occur in hypotonic and hypertonic states. The former can lead to seizures, while the latter can lead to osmotic cerebral edema upon rapid rehydration."

"For severe cases of dehydration where fainting, unconsciousness, or other severely inhibiting symptom is present (the patient is incapable of standing or thinking clearly), emergency attention is required. Fluids containing a proper balance of replacement electrolytes are given orally or intravenously with continuing assessment of electrolyte status; complete resolution is the norm in all but the most extreme cases."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration

Symptoms
by Mayo Clinic Staff
Severe dehydration, a medical emergency, can cause:

Extreme thirst
Extreme fussiness or sleepiness in infants and children; irritability and confusion in adults
Very dry mouth, skin and mucous membranes
Lack of sweating
Little or no urination — any urine that is produced will be dark yellow or amber
Sunken eyes
Shriveled and dry skin that lacks elasticity and doesn't "bounce back" when pinched into a fold
In infants, sunken fontanels — the soft spots on the top of a baby's head
Low blood pressure
Rapid heartbeat
Rapid breathing
No tears when crying
Fever
In the most serious cases, delirium or unconsciousness
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dehydr ... N=symptoms

Causes
By Mayo Clinic staff
Dehydration occurs when there isn't enough water to replace what's lost throughout the day. Your system literally dries out. Sometimes dehydration occurs for simple reasons: You don't drink enough because you're sick or busy, or because you lack access to safe drinking water when you're traveling, hiking or camping.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dehydr ... ION=causes

Complications
By Mayo Clinic staff
Dehydration can lead to serious complications, including:

Heat injury. If you don't drink enough fluids when you're exercising vigorously and perspiring heavily, you may end up with a heat injury, ranging in severity from mild heat cramps to heat exhaustion to potentially life-threatening heatstroke.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dehydr ... plications

The description of Paul's experience while traveling to Damascus is a classic description of the effects of dehydration. You might not like that diagnosis, but it clearly states that Paul was unable to drink for three days. Which makes Paul's state of dehydration an undeniable fact. It's right there in your book of revealed truths, and you can't change it.

And I addressed your point in my next post here showing your reasoning regarding how we establish authorship to be faulty. Your next post in response to that deviated off of authorship onto the veracity of the text by asserting the Gallic Wars may be a possible fabrication to make Caesar look better. You don’t seem to be addressing my arguments and no longer seem to be presenting coherent arguments of your own but have instead taken to mostly complaining.

We can't even be certain that Caesar personally wrote "Commentaries on the Gallic War" much less verify the accuracy of them. I seem to have made that point pretty clearly already.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
You consider the story of Caesar being stabbed to death on the floor of the Roman Senate to be questionable but the story of the corpse of Jesus coming back to life and flying away to be not only perfectly plausible but unquestioningly true. A canard is an unfounded rumor; something not credible and just a bit silly. A canard is also a duck; a kind of a small goose.

"Goose wrote:
It seems you are still not grasping the argument. By the way, a canard is not a duck and a duck is not a goose. To quote your favorite authority “geese are not considered ducks.� - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck

For one who appears to be having difficulty distinguishing between the historical weight of ancient poetry and ancient biography it’s not at all surprising there is also the apparent difficulty in distinguishing between a duck and goose.

Canard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Canard is French for duck, an aquatic bird.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard

Duck
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Duck is the common name for a large number of species in the Anatidae family of birds, which also includes swans and geese. The ducks are divided among several subfamilies in the Anatidae family; they do not represent a monophyletic group (the group of all descendants of a single common ancestral species) but a form taxon, since swans and geese are not considered ducks. Ducks are mostly aquatic birds, mostly smaller than the swans and geese, and may be found in both fresh water and sea water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck

Ducks and geese are members of the same family. A duck is a kind of a small goose, which is exactly what I said.

As it happens I have an opportunity to experience geese firsthand on a daily basis. I do a daily (most days) 20 mile bike ride for exercise that takes me through a park containing several large ponds. A rather large flock of Canadian geese has been in residence in or near these ponds all summer. Le Canards are also present of course. The ducks rarely leave the safety of the ponds. The geese though, large majestic birds that they are, wander freely about in large groups, eating the green grass. Their short legs and turned in feet makes their gait quite amusing and entertaining to watch, not to mention the way it causes their asses to swing back and forth as they waddle about. They are quite dignified however and apparently secure in the assumption that their size and numbers serve to make them lords of all they survey. Which in the world of bird brained creatures is probably true. Unfortunately not all creatures are inclined to treat the geese with the respect that the geese seem to believe that they are inherently entitled to. When this occurs the geese beat their wings in furious dismay, honk in furor, and eventually fly back to the safety of their pond. Where they cool their heels and hurl goose insults at their antagonist. It's like... it's like... well I know this reminds me of something but I just can't think of what it is.

