Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge

[Not Clever Enough]

> There are many evidences of resurrection throughout history, along with many modern evidences of resurrection in our era. You'd actually have to do the research to know how many, if they're even numerable. And as to how confidence you should be in those accounts, again, (1) you'd have to do the work if you really care to find out, and (2) you'd have to determine what you consider to be credible and why, avoiding bias as much as possible.

Have you done the research? Because you made the claim and I'm asking you to justify it.
​
> Sure it's another option, but is the best one, or just a biased one? if you have drawn that conclusion without research, it's simple bias and nothing more, with nothing rational about your conclusion.

Lets be careful, bias could be on either side. Just to be clear, you believe a resurrection occurred on very little evidence. That's what we're saying, yes? We have very little evidence for the resurrection of Lazarus. But the bias is on my side. Just to be clear, that's what we're saying?
​
It makes no sense to compare the evidence we have for this to the evidence we'd need for a claim that we know happens. Why are you doing that?
​
> My summary? (very briefly)

Of the evidence.

"the tomb was empty" isn't evidence, we don't have an empty tomb that we can examine. We have claims that there was an empty tomb. We have texts. That's the evidence.
​
Please summarize the evidence, as I did. Give me the summary of the quality of the evidence that we have for the resurrection.
​
> Of course it's relevant. How can you reject the resurrection if you have no case against it?

So a defendant can't mount a credible defense unless they have someone else to blame for the crime?
You have a misunderstanding here.
​
> That's just pure out bias.

No, you are wrong here. Claims stand on their own. If a claim doesn't have enough evidence for it, then it shouldn't be believed, whether or not there's a competing claim.
​
> You claim that the resurrection is not a well-established fact, but you haven't researched it? Yet you have drawn a conclusion that "it isn't"? Wow.

I have looked at the evidence and found it lacking. I summarized the evidence. Something you've yet to do.
​
I can do without the "wow" bullshit, thanks.

[jimwalton]

> Have you done the research? Because you made the claim and I'm asking you to justify it.

Yes, I have. How about yourself?

> Just to be clear, you believe a resurrection occurred on very little evidence.

The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is actually substantial, but for us 2000 years later, it's a cold case, so we have to look at it differently.

For Lazarus, we have no evidence except 1 account in 1 Gospel—virtually nothing to go on to confirm it.

> "the tomb was empty" isn't evidence, we don't have an empty tomb that we can examine.

They did, and we have every reason to believe it based on the evidence.

• All four Gospels mention the empty tomb
• The tomb was a well-known and public location. it was known to Jesus's followers and his enemies alike. All that would be necessary to discredit claims of the resurrection would be to prove that the known tomb of Christ was still occupied by his corpse.
• The enemies of Jesus never produced a body. When the resurrection was claimed, no one said, “That’s a lie. Duh. Here’s the tomb with his body in it.”
• The cover story even verifies an empty tomb: "The disciples stole the body." His opponents and enemies didn’t say, “You’re crazy,” walk people to the tomb, and show the idiots the rotting corpse of Jesus.
• Not a single ancient writer, Christian or secular, refutes the fact that the tomb was empty. There is never any record or claim to the contrary.
• Christianity would not have flourished in Jerusalem if the tomb were not empty. Jesus was publicly executed and publicly buried. Sermons about resurrection would be sheer nonsense if the tomb were not verifiably empty, and Christianity would have fizzled quickly if there were any evidence contrary to that claim.

> Please summarize the evidence, as I did.

As you did? What evidence did you give?

> So a defendant can't mount a credible defense unless they have someone else to blame for the crime?

The issue isn't someone else to blame, but rather can you rebut the claims? If you reject the resurrection, I should be able to assume you have a case with evidence to substantiate that claim. In a courtroom, the defendant doesn't have to come up with someone else to blame; his burden is to show that the evidence prevented is questionable enough not to carry the case.

> Claims stand on their own. If a claim doesn't have enough evidence for it, then it shouldn't be believed, whether or not there's a competing claim.

That's correct. And I've given you evidence for my claims, but you've given me no evidence in reply, which leads me to the conclusion that you don't have enough evidence for your competing claim, which leads me to the conclusion that you've made a decision before examination of the evidence—the definition of bias.

