[
Replying to post 35 by Goose]
But that’s not the claim. The claim is that Caesar crossed the Rubicon with an army in violation of Roman law thereby making him and his entire army traitors.
There are hundreds of examples of people and groups of people acting as traitors, or violating the law (whatever the law may be at the time and place).
The penalty for which was death.
Has no-one at all, in your mind, ever done something that had death as a punishment?
Besides, as I've already explained, Caesar moved to and did indeed, seize power in Rome. His moving across the Rubicon being illegal became a moot point, because who would put him on trial, after he's been declared dictator for life?
What you haven’t done, or don’t seem able to do, is find a case contextually analogous to Caesar that builds plausibility for Cesar’s crossing.
Already done. Or are you going to argue that the many cases I can link to of people violating laws that have the death penalty don't count?
That is after all what you argue the resurrection doesn’t have thereby making the evidence for the resurrection inferior.
Yup. What you link to in the Lazarus effect thing is not at all like what we read in the Bible.
But you are doing the same thing. You want a known contextually analogous case to Jesus with a three day dead person returning to life to establish plausibility for Jesus.
Because this is something that is down to physical law, not legal laws as what we've been arguing with Caesar. There's nothing strange about Caesar violating a Roman law that warrants the death penalty, especially if he thought he could get away with it.
I’m asking where is the known contextually analogous case in regards to Caesar’s crossing. You implied you had one.
We have examples of people crossing rivers, even of Caesar and his own army when they marched north.
We have examples of people violating laws that warrant the death penalty.
Pompey and Crassus led armies in Italia at the request of Rome to put down slave rebellion under Spartacus. They eventually disbanded their armies according to Appian.
The physical movement of these people from Point A to Point B IS analogous to Caesar.
you are appealing to the same late, second hand, biased, contradictory, and anonymous texts that we get our information for Caesar’s crossing.
Is that what you think we're relying on?
That would be like me appealing to the resurrection of Lazarus as a case example of a resurrection to establish plausibility for Jesus.
Except you'd have to establish plausibility for Lazarus. Unlike what I myself have put forth as examples like the Irish Easter Rising of 1916.
I gave you one. You provided no evidence he wasn’t dead.
Other than the doctors in the very pieces you link to worrying about pronouncements of death made in error? Did you ignore that?
So some coins were made. People make coins. Big deal.
The fact that you don't think much of physical artifacts is astounding.
Where are the coins depicting Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon though?
Are you arguing that Caesar crossing the Rubicon is some weird thing that just cannot happen?
Go ahead and explain the disciples sincere belief Jesus rose from the dead.
Explain the signatures of early Mormons on documents where they swear they saw Joseph Smith handling magical golden plates.
Or explain L Ron Hubbard and his early disciples in Scientology.
Go ahead and explain their preaching the resurrection despite persecution and the threat of death.
Go ahead and explain the willingness of the Easter Rising combatants to sacrifice their lives for a cause they believed in.
Besides, if the early disciples actually believed in their own message, what do they have fear from a death penalty?
The fact that someone(s) is willing to do something that is likely to get them killed is not remarkable.
Go ahead and explain the conversion of Paul and James.
Is every person's conversion from one religion to another done under rational circumstances?
Also what about James? Do you mean James, the brother of Jesus? Don't you find it odd such a person didn't follow Jesus?
Go ahead and provide a better overall theory in scope and explanatory power than the resurrection.
The resurrection has no explanatory power. You need to substantiate your own theory, which you can't. This doesn't mean that the resurrection wins by default if literally no-one else can provide a counter-theory.
Still arguing in a circle. Of course the man was alive after being dead. That’s what makes it a resurrection. Duh.
Look at what you are doing. You are
reducing what counts as a resurrection in your eyes.
In the Bible, resurrections are something that happen to clearly dead people, often after multiple days.
Now, you're linking to medical cases where medical personnel are performing CPR for long periods of time, and the people in question have their circulation starting just a few minutes after CPR is ended. Also, as your own citations say, not all these people survive. Some of them end up with injuries, or die soon after anyway.
Not just someone. A surgeon and anesthesiologist.
And in what you cite, we are told that doctors are worrying about pronouncements of death made in error.
Your argument makes it out like medical practitioners just cannot be wrong about pronouncing a person dead.
Still arguing in a circle. Of course the man was alive after being dead. That’s what makes it a resurrection. Duh.
