Thanks for good discussion. The rest of 1 Corinthians 15 will surely take us to the point I'm trying to make here. Notice in vv.12-34 that the question is not "Is there an afterlife?" but "How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" Since he is speaking of a bodily resurrection that was physically witnessed by the disciples (vv. 5-7), and he is admitting to having preached a physical resurrection of Christ (v. 12), it seems that some think that there is no such physical resurrection for the rest of us. The world in which Christianity arose affirmed the immortality of the soul (Plato), but Paul is dealing with a different theological reality: the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead that effects a bodily resurrection from the dead for Jesus' followers. Apparently they didn't have any problem with the spirit carrying on, but the resurrection of the body was a new concept for them. This is clear in 1 Cor. 15.13. If you're taking that the resurrection of Christ is being taught as spiritual, how can it be that "not even Christ has been raised"? The only way to understand this is as a physical resurrection of Jesus, because the very question is not about the afterlife ("If there is no spiritual afterlife, then not even Christ has been spiritually raised" doesn't make sense), but about the bodily resurrection.

Verse 15 continues the same point. It can't possibly, outside of distorting the text, be speaking metaphorically or spiritually. The text doesn't make sense with those meanings placed on them. "But God did not raise Jesus metaphorically if in fact the dead are not raised spiritually"????? That doesn't make a shred of sense, and is not Paul's point.

Verses 18-19 suggest that Paul rejects the Greek idea (Plato) of an immortality of the soul without a bodily resurrection. If there is no bodily resurrection, then the Epicurean denial of an afterlife (v. 32) easily follows. But Paul rejects all those ideas. Instead, Jesus' bodily resurrection is the guarantee of the future bodily resurrection of believers (v. 20).

In v. 35, there is confirmation of what I've been saying. "OK, granted that it's a BODILY resurrection, what kind of BODY is it?" The question is still the BODIES. It's one thing that Jesus rose bodily, but these skeptics refuse to believe in the possibility of human bodily resurrection, claiming there are no such things as miracles.

Agreeing with what you said, Paul is clearly making a clear distinction between physical and spiritual bodies. But you're also missing that 1 Corinthians 15 is an exposition of the renewal of physical creation. Notice how v. 39 sounds a lot like Gn. 1.24-25, for instance, and 1 Cor. 15.41 like Gn. 1.14-18. God makes bodies appropriate to their circumstances, but they are all bodies (1 Cor. 15.40). After his resurrection, Jesus' physical body was different than it had been before resurrection, but it was still a body. People could touch it, hold on to it; Jesus ate food, etc.

In vv. 42ff., Paul applies his illustrations to his arguments to prove the kind of body we will have after the resurrection. The earthly and the risen beings differ in duration, value, and power. Just as a corn plant is different from a corn seed, they are still related in physical realities, but different in duration, value, and power.

Verse 44 speaks of "natural body" and "spiritual body." The terms Paul uses show that he means that the "spiritual body" has some kind of germinal connection with the "natural body". The natural body is not wholly flesh, and the resurrection body isn't wholly spirit. Paul uses the word σῶμα (with "spiritual"—spiritual body) which is NEVER used in the NT to denote anything other than the physical body. The spiritual body isn't that which is nonphysical, but a body transformed to the new creation environment.

In v. 50 it says "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." That's right. Our bodies as now constituted are mortal. The object is that they be transformed into the nature of immortal bodies (v. 51ff.), as Jesus was in his resurrection.

> With regards to the comment about the direct translation of the word meaning "to stand up from a lying or reclining position" fails to prove your point. First, Paul could have been speaking metaphorically, or maybe there is no better word in Greek to convey his meaning. Second, Paul appears to be referring to be a raising of the spirit, presumably into heaven, since it is spiritual bodies that are raised.