> I have looked at the evidence and found it lacking. I summarized the evidence. Something you've yet to do.

You must have been writing to someone else. You've given me no such summary, but I'd be glad to see it.

You claim I've not given you anything ("Something you've yet to do"), but I did. Here it is again:

My summary? (very briefly)

• The tomb was certifiably empty. It was a well-known public location, the enemies never produced a body, not a single writer ever refutes the empty tomb, and Christianity would not have flourished in Jerusalem if the tomb were not empty.
• Therefore, we know the stone was rolled away (otherwise they wouldn't know it was empty!).
• We know the empty tomb was examined. A whole population wouldn't buy into an empty tomb while NO ONE ever looked into it. That's absurd.
• Jesus was seen by credible witnesses after his death. There are 11 known instances, mostly public, in many situations, locations, and environments. The quantity of appearances lends credibility to their historicity. The sightings by the women meet the criteria of embarrassment. The sightings by Peter and James come from very early oral tradition. There is nothing in the narrative of the road to Emmaus that warrants anything but historiography. The appearance to the ten apostles in Jerusalem would be out of place and quite odd if fictional. Since there are no mass hallucinations, the appearance to 500 at one time is meant to be taken as literal history. All in all, the cumulative effect of the eleven accounts gives credence to historicity and not fiction.
• Other historical evidences (the birth of the church, the bold preaching by the disciples about the resurrection, the conversion of Paul) give credibility to the account. Along with that, there is no credible evidence that the apostles were anything other than sane, sincere, and reliable men.

Other explanations all fall far short of credibility:

• They went to the wrong tomb. And it was never discovered? Duh.
• Someone stole the body. How? Why?
• Jesus never really died. Only by those who know nothing about flogging, crucifixion, and Roman execution professionals.
• The disciples were lying. Conspiracy theories don't hold water.
• The disciples were fooled by an imposter. We know from the case of Princess Anastasia that this doesn't work.
• It was the work of tricksters. Who would have the influence and cleverness to pull this off?
• It was all made up. This doesn't wash. For what motive? To what gain?
• Miracles can't happen. Well, this is just bias. Who says they can't?

But I've received no rebuttal case from you.

> I can do without the "wow" bullshit, thanks.

The subject of the post is "Blind faith isn't okay," and yet by my every interaction with you, you haven't done the research and have yet to present a case, leading me to the conclusion that you believe what you do about Christianity, the Bible, Jesus, miracles, and the resurrection blindly, which I found quite ironic.

[Drummer]

> I understand that. But what do you believe, and what is the evidence for it?

I believe the earth was formed billions of years ago and life somehow evolved and to this day keeps evolving. I don't see any signs of a creator at all. Only life adapting to whatever environment surrounds it or evolving to adapt to life elsewhere when needed.

> There are so many aspects of the universe that are "tuned" to very small and necessarily small parameters that to have come about by accident is virtually untenable.

If you look at things as a result and not a process in motion then sure maybe it looks like it was designed that way. But nothing is perfect and everything is evolving all the time. Why would a perfect being not be able to create perfection straight of the bat? Sharks for example are here a hell of a lot longer than us. They have evolved to have senses we could only dream of over millions of years. I'm sure the humans of the future will too if we don't destroy the planet first but I would imagine any god powerful enough would have made us like that initially.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the reply. I also believe the Earth was formed billions of years ago and that life continues to evolve, but my study of evolution and the process, along with the fine-tuning aspects of the universe lead me to the conclusion that the odds of all this happening by itself (chance, natural selection, genetic mutation, etc.) are overwhelmingly poor. To me, if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, an intelligence was involved. I see so many signs of a creator, along with so many jaw-dropping coincidences if it were all by blind processes, that I have to conclude theism.

> But nothing is perfect and everything is evolving all the time.

Agreed. My point wasn't perfection, but rather that too many elements that evidence and logic would tell us were the result of design rather than chance.

> Why would a perfect being not be able to create perfection straight off the bat?

Because everything is a process. Cause and effect. Evolution, development, progress. I have no problem with process, development, and progress. Life itself demands it (we're born, we grow, we die).

> Sharks for example are here a hell of a lot longer than us. They have evolved to have senses we could only dream of over millions of years.

Yep, awesome stuff.

