We aren't debating whether or not he rose from the dead. We are debating whether or not rising from the dead is supernatural.

and you need to explain how it is supernatural. you have yet to explain other than "personally believe that no one can rise from the dead without the help of a supreme being". Secondly, even if you are true, you did not explain what this "supreme being" is. Does he exist in the natural world? if so, then this "supreme being" raise someone in the natural world back to life is a natural phenomenon.

what do you think of all of the Islamic martyrs, or martys from the vast # of religions you *dont* follow?

If you want the dictionaries definition, here...

supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding; unnaturally or extraordinarily great.

If anything is "supernatural", it's resurrection.

A natural phenomenon is a non-artificial event in the physical sense, and therefore not produced by humans, although it may affect humans (e.g. bacteria, aging, natural disasters, death). Common examples of natural phenomena include volcanic eruptions, weather, and decay. Most natural phenomena, such as rain, are relatively harmless so far as humans are concerned.

A natural phenomenon can be explained. A supernatural event cannot. Because resurrection cannot be explained by science, it is considered supernatural.

These people died for something they believe to be true. They die for their faith. This is quite different from the way that the disciples died. The disciples were in a position to know without a doubt whether or not Jesus had rissen from the dead. They didn't just believe it. They knew the facts, because they witnessed it first hand. The point is, they wouldn't have let themselves be tortured if they hadn't seen Jesus after he was presumed dead.

this 100% wrong. There are many natural phenomenon that can not be explained. If a phenomenon is supernatural, it can be explained using supernatural methods.

The resurrection may be supernatural, and it may not be. You either have a really strange understanding of the definition of supernatural or are being purposely obtuse. Just because it has not been explained does not mean it should be attributed to some force outside of nature. In addition, a human being coming back to life after being dead does not, in the slightest, seem supernatural to me.

Again, explain how a human rising from the dead is supernatural.

you are pretty insensitive and ignorant towards the beliefs and actions of martyrs of other faiths (and cults). I wonder why that is. I already know this conversation will be a waste of time, and you saying "They knew the facts, because they witnessed it first hand." just shows you are not ready to have a conversation that challenges your beliefs.

Feel free to challenge me on my beliefs whenever you want. All you've done so far is say that you disagree with me, but haven't given me any reason to change my mind on what I believe.

What would you consider to be supernatural exactly? Name a few things.

It seems to me that you want to keep arguing but continue to avoid key topics. Do you really think the disciples would let themselves be tortured if they hadn't seen Jesus after his death?

Btw, raising from the dead is just about as unique as it gets. People have claimed to, and I've studied about many of them, but Jesus is the only one with significant proof that he actually did in fact resurrect.

That is the point of this forum.

The Christian description of "God", by definition
The Islamic description of "God", by definition
etc, etc.

If you want to say that the resurrection of Jesus is supernatural by definition because Jesus was brought back to life by supernatural means, then fine, I will grant you that a supernatural resurrection is indeed supernatural.

That does not make human resurrection supernatural.

I can neither say they did or did not see Jesus after his death. But I am more than willing to accept that they believed they saw Jesus after his death.

I probably won't be typing anymore responses today. This was rainmans discussion that I kindof butted in on, so I think it'd be fair to let him catch up before it goes too much further.

Plus I think it's time for teh pokahz.

Is this a non-sequitor? Your response makes little sense in response to what I'm saying.

Regarding the gist of your response... I hope this isn't one of those silly "it can't be false if people died for their beliefs." Sure its funny but its kind of old since that's been soundly refuted and mocked a number of times around here.

Can you clarify if you're making that statement or if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.

one could not say unless one studied it. Since we can't verify and examine it, we can't really say. Perhaps there are perfectly natural reasons why this could happen but its rare enough to not have been studied?

All is moot since we have no good reason to believe it happened.

We do have good reason to believe it happened.

It's funny that you guys actually think it's possible that there could be a natural explanation for resurrection. It's possible if it happened once every year to someone, but only once in history? And that one person claimed to be God? That's one pretty ironic natural phenomenon IYAM.