But that's exactly the point. Paul is NOT talking about the "raising of the spirit, presumably into heaven, since it is spiritual bodies that are raised," as you suggest. His point is that Jesus' resurrection was physical (vv. 5-7), and the disciples admit it (Jn. 20.27; Acts 2.31-32; 1 Jn. 1.1-3). Jesus' death was physical (1 Cor. 15.3); his burial was physical (v. 4), so it follows that Paul assumes it is physical bodies that are raised (also v. 4). To chop the verse is against the flow of his thought. There is no theology or impression given that the soul died and needed to be raised. The Greek vocabulary demands that the composers of the creed believed in the bodily resurrection and empty tomb of Jesus. To argue that the formula contains no mention of the empty tomb is therefore untenable and can only be maintained by reading verse 4 in translation while ignoring the original text.

> Paul explains the "abnormally born" thing in the very next verse. He says that this is abnormal because he didn't deserve to be an apostle because he persecuted the Church. The abnormality refers to reason for the appearance, not the manner of the appearance.

There is no question that Paul came later. He didn't see the physical resurrected body of Jesus as the disciples did, but only saw a vision of the risen Lord. His was a different experience temporally, teleologically, and qualitatively. But his phrase "as to one abnormally born" doesn't connect with "last of all," because it doesn't make any sense to connect the image of an aborted and dead fetus with the fact that Christ appeared to him LAST. Paul means that when Christ appeared in a vision to him and called him, he was (as compared with the rest of the disciples, and whom he persecuted) no better than a stillborn fetus in the world of men. The comparison emphasizes his condition at the time of his call. This goes along with what I said before. The "appearing" to him was qualitatively different and distinct from the "appearing" to the disciples.

In every case, there is no grounds to stand on to interpret any of 1 Cor. 15 as meaning that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection but not a physical one.

Sure there is.

The same chapter you cite (Corinthians 15) makes a clear distinction between physical and spiritual bodies, and Paul says that it is spiritual bodies which are raised. He never mentions any bodily raising. And verse 16 (If the dead are not raised then Christ has not been raised either) implies no difference between the spiritual resurrection of men and Christ's resurrection.

With regards to the comment about the direct translation of the word meaning "to stand up from a lying or reclining position" fails to prove your point. First, Paul could have been speaking metaphorically, or maybe there is no better word in Greek to convey his meaning. Second, Paul appears to be referring to be a raising of the spirit, presumably into heaven, since it is spiritual bodies that are raised.

Continuing our discussion of the appearances, Paul explains the "abnormally born" thing in the very next verse. He says that this is abnormal because he didn't deserve to be an apostle because he persecuted the Church. The abnormality refers to reason for the appearance, not the manner of the appearance.

I don't assume anything. I follow the evidence, as much as I can ascertain, where it leads. You start with the evidence, and follow with theories. No one denies that the tomb was empty. Now, other material evidences are given: stone rolled away, graveclothes still there, linen cloth folded at head. These are pertinent, if reliable. Do we have evidence they are inaccurate? Is it possible they are true? What reasons do I have to accept them? What reasons do I have to reject them? If you have reasons to reject them, that's where a good discussion lies.

You're right that Paul doesn't write of any of the details of the resurrection case, but Paul was not writing a "biography" of Jesus or outlining the evidence of the event, as was John. But you're wrong that "Paul never says anything about an empty tomb." 1 Cor. 15.3-4 admits to a physical death, and actual burial, and a physical resurrection. The linguistic evidence of this creed reveals that its formulators regarded the resurrection of Jesus as a bodily, grave-emptying event.

In addition, virtually all scholars agree that Paul received this creed no later than 5 years after the crucifixion, with the majority holding that this creed was formulated and circulating within 3 yrs of the crucifixion/resurrection event. Form-critical analysis, however, reveals the existence of two earlier stages in the development of this tradition, giving historical evidence that the creed in its final form should be dated even earlier than AD 35. Even the radical Jesus Seminar dates the tradition no later than AD 33.

As far as the resurrection being spiritual, with no bodily component, that theory doesn't hold water upon examination.