> I'm sure the humans of the future will too if we don't destroy the planet first but I would imagine any god powerful enough would have made us like that initially.

Not necessarily. Every organism adapts to its needs and environment. Diversity is a wonderful thing. I'm not so sure humans will evolve to have the senses sharks do; we're in a different environment with different needs for survival.

> if we don't destroy the planet first

Yeah, I'm with you here. It can get a bit scary to think about this with everything going on. it could be right around the corner, couldn't it? We keep praying that saner minds prevail.

> I would imagine any god powerful enough would have made us like that initially.

Nah. Everything has its place. Diversity, balance, order, beauty. Process, progress, and development. They're all necessary for life. The universe is not possible where there isn't movement, and where there is movement there is process and progress. Life is not possible without development; it cannot be static and be life. There's no reason to see that God would have created an environment and life that did not develop. Even static life that goes from one day to another day has progressed, because there have been both time and experiences. It's impossible to have life without process and progress.

[Splash]

> It's not illegitimate to use Roman historians to tell us about ancient Rome, to listen to women tell us about sexual abuse of women, or to let victims of the Holocaust tell us about it. Why is it hogwash to let ancient Palestinian writers tell us about Jesus?

The fundamental difference is we aren't just believing women who were sexually abused because she said so. Nor are we believing holocaust survivors simply based on their word. There is external corroborating evidence in each of these cases. If their testimony was the only evidence, it wouldn't hold much weight. This is the problem with the resurrection.

> and it turns out that the evidence for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as authors is quite a bit stronger than the evidence against.

Biblical scholars disagree with you.

> They haven't stopped. There are resurrections happening today. Have you done any homework on the subject? I'll be glad to see your research. Let's talk.

I saw your other comment on the subject after claiming resurrections still happen. Simply put, Jesus wasn't a caterpillar, was he? You're the one claiming they still happen, show me a case of a human resurrecting after being clinically dead for several days that hasn't been debunked.

> Any historian uses the source of the claim (Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon, the life of Alexander the Great, Nero burning Rome, etc.) as the evidence. Why is this a problem? Everything we know about the life of Alexander comes from 4 biographies written centuries later. We use the source of the claim as the evidence.

The source of the claim is not all that is used as the evidence in any of those cases. If that were true, then the entire community of historians would agree across the board that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. But that isn't the case, is it? Why do you think that might be?

[jimwalton]

> The fundamental difference is we aren't just believing women who were sexually abused because she said so.

That's not a fundamental difference. You seem to be mistaken here. If you subscribe to the traditional authors of the Gospels, both Mark and Luke were corroborating outsiders. If you do not subscribe to the traditional authors, all four were outsiders, corroborating the events.

> If their testimony was the only evidence, it wouldn't hold much weight.

You seem to be claiming that the testimony of eyewitnesses is not valid.

> Biblical scholars disagree with you.

Biblical scholars also agree with me. I've examined the cases for the authorship of the Gospels in quite a bit of depth. There are a lot of biblical scholars who subscribe to the traditional authors, and for substantial reasons. I consider the cases for traditional authorship to be stronger than the cases against, but we can discuss this if you wish.

> You're the one claiming they still happen, show me a case of a human resurrecting after being clinically dead for several days that hasn't been debunked.

If you are serious about researching this, the two-volume set by Dr. Craig Keener, "Miracles" (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3AAZ16M5WZVWE&keywords=craig+keener+miracles&qid=1567000719&s=gateway&sprefix=Keener+miracle%2Caps%2C252&sr=8-1) should be useful. He researched not only the NT miracles but also modern miracles including resurrections.

> The source of the claim is not all that is used as the evidence in any of those cases. If that were true, then the entire community of historians would agree across the board that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. But that isn't the case, is it? Why do you think that might be?

Neither is the source of the claim the only evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, for instance. There was some material evidence (the empty tomb), there was consequential evidence (the birth of the Church), and there was logical evidence (the preaching of the apostles). But I'm well aware that many people still deny the resurrection. There are also scientists who deny global warming. People see the same data and arrive at different conclusions.