LOL. resurrection happens multiple times *in the bible*. not to mention the prediction of mass resurrection in the end times.

also, learn some comparative religion please. human resurrection is a common theme in *many* religions. And there have been main claims (with plenty more than the # of "witnesses" in the Jesus case) of resurrection in the span of human history.

By whose standard? Not by any scientific organization. I'll give you a hint... the fact that a religious text states it is not good reason.

There are phenomenon that has never been examined in nature, has been created in a laboratory and has a natural explanation. You seem to have epic failure in logic repeatedly. Hint: Something could happen once every 4 billion years and still have a natural explanation.

Also- one cannot really say that the one person who it supposedly happened to (not true... the resurrection myth is hardly unique and many have suggested that its simply another element stolen from other mythologies) claimed to be be God since, again, we have to rely on the writings of people decades after it happened who we already know were very superstitious.

You'll make a better argument when you realize that you can't use the Bible as proof that the things in the Bible are true.

I think you need to study up on logical fallacies because you're making quite a few doozies.

Ok. Resurrection happens in the Bible, yes. Because Jesus made it happen. And the mass resurrection predicted at the end of time is also through God. Anything is possible through God.

I'm saying that I don't believe anyone has resurrected except those through Jesus Christ.

Of course. I never said there haven't been claims. I said that I've studied all the claims of resurrection, and the claim of Jesus' resurrection is the only one that has sufficient evidence to believe.

Yet you believe George Washington crossed the Delaware because your U.S. history book said so?

right. so all those people resurrected in the OT were resurrected by Jesus Christ?

ALL the claims of resurrection? you sir, are a ****ing joke. Didn't realize so many Christians were such pathological liars.

Whether George Washington crossed the delaware or not has no bearing on my eternal soul.

Regardless, GW crossing the delaware is not an extraordinary event (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), and occured much more recently in human history, and has much more evidence to support that it actually happened. Plus, who cares if we are wrong about whether he crossed the delaware or not?

Yes. Jesus was God in human form. You think just because he hadn't came to earth yet that he couldn't do his work?

Relax. My mistake on saying "all". What I meant was, all of the one's I've studied appear false except for Jesus.

Of course I haven't studied all the resurrection claims. Name some that you believe actually happened, and I will learn more about them. If you give me one claim that has as much sufficient evidence as Jesus did, I'll be damned. But go ahead. I'm listening.

Your exactly right. My point is is that we have standards for what we believe in life. I don't believe George Washington crossed the Delaware anymore than I believe Jesus resurrected. Do you?

of course not. Just wanted to confirm that you believe that Jesus = God. In that case, yes, you would believe that resurrection is supernatural since only through God (by your definition, a supernatural force) can it be done. Pretty shallow way to look at it, but thats your prerogative.

No worries, at least you can admit when you are wrong. you have a bright future here! (no sarcasm whatsoever)

Thats difficult since I don't actually know what you consider "evidence" of Jesus' resurrection. Especially considering I think the evidence of Jesus' resurrection to be fairly *in*suffcient.

What...you don't believe in historical research?

Did you just go with your gut?

yes? but i could easily be wrong about GW crossing the delaware or JC resurrecting through supernatural means (again, youll need to make a clear distinction between JC "appearing" to resurrect, JC actually resurrecting, but by natural means, and JC resurrecting through supernatural means (since JC is God he resurrected Himself)).

There have been no confirmed, witnessed cases of resurrection. Ever. If you want to claim otherwise you'll need to come up with the proof.

More importantly, how can you claim that it's not supernatural? Resurrection is simply not possible through natural laws of medicine. Without the supernatural, it does not happen. I didn't have to complete more than 3 years of medical school to find this out, either.

LIke kurto pointed out this isn't necessarily true. Back then its wasn't an exact science confirming peoples deaths so the disciples and even Jesus himself might of been mistaken.