1. There is no question that the death of Jesus is perceived by the gospel authors and Paul as a physical death, where he was physically beaten, physically and historically crucified, physically bled, and physically dead.

2. Paul's mention of burial (1 Cor. 15.4) indicates a physical, historical death, with his remains being interred. There had been confirmations of physical death, preparation of the body for burial, and witnesses to the burial itself and the place of the burial.

3. Paul's mention of burial presupposes a physically empty tomb after the resurrection, because by definition "resurrection" meant a new body that did not leave the corpse behind. The term can be taken in no other way. The verb ἐγήγερται (1 Cor. 15.4) means "to cause to stand up from a lying or reclining position (with the implication of some degree of previous incapacity)." MacGregor comments, "Since dead bodies were buried in a prone position, the verb must be referring to the raising of a formerly prone corpse to the standing posture of a live body. This concept of resurrection cannot refer to the immortality of the spirit, which can neither lie down nor stand up, but must refer to the resurrection of a physical body out of a tomb. For this reason, the Greek vocabulary demands that the composers of the creed believed in the bodily resurrection and empty tomb of Jesus. To argue that the formula contains no mention of the empty tomb is therefore untenable and can only be maintained by reading verse 4 in translation while ignoring the original text."

As far as Jesus "appearing" to the individuals, the disciples, many people, and then to Paul (with the same word being used), it is far from obvious that Paul intended to say that his resurrection appearance was qualitatively identical to those of the disciples. The context actually suggests the opposite. Paul actually uses a repetitive, rhythmic form when speaking about the other appearances (he appeared to... then also to...). He shuns this form, breaking from it, when writing of the appearance to him, separating his experience from that of the disciples previously mentioned. It rules out the possibility that Christ appeared to him the same way he appeared to them. But then he takes it a step further. By placing "he was also seen by me" AFTER "as to one abnormally born" (as in the original Greek), Paul explicitly shows that the character of Jesus' appearance to him was qualitatively distinct from his appearances to the disciples. Paul admits to having seen Jesus in an abnormal fashion, as opposed to the witnesses of his physical body.

There really is no evidence for the claims you're making.

You wrote: > Such as? In the case of Jesus, I think there are not. It doesn't make sense that the idiots merely went to the wrong tomb, that the unbelieving and terrified disciples mounted an attack against the Roman guard and stole the body, that the Jews or Romans stole the body, that the story was wholly manufactured, or that the disciples were hallucinating. None of these explanations hold a bit of water when logically pursued. The disciples could not have credibly proclaimed the resurrection in Jerusalem if Jesus’ body were still in the tomb.

You assume that the Bible is accurate in the details of the story. The fact of the matter is that we don't know how much legendary development could have occurred in between 30 AD and when the Gospel of Mark was written. Paul's letters, which predate Mark, don't contain any of the details that the resurrection case is built upon. For example, Paul never says anything about an empty tomb with an unmovable stone, or a pair of Roman guards.

It might be that the resurrection was originally meant to be a spiritual resurrection, with no bodily component. This assumption more concisely explains why Paul makes no distinction between Jesus's appearances to other apostles and to himself.

> Grave robbers are a common explanation for an empty tomb, and it's a far more reasonable explanation than human resurrection.

That seems reasonable on the surface, but won't stand up to inquiry. First of all, Jesus wasn't buried with any treasures, as some of the rich and royal were. Secondly, it was a tomb hewn out of solid rock, so the only access to the body is through the door. Thirdly, we have to consider what motive someone might have to steal such a body. The robbers have to have both a motive and a means. The Bible says there was a group of Roman soldiers posted at the entrance (unknown how many, but more than one soldier) to secure it against tampering.