[Not Clever Enough]

> Yes, I have

Sweet, then present your case. You said that resurrections have happened before. You mentioned Lazarus. Please show me that we have enough evidence to justify that resurrections have occurred. To be clear, the point of this isn't to talk about Jesus. I'm saying resurrections aren't even a thing we're aware happens. Other than this one disputed case, and I guess Lazarus for which we have almost nothing to go on, there doesn't seem to be much reason to believe resurrections happen.
​
> The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is actually substantial, but for us 2000 years later, it's a cold case, so we have to look at it differently.

Yeah, we can't do anything about the evidence that they had back then. All we have is the evidence we have now.
​
> For Lazarus, we have no evidence except 1 account in 1 Gospel—virtually nothing to go on to confirm it.

Sounds pretty weak, right?
​
> As you did? What evidence did you give?

The 4 gospels, and how weak they are. Give me a summary of the evidence as you see it. Not the claims based on the evidence, but the evidence.

Describe the quality of evidence of the gospels and whatever else you want to bring up. What would this look like? Well, they were written decades after the event, we're not sure who wrote them, etc.

We have 4 texts. Describe how we got them. Like, are we super sure they're first hand accounts? That seems relevant. How long after the event were they written? Etc. Do you see what I'm asking for?

Don't say "the tomb was empty", say "we have texts that claim there was an empty tomb. We don't know who wrote them, we don't know this, we don't know that", but in your case I assume you might describe these things differently. I'm asking you to talk about the quality of the evidence that we have.

Is the question clear?
​
> The issue isn't someone else to blame, but rather can you rebut the claims?

actually, if you recall, we got here because you asked me to explain what I thought happened, and I said I don't know, that's not relevant, and you said "Of course it's relevant. How can you reject the resurrection if you have no case against it?". Then I pointed out that this isn't how it works. I gave the example of a defendant, we don't expect them to offer an alternative explanation in order to defend themselves. We don't say "if you want to prove your innocence then you need to go find the killer" or anything like that. Your response to that is "The issue isn't someone else to blame, but rather can you rebut the claims?".

Actually, that is the issue. The question at hand here is whether or not I need an alternate explanation in order to say believe in this explanation is unjustified. I do not. That's what we were talking about.
​
> That's correct. And I've given you evidence for my claims, but you've given me no evidence in reply, which leads me to the conclusion that you don't have enough evidence for your competing claim, which leads me to the conclusion that you've made a decision before examination of the evidence—the definition of bias.

What are you talking about? I haven't offered a competing claim. I have presented the evidence and it seems pretty weak. 4 gospels. That's it. I mean I'm open to there being more, I've asked you to present whatever evidence you want. But actually present evidence, not make claims based on that evidence.
​
> You must have been writing to someone else. You've given me no such summary, but I'd be glad to see it.

Here you go:

We've got 4 accounts, written decades after the event, they seem to plagiarize each other so its not even really 4 independent accounts, they conflict, we're not even sure who wrote them so we don't know if they're eye witness accounts anyway, the smallest scrap we have is from decades and decades after they were written.

That's my summary of the evidence. Oh, also, its not "decades and decades after they were written", its at least a hundred years. And its smaller than a cocktail napkin.

Do you dispute those points? Would you like to give a similar summary of the evidence? But notice what I'm doing. I'm actually talking about the things we have. We have text. And I describe the quality of those texts. That's what I'm asking you to do.
​
> You claim I've not given you anything ("Something you've yet to do"), but I did. Here it is again:

No no, I'm saying you're not answering the question I'm asking. That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for an evaluation of the actual evidence. Think about detectives. Instead of saying "we know the robber entered through the back door", which is what you're doing, I'm asking for "we found fingerprints of the robber on the back door door knob". The evidence, not the claims based on the evidence.

[jimwalton]

> Sweet, then present your case

Here are a few:
https://www.charismanews.com/world/50329-proof-of-resurrection
[url]https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/june/miracles-resurrections-real-raisings-fake-news-keener-afric.html
[/url]
> Yeah, we can't do anything about the evidence that they had back then. All we have is the evidence we have now.

There's plenty to go on about the evidence they had back then, just as with Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Nero, and Galileo. We can't be so closed minded and presentist as to assume that only our culture knows what evidence and truth are, and that anything not provable now is verifiably false.

> Sounds pretty weak, right?

