(July 5, 2015 at 2:47 pm)Pizza Wrote: The court of law analogy doesn't really help because someone being guilty or not guilty is not uncommon like a bodily resurrection. If we go with beyond a reasonable doubt bodily resurrection doesn't look so good given that corpses don't normally resurrect after being dead for days, which casts doubt on the conclusion. Claiming there was a bodily resurrection isn't purely a historical claim, it's a claim about biology of corpses. So, biological evidence is needed not pure conjure by armchair historians.
How do you propose that biologists study something that happened 2,000 years ago?
Quote:What counts as sufficient evidence? People just claiming something happened? If someone claimed you were a murderer or a rapist is that enough evidence or would more be needed? How about if you accused of raping and murdering people you never met in another state or country with astral projection powers? Is mere testimony enough?
Detectives would examine all the evidence to determine my whereabouts at the time of the murder.
Regarding the claims of Christianity, what is sufficient is probably subjective; what convinces one person to become a Christian may not convince another. That said, I think there is sufficient evidence for the resurrection of Jesus to conclude that He is God. Unless, of course, your presuppositions prevent this.
Quote:What "scholars?" What expertise make them authoritative on bodily resurrections? How many bodily resurrections have these scholars seen or tested? How do they research bodily resurrections?
So, from this and what you wrote above, it sounds like your real issue is that you do not view the study of history as being terribly rigorous.
Quote:Why prefer hypothesis over another? Why physical resurrection produce by Yahweh over one produced by mindless natural processes? [quote]
Are you suggesting that Jesus was resurrected thought natural processes?
[quote]Why not the swoon theory? People do sometimes survive things that normally kill people, ex. people surviving being shot in the face. Why not other paranormal hypotheses like Jesus was a ghost? Why not a demonic resurrection and Jesus was a false prophets? Why not Jesus was an alien and not a god? Why are we even assuming deities resurrect people from the dead?
Because after considering ALL of these theories and determining whether they have problems that prevent them from being likely, it can be determined that the supernatural resurrection of Jesus is the most probable (I did not say certain!) explanation of ALL the facts.