So, who had a motive to steal the body against an armed guard and the procurator's seal? Would the Romans do it? There's no motive there. Would the Jews do it? The leaders certainly wouldn't, and the people had not been taught about the resurrection (only the disciples had been). There's no motive there. So we're left with the disciples. The gospels record that despite having been told, they had no understanding or expectation of a resurrection, and besides, they were hiding like scared rabbits, fearful for their lives. It's not reasonable to think that they gathered their forces, mounted an attack against the Roman guard, stole the body (but left the graveclothes, and neatly folded the head linen), and then proclaim resurrection to the world, to the point where they were all (without exception) willing to die for the ruse. That doesn't make any sense. It's not a reasonable explanation.

> There are ordinary claims and then there are extraordinary claims.

I very strongly agree, and the resurrection is an extremely extraordinary claim.

> When an extraordinary claim like that is made, we have to be skeptical. If we're not, we'll fall for every email scam from a Nigerian prince who wants to give us a million dollars.

I very strongly agree. We've all learned to beware of internet scams of easy money. And we have every right to be skeptical about an over-the-top claim of resurrection. But what legitimate reason do we have to not trust this particular source (the disciples re: the resurrection)?

> And how do we know that the story was circulating that soon? Because the Bible says so. Do we have any historical, non-Biblical sources which corroborate this?

Historians and skeptics have deeply examined the creed recorded for us in 1 Cor. 15.3-7. The Jesus Seminar, an extremely skeptical and minimalist group, has placed the creed at no later than AD 33. Bart Ehrman in his recent work, has placed it at 35 at the latest. Form critical analysis reveals the existence of two earlier stages, putting them almost at the resurrection event itself. Virtually all critical scholars agree that Paul received the tradition no later than five years after the crucifixion, with a majority holding that the material was passed on to him when he visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion in AD 32.

> You might want to research a man by the name of Constantine.

Oh, I know plenty about Constantine, but that was in the early 300s AD. By then there were considered to be more than 6 million Christians globally. Look at:
(http://books.google.com/books?id=6fyCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PR16&lpg=PR16&dq=thomas+finn+the+early+christian+world&source=bl&ots=wtFQXDlAbt&sig=Nz_TwqbO0uXgQHIRcPxbAFxJNR8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XsfTU_GeLsuZyASPnoKQDg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=thomas%20finn%20the%20early%20christian%20world&f=false) p. 296.

> "Those count as empirical evidences." No, they don't. That's circumstantial evidence

You keep treating me like an ignoramus or a child. "Empirical" means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." The numbers to which I was referring are known from historical writings and archaeological discoveries, and so they count as empirical evidence, not circumstantial evidence. Again, I'll reference the Thomas Finn book of the previous link pp. 296-297.

> have empirical evidence for evolution.

You missed what I said. I never said that we don't have empirical evidence for evolution. I said [i]we are lacking empirical evidence for across the board transitions from one species to the next[/i]. While we have some hints and some evidences, most transitional forms are embarrassingly still missing.

> We also have evidence that the laws of physics appear to be universal

Indeed we do, but your word APPEAR is where such evidence stretches from empirical to belief.

> but they still have more supporting evidence than we have for the Resurrection.

Not necessarily so. William Lyon Phelps, distinguished professor of English Literature at Yale University, says that “the historical evidence for the resurrection is stronger than for any other miracle anywhere narrated." Professor Tom Arnold, of University College, said, “The evidence for the…resurrection…has been shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad….I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer." Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), known as the finest legal mind of his day: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet." Maybe you're not giving the resurrection the thought and investigation it deserves, presupposing its impossibility and not investigating the claims objectively.

> not in the way that we should trust empiricism.

And yet science has proved itself wrong over and over, making corrections in its "empirically tested truths" as new discoveries disprove old. Even empiricism, it seems, can too often be wrong.

> But a conclusion that challenges our very understanding of the laws of nature is never the most reasonable conclusion.

I seem to recall from the news a number of years back that as a satellite passed Saturn, the information that it was giving of the rings contradicted the laws of physics, and yet there they were. I can't put my finger on a source from so long ago.