The argument is that the Christian’s belief in the resurrection is justified because the historical evidence is strong. The methodology I’ve offered to establish the strength of that evidence is to compare it to another event which is also strongly supported by historical evidence. Every objection you levy against the strength of the evidence for the resurrection (such as your inept arguments from silence) I apply to the evidence for the assassination as a control. If that objection makes the evidence for the assassination also seem weak, we are justified in concluding your methodology is flawed. Or you simply hold the resurrection to an unfair standard in how the strength of the evidence is evaluated since the evidence for the assassination is considered strong by historians. Thereby making your objection bogus.

On the other hand since we see the evidence for the resurrection is at least as strong as for the assassination we have an objective way to establish the strength of the evidence for the resurrection rather than simply asserting the evidence is strong. Is any of this sinking in yet? Hopefully.

You keep insisting that "belief in the resurrection is justified because the historical evidence is strong." And yet even you acknowledge that all you really have are stories and reports that originated decades after the supposed occurrence of what is after all the most unlikely of claims. Surely hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem should be expected to provoke SOME measure of notice at the time it was supposed to have occurred. And yet there is only silence. And even you must admit, events which never occurred are invariably under reported on, at the time. The fact that no one recorded anything at the time is completely consistent with the rationalization that nothing significant occurred. The fact that no one reported anything at the time IS NOT consistent with the assertion that the greatest event in all of human history occurred. Are you following the logic here?

Matthew 27:64
"lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead:"

This line explains everything perfectly well. It explains why the grave was empty, and it explains who was responsible for spreading the rumor of the risen Jesus. The rumor was largely ignored at the time, hence the lack of any report of any such occurrence, but by about a quarter of a century later, an entire generation by the way, the story was beginning to take hold. And to be recorded. But ancient superstitious claims do not serve to make a story of a flying reanimated corpse either probable or "justified." Anymore then the childlike belief in flying reindeer serves to prove that such creatures exist.

Tired of the Nonsense
Do you even notice what you have devolved to? Peter COULD have learned to read and write in perfect Koine Greek. Matthew the apostle COULD have written a gospel in both Aramaic and Koine Greek. And so upon such undeniable evidence stands your assertion that a corpse unquestionably came back to life and then flew away.

Goose wrote:
You’re complaint here is not addressing the arguments regarding the authorship of Peter.

Your argument is that Peter COULD have learned to read and write in fluent Greek. Therefore the apostle Peter COULD have written 1 Peter. The Gospel of Peter COULD have been written by the apostle as well. The Gospel of Peter explicitly claims to be the work of the Apostle Peter. The Gospel of Peter didn't happen to make the cut into the canon however, while 1 Peter did. Therefore 1 Peter was written by the apostle, because the Catholic church has declared it to be so.

And I addressed your point with the bottom line that we have unanimous testimony that Matthew authored a Gospel. Wwhen combined with the fact that not one single manuscript tradition assigns Matthew to anyone other than Matthew we have a very strong case for authorship, at least as strong as other works from ancient history. You didn’t address this argument with your complaints above.

Yes we have testimony that the apostle wrote a Gospel... IN ARAMAIC! This does not describe the Koine Greek gospel that is contained in the NT however. Is 2,000 years of Christian tradition inviolate, in your opinion?

Who wrote 1st, 2nd and 3rd John is irrelevant to my argument. By the way, “elder� was used in the same context as “apostle� (1 Peter 5:1). So I don't see this as the insurmountable problem you do.

Exactly who wrote 1st, 2nd and 3rd John IS relevant to my argument however. Are you stating categorically that 1John, 2John, 3John and the Gospel According to John were all written by the same author?

No, I’m not arguing there were two different Johns. But so what if there was anyways? We have the weight of virtually unanimous external attestation that John the disciple authored the Gospel which bears his name. That is as strong, if not stronger, than the evidence for the authorship of other secular works.

What "virtually unanimous external attestation that John the disciple authored the Gospel which bears his name." What direct evidence do you have which directly ties the Gospel to the apostle? Outside of 2,000 years worth of Christian tradition, that is?