Just because we can't confirm it with material evidence 2000 years later doesn't mean it's a weak case. Our historical records say Hannibal came over the Alps on elephants, but good luck finding the animals now or those that rode them to confirm it. That's not how it works with cold cases.

> Give me a summary of the evidence as you see it.

There's so much it's tough to condense. A VERY brief summary:

• All ancient attributes (external evidence), without exception, attribute the Gospels to the traditional authors. It is unanimous in the ancient record.
• No competing authors are ever presented by friend or foe. There is no indication from the ancient world that the traditional authors were ever doubted.
• The traditional authors of the Gospels fit the character of their works: Matthew by a Levite, Mark by a Palestinian Jew living abroad, Luke by an educated Gentile, and John by an intimate insider.
• The level of Greek in each Gospel fits the education and background of the traditional authors.
• John identifies himself in the book (though not by name) as the author
• There would be no reason to attribute Mark to Mark unless it were true. Nor would Matthew be at the top of the list for a forger.
• All of the documentary attributions in the ancient world attest to the traditional authors: "According to Matthew," so also Mark, Luke, and John.
• The attributions of the authors of the 4 Gospels were all unanimously accepted over large geographical regions in the 2nd century.

Now please give me your rebuttal evidence.

It's very noticeable that I asked for your evidence and you have yet to give any. It's actually fairly typical of my conversations on this forum. There is rarely any, if ever, evidence from the other side.

> Don't say "the tomb was empty", say "we have texts that claim there was an empty tomb.

We have more than the Gospel texts, as I've already mentioned. There is never any ancient argument that the tomb was not empty. A body was never produced. The cover story then (and even now: "The body was stolen") claims an empty tomb, and Christianity would never have flourished in Jerusalem were the tomb not empty. In addition, N.T. Wright says, “Neither the empty tomb by itself…nor the appearances by themselves could have generated the early Christian belief. The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world. However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief.”

But I'll admit I get tired of continuing to present evidence when no rebuttal evidence is EVER given in these conversations.

> actually, if you recall, we got here because you asked me to explain what I thought happened, and I said I don't know, that's not relevant, and you said "Of course it's relevant. How can you reject the resurrection if you have no case against it?". Then I pointed out that this isn't how it works.

Of course I recall it. In other words, you have no evidence to support or substantiate your position. OK, I get it. In a courtroom, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. In a debate, the burden of proof lies with anyone making a claim. You have made very clear that you have no substantiation for your claim.

> what is my competing claim?

Your competing claims have been...

• Its unreasonable to believe in the resurrection
• The unreliability of the Gospels (4 separate accounts, date of writing, plagiarism, conflicting accounts, uncertainty of authorship)—all of which I've refuted, and none of which authenticate unreliability. You have to do better than that.
• The resurrection is not a well-established fact
• It's irrelevant to present a case against the resurrection
• Modern stories of resurrection are unsustainable
• The claim of an empty tomb is unexaminable

It would probably be better to pick a subject and go into detail rather than settle for generalities. Authorship of one of the Gospels? Jesus's resurrection?

> Oh, also, its not "decades and decades after they were written", its at least a hundred years. And its smaller than a cocktail napkin.

The earliest manuscript we have is 100 years later, true, but that's not what the discussion was. All the evidence we have points to the fact that the Gospels were all written in the 1st century. Only the most minimalist scholars claim otherwise.

> Would you like to give a similar summary of the evidence?

• None of the Gospels mention the fall of Jerusalem as history.
• Acts is likely written before Peter's and Paul's death and before the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of Rome, so at least the 3 Synopics (and possibly even John) are written before that.
• Matthew writes concerning issues of the Law, a concern in the 1st c.
• Matthew has many archaic expressions and themes common to the 1st c.
• Matthew's sharp language about the dispute with Jews is 1st c.
• Matthew's particular parables reflect the climate of pre-70 AD.
• Ignatius of Antioch in the late 1st c. quotes Matthew and Luke
• Clement of Rome in the late 1st c. quotes Matthew and Mark and alludes to a text in Luke
• John's reference to the Temple as standing (Jn. 2.20; 5.2) is evidence of an early date
• The controversies of John are 1st-c. controversies, and not discussed in the 2nd c.
• Hermas (AD 97) mentions that there are 4 Gospels
• The Didache quotes Matthew
• The internal evidence of Mark (Aramaic expressions, theology) place it in the 1st c.
• Some of Mark's material is about Gentile controversy, a dead issue after AD 70.
• Many of Luke's Gospel and Acts expressions are early and primitive, putting it in the 1st c.