Also (in the same foggy memory), I seem to recall reading somewhere that the wings of certain kinds of bees were, according to the laws of physics, inadequate for flight, and there was no reasonable explanation as to how those bees could actually fly.

But you get my point. We are making scientific discoveries all the time of things that "challenge our very understanding of the laws of nature," and yet they are still the most reasonable conclusion.

> When I say that we need empirical evidence that resurrection is possible, I mean that we need to see it happen. We need scientists to verify it under laboratory conditions.

Wow, so what you're saying is that the ONLY reliable knowledge we can possible have is that which is seeable and verifiable under laboratory conditions? Oh my, that's so shocking and limiting. Have you never been in love, because that's not verifiable under laboratory conditions. And you don't believe in the Big Bang theory then, because it's not observable or verifiable under laboratory conditions? And how much of evolutionary theory is extrapolated from material evidence, but not seeable or verifiable under laboratory conditions? Mathematics is all knowledge from reason, but not seeable and verifiable under laboratory conditions.

And if historical writings are not empirical evidence, then you don't believe Hannibal rode elephants over the mountains to meet the Romans in battle? It's just anecdotal, and therefore dismissible?

> And there's no way that we could possibly attain empirical evidence for Christ's resurrection, even if it really did happen. Ergo, even if it's true, we can't rationally believe those claims without empirical evidence that resurrection is possible.

Well, it's no surprise to me that you don't believe the possibility of the resurrection, given your epistemological ideas. "Even if it's true", you won't believe it without evidence that doesn't apply to a situation 2000 years ago. Obviously, I think that's tragic, and to me it smacks of close-mindedness and refusal to consider all potential sources of knowledge. I happen to believe, just for the record, that knowledge can come to us from a variety of sources: intuition, empiricism, logic, reasoning, reliable testimony, and even inference.

> Such as? In the case of Jesus, I think there are not.

Grave robbers are a common explanation for an empty tomb, and it's a far more reasonable explanation than human resurrection.

> Much of what we read in the newspapers we don't have the opportunity to witness. So also much of what we learn in history class or science class. Yet we accept it when we have reason to trust the source.

There are ordinary claims and then there are extraordinary claims. An ordinary claim would be something that does not contradict general knowledge, or our understanding of the universe. An example of an extraordinary claim would be something that does challenge our understanding of the laws of nature.

But I've already explained this. If your friend claims he had a ham sandwich for lunch, you're going to be much more willing to take him at his word than if he had told you that he had unicorn steak for lunch.

> Granted, a story of coming back from the dead is a lot to swallow, and yet there is no legitimate reason to distrust the source.

Yes, there is. When an extraordinary claim like that is made, we have to be skeptical. If we're not, we'll fall for every email scam from a Nigerian prince who wants to give us a million dollars.

> It also lends credibility to the story that the testimonies were circulating in the city of the execution a mere three days after the incident. There is every reason to be skeptical, and yet thousands of people believed the story. That begs the question: How is it that so many would come to that conclusion so soon?

And how do we know that the story was circulating that soon? Because the Bible says so. Do we have any historical, non-Biblical sources which corroborate this? No, we don't. In fact, some historians are of the opinion that the idea of a bodily resurrection didn't appear until decades after the crucifixion. Richard Carrier suggests the possibility that the earliest Christians actually only believed in a spiritual resurrection, and the concept of a bodily resurrection didn't appear until much later.

> We know that a global movement grew from this testimony. And it didn't happen by military force as Islam grew...

No? You might want to research a man by the name of Constantine.

> Those count as empirical evidences.

No, they don't. That's circumstantial evidence. You apparently don't understand what empirical evidence is.

> but we accept a lot that doesn't fall under the category of empirical evidence - Transitions from one species to another across the board. - That the laws of physics apply equally across the whole universe - String theory - Life from un-life - Even intuition is not empirically testable

We absolutely, no question, have empirical evidence for evolution. Mountains of it. We also have evidence that the laws of physics appear to be universal. String theory and abiogenesis ("life from un-life") have much less evidence supporting them—but they still have more supporting evidence than we have for the Resurrection.