Luke possibly being one of the 120 was a side point. The main point being that Luke was certainly in a position to have met witnesses even if we assume a later dating of Luke/Acts and an average life span. This point has not been refuted by you.

"Luke possibly being one of the 120" was something you simply made up, WASN'T IT? Do you suppose that you are the first person to make this sort of unfounded assumption concerning this material over the past 2,000 years? This is exactly the way that Christian traditions become established facts, at least among Christians. All you have to do now is convince enough other people that it is true for you to have a quorum concerning known and well established Christian fact and before you know it, the fact that Luke was one of the 120 will be undeniable part of history.

[Goose]

I know it's late in the day but let's re-examine your 'evidence'.

The letter’s and testimony of Paul who met eyewitnesses
According to Paul, flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, so Paul’s experience of the risen Jesus is as a vision of a spiritual body, and not an encounter with a re-animated corpse.

From Paul’s description, the post mortem appearances of Jesus to Cephas, the twelve, the 500, James and to all the apostles, were all qualitatively the same as Paul’s own encounter with the risen Jesus, that is Paul’s experience was in no way different or inferior, other than Paul’s encounter came last.

The problem with this argument is it’s built around two words from one verse taken out of context in 1 Corinthians 15:50 all the while ignoring the weight of other evidence for Paul’s belief in a physical resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:50 Paul is answering the question of what the resurrected body of the believer at the general resurrection will be like (1Cor 15:35, 42) and not necessarily what Jesus’ resurrected body was like. But even if we assume Paul was referring to Jesus as well there is evidence that �flesh and blood� was an idiom that referred to mankind, so to speak, and not literally to human flesh.

“And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.� - Matthew 16:17

�to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me� – Galatians 1:16-17

�For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.� – Ephesians 6:12

Further your interpretation is strained anyway as every example Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15 uses a material object. Or do you actually believe Paul thought seeds give rise to spirit plants when he used a planted seed as his primary analogy to describe the glory of the resurrected body (1Cor 15:35-38)?

Also, your interpretation fails to take into account the many other places where Paul is quite clear Jesus was resurrected bodily such as earlier in the very same chapter to name but one.

�But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.� – 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

It’s inconceivable that Paul being a former Pharisee, who held to the resurrection of the dead, would be speaking of anything other than a bodily resurrection here.

Thirdly, Paul’s letters are not our only source of data regarding Paul’s resurrection beliefs.

�When they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead; and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people.� – Paul, as recorded by Luke, Acts 13:29-31

We also have neutral testimony that Paul asserted Jesus was alive after being dead.

�…but [the Jews] simply had some points of disagreement with [Paul] about their own religion and about a dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive.� – Festus, as recorded by Luke,Acts 25:19

Consequently, if Paul’s experience was in the form of a vision, then, in Paul’s opinion, so was that of Cephas, James and the rest. Paul’s letters contain no eye-witness reports of encounters with a re-animated corpse.

What makes you think Paul’s experience with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus had to be a vision?

The testimony of Peter who was an eyewitness
1 Peter agrees with Paul; the physical is base, the spirit is incorruptible. So no physical re-animated corpses in 1 Peter but a spiritual resurrection:

1Pt 3:18 [literally] Christ was “…….on the one hand being put to death in the flesh, on the other being made alive in the Spirit�.

So no eye-witness encounters with a re-animated corpse in 1 Peter either.

Again, building a case around one difficult to interpret verse taken out of context. Peter’s testimony includes more than 1 Peter and was dealt with here.

Two down, seven to go.

Not so fast my friend. You’ve got a lot more work to do on the first two, I’m afraid.

[no evidence no belief]

Since it seems this debate is winding down allow to me give a brief recap of some of the evidence for the resurrection as presented by me.

• 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.
  8. Testimony of Polyarcp who met witnesses
  9. The testimony of Ignatius who met witnesses.

It’s been my contention this represents strong historical evidence which justifies the Christians’ belief in the resurrection of Jesus..

It depends. If we assume that the resurrection was a strictly natural event along the lines of a Lazarus syndrome event, that required absolutely no divine intervention, and that therefore Jesus is not the Son of God, then maybe this evidence could be sufficient.