[Orpheus]

> I don't understand this. If it's true, it's true; if it happened, it happened

What I was trying to say is that something that old has more of a chance to be tampered with or misinterpreted. A doctors notes contents also are more probable then, let’s say, a man waking on water.

> He actually didn't. He just did it, apparently by thinking it.

That just further proves my point on how impossible that is. It’s absurd to think anyone could have done a thing like that within any law of science or logic.

> Apparently you don't think that some day in the future science will be able to accomplish some form of cryosleep

Whether or not we can do so in the future doesn’t matter to my point. My point was is that human beings cannot do what that specific caterpillar can do, especially not 2,000 years ago.

> And look in every bay: fish turning into more fish. Very possibly Jesus used very natural means to accomplish what he did.

Yes but Jesus did this in less than a day to feed thousands. It can’t be done by anyone, and Jesus can not control the space-time continuum to his will, no one can. Not even with today’s technology can we do that, and probably not for ages. Most, if not all, of Jesus’ miracles can be accomplished by a human being 2.000 years ago (or even today).

> This wasn't a point about Hannibal, but instead about the resurrection of Lazarus

Okay yeah that was a typo, I meant Lazarus lol.

> Isn’t it a scientific postulate that the universe is running down and will eventually run out of usable energy?

We are running out or resources, but that doesn’t mean that matter can be created nor destroyed. If we burn a finite resource such as oil or other fossil fuels, they burn down into their basic forms such as CO2, Nitrogen etc. Their energy stays the same and their matter wasn’t created nor destroyed, just transformed / broken down. Saying we are running out of resources doesn’t affect the argument that much.

> So maybe miracles aren't as impossible as you assume.

I still believe they very much are.

> But I'm not trying to take away from the miracle aspect of it. It was distinctly a miracle, but just maybe not so far-fetched scientifically as you assume to create a basis for denial. If I can say this kindly, you must really beware of your bias that skews reasoning.

Well science can explain it, but just as much as I can say humans sleeping can be explained by how a bear hibernates. They’re not the same thing, but just vaguely similar. So saying Jesus can make water into wine because a vine of grapes needs water doesn’t help the point very much, it’s just stating something that’s irrelevant to the argument.

And I would argue that sure, I have bias, but so does everyone. However, I would argue that you’re blinds yours to reason and logical solutions. Saying that because caterpillars can essentially cryosleep doesn’t prove that Lazarus can because no human to ever exist can or will ever be able to do so naturally.

> they are entirely different stories."

Whether they’re different stories or not, they still contradict each other. One says the exact opposite thing as the other, but Christians are told to follow and believe and hold authority to the Bible. How is this not a contradiction?

> Court rooms in the ancient world were not based on laws and precedent like ours

Many were. Many societies that were non-Christian and old that had these types of law-making and government. The Norse had one:
All free men of the Vikings would gather in their communities to make law and to decide cases in a meeting called a Thing. Each community had its own independent Thing. TheThing was instituted to both write Viking law and to decide cases of disputes within the law.

[jimwalton]

> That just further proves my point on how impossible that is. It’s absurd to think anyone could have done a thing like that within any law of science or logic.

Unless, of course, Jesus is God. Then it's fairly easy. So it depends more on one's evaluation of the deity of Jesus than any law of science.

> My point was is that human beings cannot do what that specific caterpillar can do, especially not 2,000 years ago.

Unless, of course, he was God.

> It can’t be done by anyone, and Jesus can not control the space-time continuum to his will, no one can

Unless, of course, he is God.

> I still believe [miracles] very much are [impossible].

On what grounds? Certainly not logical or scientific.

> doesn’t prove that Lazarus can because no human to ever exist can or will ever be able to do so naturally.

Correct. I agree. There's nothing natural about it. But that's the point. Jesus could do what was supernatural. At least, that's what each person has to weigh and consider for themselves.

> "Court rooms in the ancient world were not based on laws and precedent like ours" Many were.

Not in the ancient world, the days of the Bible.