I don't know why you bring up intuition. Not only is intuition not testable, it's often wrong. We shouldn't always trust it, not in the way that we should trust empiricism. Many of the things science teaches us about the nature of the universe are completely counter-intuitive. But they're still true.

> While we have no incontrovertible evidence, we have to infer to the most reasonable conclusion.

I agree. But a conclusion that challenges our very understanding of the laws of nature is never the most reasonable conclusion.

> When we examine the resurrection of Jesus, while the kind of empirical evidence you might want (and I don't even know what that is except maybe more historical writings corroborating the gospel accounts)

Historical writings are not empirical evidence. I've explained this, you're just not getting it. Historical writings are just what somebody said. It's testimony. Testimony is anecdotal evidence. It can never be considered empirical evidence. When I say that we need empirical evidence that resurrection is possible, I mean that we need to see it happen. We need scientists to verify it under laboratory conditions. And there's no way that we could possibly attain empirical evidence for Christ's resurrection, even if it really did happen. Ergo, even if it's true, we can't rationally believe those claims without empirical evidence that resurrection is possible.

there are more plausible explanations for an empty tomb.
Such as? In the case of Jesus, I think there are not. It doesn't make sense that the idiots merely went to the wrong tomb, that the unbelieving and terrified disciples mounted an attack against the Roman guard and stole the body, that the Jews or Romans stole the body, that the story was wholly manufactured, or that the disciples were hallucinating. None of these explanations hold a bit of water when logically pursued. The disciples could not have credibly proclaimed the resurrection in Jerusalem if Jesus’ body were still in the tomb.
people who didn't see Jesus resurrected but only heard second-hand accounts of it from the eyewitnesses? Those people should have been skeptical.
Much of what we read in the newspapers we don't have the opportunity to witness. So also much of what we learn in history class or science class. Yet we accept it when we have reason to trust the source. Granted, a story of coming back from the dead is a lot to swallow, and yet there is no legitimate reason to distrust the source. It also lends credibility to the story that the testimonies were circulating in the city of the execution a mere three days after the incident. There is every reason to be skeptical, and yet thousands of people believed the story. That begs the question: How is it that so many would come to that conclusion so soon?
> Because it's not an incontrovertible fact that people rise from the Dead.

You're very right. It's a large pill to swallow. Yet we know from history (incontrovertible) that thousands in the very city of his crucifixion, within two months time, were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. We know that a global movement grew from this testimony. And it didn't happen by military force as Islam grew, but by the sheer testimony of the resurrection event and the life change that people experienced. Those count as empirical evidences.

> Empirical evidence is evidence that is observable or testable

True, but we accept a lot that doesn't fall under the category of empirical evidence:
- Transitions from one species to another across the board.
- That the laws of physics apply equally across the whole universe
- String theory
- Life from un-life
- Even intuition is not empirically testable

While we have no incontrovertible evidence, we have to infer to the most reasonable conclusion. When we examine the resurrection of Jesus, while the kind of empirical evidence you might want (and I don't even know what that is except maybe more historical writings corroborating the gospel accounts) is lacking, we can still appraise the evidence we do have (as with some of the scientific theories above) and come to the most reasonable conclusion.

> At the time the evidence was both material as well as based on eye-witness testimony.

By material evidence, I presume you mean the empty tomb, and there are more plausible explanations for an empty tomb. As for the eyewitness testimony: for the people who knew Jesus when he was alive, who witnessed his death and saw his lifeless corpse, and then saw his allegedly resurrected form? Yes, those people would have been justified in believing in the resurrection.
But other people from that time period, people who didn't see Jesus resurrected but only heard second-hand accounts of it from the eyewitnesses? Those people should have been skeptical.