If we posit that the laws of physics were suspended, a rotting corpse well into rigor mortis, brain-dead and heart-dead, without life support, without respirators preventing the lungs from collapsing, without artificial tissue oxygenation or other medical attention, blood coagulated in the veins and arteries, all brain and other tissue cells oxygen starved and irreversibly denatured, all organs failed, decomposing, half eaten by maggots and flies, weltering in the middle eastern heat, after 72 hours came back to life with all its functions including its cognitive skills completely and fully intact, and flew into the sky like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer, then the event is so extraordinary that no amount of testimony from superstitious goatherds is going to be enough to give any weight to the claim. It's just laughable, buddy.

You are so done, Goose. And you know it. We all know it. If you had a response to my very very very simple argument, you would have provided it a long time ago.

I appreciate you continuing to post completely meaningless mumbo jumbo about the testimony of superstitious simpletons on my thread, keeping it at the top of the Apologetics page, and making sure that your failure to address my point is seen my the maximum number of people possible.

[Goose]

Duck
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Duck is the common name for a large number of species in the Anatidae family of birds, which also includes swans and geese. The ducks are divided among several subfamilies in the Anatidae family; they do not represent a monophyletic group (the group of all descendants of a single common ancestral species) but a form taxon, since swans and geese are not considered ducks. Ducks are mostly aquatic birds, mostly smaller than the swans and geese, and may be found in both fresh water and sea water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck

Ducks and geese are members of the same family. A duck is a kind of a small goose, which is exactly what I said.

I read your post but didn't see anything new or of substance that would debunk my argument. There's more ranting and bluster than anything else really. Plus you're going back over old ground on most points anyway. I think it's time for me to look for someone who can offer some stronger arguments against my position. Lastly, the fact you actually want to argue a duck is a goose is the final sign for me that it's time to say thanks for your effort and good bye for now.

[Danmark]

....
Thirdly, Paul’s letters are not our only source of data regarding Paul’s resurrection beliefs.

�When they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead; and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people.� – Paul, as recorded by Luke, Acts 13:29-31

We also have neutral testimony that Paul asserted Jesus was alive after being dead.

�…but [the Jews] simply had some points of disagreement with [Paul] about their own religion and about a dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive.� – Festus, as recorded by Luke,Acts 25:19 akes you think Paul’s experience with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus had to be a vision?
....
Not so fast my friend. You’ve got a lot more work to do on the first two, I’m afraid.

Before you go off pontificating in your condescending tone to Student, you might remind yourself that Luke is merely referencing what Paul told him. And you agree that Paul is not an eye witness, but is testifying from his 'vision.'

Paul never saw Jesus. Never met Jesus. Never saw him before the crucifixion and never saw him after, save what he claims about his 'vision' which he reported after his illness.

Absent the religious tradition that some are burdened with, this hearsay testimony from Luke who is quoting Paul who claims he saw something when ill would get laughed out of court. Any competent judge would not even allow the hearsay 'evidence' of Luke to be considered by the trier of fact.

[Goose]

Before you go off pontificating in your condescending tone to Student, you might remind yourself that Luke is merely referencing what Paul told him.

Exactly! And since the argument here pertains to what Paul believed regarding the nature of Jesus resurrected body it's solid evidence that Paul believed in a bodily resurrection. Thanks for making my point!

[Danmark]

Before you go off pontificating in your condescending tone to Student, you might remind yourself that Luke is merely referencing what Paul told him.

Exactly! And since the argument here pertains to what Paul believed regarding the nature of Jesus resurrected body it's solid evidence that Paul believed in a bodily resurrection. Thanks for making my point!

I don't have any quarrel with the idea that Paul may have believed in the 'bodily resurrection.' This is a classic Jewish belief and is at some conflict with the idea of the 'spirit/flesh' issue which Paul also talks about, but that is mere scriptural contradiction, so there is no 'news flash' there.

But what you redacted from my post is relevant:

And you agree that Paul is not an eye witness, but is testifying from his 'vision.'

Paul never saw Jesus. Never met Jesus. Never saw him before the crucifixion and never saw him after, save what he claims about his 'vision' which he reported after his illness.

Absent the religious tradition that some are burdened with, this hearsay testimony from Luke who is quoting Paul who claims he saw something when ill would get laughed out of court. Any competent judge would not even allow the hearsay 'evidence' of Luke to be considered by the trier of fact.

