Evidence: The Gathering

[Jenny A]

Randy:

I don't find a cold case or any other detective's definition of evidence particularly useful.  The legal definition most common in American court rooms and I think almost perfect,  is that evidence is any fact that makes the proposition claimed either more or less likely. 

Looking at your five "facts" the question is whether they make a resurrection more or less likely.  Death by crucifixion does not.  How one dies or even if the method of death is accurately portrayed does not make resurrection more or less likely.  At best it is foundational evidence necessary for other facts to make the resurrection more or less likely.  That is to say it is evidence of death, which is a necessary prerequisite to rising from the dead but not evidence of rising from the dead. That the disciples and Jesus's brother thought they saw Jesus returned from the dead would be actual evidence, though not proof (provided that their belief can be shown by evidence to be a fact.)  Paul's, who never even saw Jesus alive, vision of Jesus is not evidence at all of the resurrection.  It neither advances nor detracts from the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.  The empty tomb, should it be shown to be a fact is also evidence for resurrection because it make the claim at least a little more likely. Not much though as it is so much more likely that someone removed the body by natural means.

Your insurmountable problem, and the reason I find your claims laughable, comes in weighing the evidence.  The least burden of proof is to show that the claim is more likely than not, this is the burden of proof in civil cases.  An empty tomb and eleven disciples plus a brother who believe is a slender reed on which to hang a supernatural event.  Odds still many millions to one against.  Case not proven.

No wonder Jesus and his followers valued faith before evidence so much.  They had such insufficient evidence.

Now you want to add NDEs which are quite medically explainable and culturally driven.  Clearly not divine.  There you show only your willingness to accept miniscule evidence for humungous claims.  Just like your five "facts" and the giant claim of resurrection.