> It's sort of like "Did Brutus stab Julius Caesar with a knife?" Prove it. Well, we don't have the knife. We know that Julius is dead, but all we have are some written records of such, and we have to determine how reliable the eye-witnesses were.

It's really not like that at all. Remove all the specifics, and look at the two claims in their general forms. In regard to the resurrection, the general claim is: A man rose from the dead. In regard to Caesar's murder, the general claim is: A man was stabbed to death. You can see that these are two very different kinds of claims, can't you? We know that people get stabbed to death every day. It's not an uncommon occurrence. That's why we can accept anecdotal evidence that Brutus stabbed Caesar, and consider it an established historical fact. This is the reason why historians are largely willing to accept Jesus's crucifixion as a historical fact. Because it's an incontrovertible fact that people sometimes murder each other by way of crucifixion. On the other hand, people resurrecting from death is not a common occurrence. It's such an uncommon occurrence that we don't have any hard evidence that it has ever happened. The only alleged instances of resurrection are those with dubious evidence. This is why historians are largely not willing to consider Jesus's resurrection a historical fact. Because it's not an incontrovertible fact that people rise from the dead.

> You're saying that we need empirical evidence that resurrection is even possible.

I'm not saying that it's possible for us to obtain empirical evidence for Jesus's resurrection. I'm saying we need incontrovertible evidence that resurrection does occur—in the same way that we have incontrovertible evidence that people sometimes stab one another to death.

> So what do you consider to be acceptable empirical evidence?

Empirical evidence is evidence that is observable or testable. It must be falsifiable.

Sure, I understand what you're saying. At the time of Jesus' resurrection, the evidence was both material as well as based on eye-witness testimony. Now, of course, we're dealing with a cold case—a 2,000-year-old cold case. It's sort of like "Did Brutus stab Julius Caesar with a knife?" Prove it. Well, we don't have the knife. We know that Julius is dead, but all we have are some written records of such, and we have to determine how reliable the eye-witnesses were. But your point is before that. You're saying that we need empirical evidence that resurrection is even possible. What would you consider to be empirical evidence? Materially, it can be admitted that historically speaking the grave was empty. We have to ask what brought that about, but the grave was empty. As far as witnesses, we have historical writings from several people that they saw him, bodily, after the alleged resurrection. So what do you consider to be acceptable empirical evidence?

> If you're asserting that scientists have no evidence for the Big Bang cosmological model, that is patently absurd.

Nah, that's not what I'm claiming at all. Somehow you keep misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is that the scientists have no evidence for what existed BEFORE the Big Bang. It's all hypothetical and based on a belief, but there's no empirical evidence.

> Ah, but there doesn't have to be evidence that a resurrection has ever occurred in any other instance. The instance at hand is what matters.

The point is that you need empirical evidence that the claim is possible. As I said before, When examining any historical claim, you're basically examining two claims: The first is that the claim is even possible in general, and the second is that this specific claim actually occurred. If we had any empirical evidence for the Resurrection, then you'd be right, we wouldn't need to prove that a resurrection has occurred in any other instance. But we don't have any empirical evidence for it. All we have is anecdotal evidence, and that's not sufficient. If you have any claim which challenges our understanding of the laws of nature, you need empirical evidence. No amount of anecdotal evidence can support this claim in the absence of empirical evidence.

Refute my Abraham Lincoln analogy:

[b]If the claim was that Abraham Lincoln could fly, we would first need to establish (empirically) that it's possible for any person to fly, before we could even begin to accept any historical (anecdotal) evidence that might exist for the specific claim.[/b]

> I agree. The first challenge is "Is it possible?" The second is, "Is it reasonable?"

The Resurrection story fails in both regards.

> and in the other case there is general scientific agreement that the laws of physics do not apply before the big bang. Without scientific evidence of what you are claiming...

If you're asserting that scientists have no evidence for the Big Bang cosmological model, that is patently absurd.