The author of Luke is still disputed, tho' it is thought by most scholars that he relied on Mark and 'Q', rather than write from first hand knowledge. In any event, whatever he says re: what Paul may or may not have said is certainly not first hand evidence and would not be allowed into evidence since it is compound hearsay.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goose]

I read your post but didn't see anything new or of substance that would debunk my argument. There's more ranting and bluster than anything else really. Plus you're going back over old ground on most points anyway. I think it's time for me to look for someone who can offer some stronger arguments against my position. Lastly, the fact you actually want to argue a duck is a goose is the final sign for me that it's time to say thanks for your effort and good bye for now.

All you have really done is declare that the existence of documents written by Christians which are derived from the second half of the first century establish the overwhelming likelihood that a corpse came back to life and flew away. The existence of documents written by Christians which are derived from the second half of the first century establishes that there were Christians by the second half of the first century, and nothing more. No one is even arguing this particular point. I have been attempting to get you to address an entirely different matter. The obvious fact that a missing corpse and an empty grave are VASTLY more likely to have been the result of actions taken by the living, as opposed to actions taken by the corpse. I pointed out to you that the followers of Jesus had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body of Jesus and to then spread the fallacious story that Jesus had risen from the dead. I even pointed out to you that the Jewish priests believed at the time that this is what the followers of Jesus intended to do. The obvious explanation is all right there in the pages of the NT. You do your best to act like you are the one that holds the high ground here, in terms of the facts, reason and logic. But you refuse to engage me on this point. And I understand why! If you have now come to the conclusion that your best tactical move at this point is to sound the charge in the opposite direction, well I can't say that I blame you. But it was never my expectation that I would convince you of anything. Your programming is already too complete. My concern is for those 37,000 (and counting) rising views of this string. My intention is to show for all to see just how badly your argument actually holds up in a contest of fact, reason and logic. So if you are now feeling the need to do a little bit of the old run away it's perfectly understandable.

[no evidence no belief]

Before you go off pontificating in your condescending tone to Student, you might remind yourself that Luke is merely referencing what Paul told him.

Exactly! And since the argument here pertains to what Paul believed regarding the nature of Jesus resurrected body it's solid evidence that Paul believed in a bodily resurrection. Thanks for making my point!

Dear Goose,

A corpse was placed in a tomb 2000 years ago, and it was definitely dead at the time it was placed there. Brain-dead and heart-dead. Over the subsequent 72 hours, this corpse was not refrigerated but simmered in the weltering middle-eastern heat. It was not placed on a respirator to prevent the lungs from collapsing, blood was not artificially pumped to prevent coagulation, all the vital organs were not oxygenated, so that the liver failed, the kidneys failed, most important, the brain started decomposing. All the cells, lacking oxygen, died, and bacteria within the body started breaking them down. Within the first 4 hours, enzymes in the pancreas caused the organ to digest itself. The body soon took on a gruesome appearance and smell. Decomposing tissue emitted a green substance, as well as gasses such as methane and hydrogen sulfide. The lungs expelled fluid through the mouth and nose.

Within hours, insects began to take notice. A human body provides sustenance and a great place for insects to lay eggs. A fly can eat well on a corpse, and then lay up to 300 eggs upon it that will hatch within a day. Maggots - the larvae that emerge from these flies' eggs - are extremely efficient and thorough flesh-eaters. Starting on the outside of the body where they hatched, maggots use mouth hooks to scoop up the fluids oozing out of the corpse. Within a day's time, the maggots will have entered the second stage of their larval lives, as well as burrowing into the corpse.
Moving around as a social mass, maggots feed on decaying flesh and spread enzymes that help turn the body into delectable goo. The breathing mechanism of a maggot is located on the opposite end of its mouth, enabling it to simultaneously eat and breathe without interruption around the clock.

What you're saying is that after 72 hours this completely broken, decomposing, slime-emitting, maggot-infested, stinking lump of tangled meat and oozing goo, transformed itself into a fully functional human being, with a fully functional body, every organ (including the brain) fully restored, with cognitive skills and memories completely retrieved and intact, and then went on to fly into the sky like Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.

Here is my proposal: I will give you $10,000 for every piece of evidence you can provide that this happened, that is NOT words written down decades later.

To reiterate: Words written down decades later do not count.

Other than those, I will give you $10,000 for every piece of evidence you can provide that this happened.

Evidence 1: ______________________________________

Evidence 2: ______________________________________

Evidence 3: ______________________________________

Evidence 4: ______________________________________

Evidence 5: ______________________________________

(please fill in the blanks)