Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!microsof!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Resurrection and the Burden of Proof Message-ID: <5279@unc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-May-83 14:03:41 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.5279 Posted: Wed May 25 14:03:41 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 28-May-83 14:16:22 EDT Lines: 97 Before the main feature, there will be a short featured response. The paragraph following is from an article by Larry Bickford. When quotes appear, it is Larry quoting an article of mine. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< To Tim Maroney: "I don't intend to let any slave-master ... supercede my will for my life." Remember those words at the Judgment. "The 'not mine but thine' bit is the utterance of a slave who desires no freedom." Read Romans 6 to find out who has real freedom. "Humans are not so unworthy to choose for ourselves as you portray us." History indicates otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not frightened of judgment by your God, Larry. Listen to yourself. "Don' yo be sayin' t'ings like dat! De Massa gwine be pow'ful angry! We'se jus' slaves, and dat's all we ever be." You are proving every statement I made. And now, our feature presentation. Larry challenges us as follows: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Every other week for about two months now, I have asked publicly for anyone who can refute the Resurrection. NOT ONE RESPONSE! All the things Jesus and His followers said and did is NOTHING without the Resurrection. STILL NO RESPONSE! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The concept of "the burden of proof" is a very old one. It applies to all civilized discourse. It could be stated as follows: "The burden of proof is on the claimant." In our judicial system, it is the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", since the claimant is the plaintiff in this case. Basically, what it says is that the person who claims something happened is obligated to prove that it did in fact happen, but the person who disbelieves is obligated only to counter the evidence of the claimant, not to disprove the occurence. I trust the reason for this is clear to all, particularly from the judicial example. Otherwise, we would have to believe every loony that came down the pike, unless his claims could be 100% disproved. "I just saw a mouse pick up an owl and fly back to a hole in the clouds." "What do you think, Eb?" "Well, I cain't prove he ain't right, so I reckon we'll have to change the schoolbooks a tad..." Now, it is obvious who the claimant is in this case of the Resurrection of Christ. It is Larry. So who does the burden of proof rest on? And here is his evidence: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< You want something to separate Christianity from everything else? Here it is! Most religions base themselves on untestable claims. Christianity stands or falls on a HISTORICAL event, one that occurred in known time and space, one that can be tested -- the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. And I mean DEAD dead - no operating-table resuscitation. He was executed, a spear was poked far enough into him to cause blood to pour out, He was wrapped in cloths saturated with 100 pounds of ointment (effectively forming a body case), a huge stone (check the Greek) was rolled against the mouth of the tomb, a Roman guard guarded it to make sure the body wasn't stolen (did you get my mail, Hutch?) -- and He was later seen alive, walking, and talking! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do we know Christ was dead? Certainly this is a good possibility. His ordeal was extreme. But how do we KNOW it? Guards can be bribed -- in fact, Christians like to talk about how corrupt the Romans were. A crucifixion normally took several days. Christ was cut down after just a few hours. Yogis have been observed lowering their basic metabolic rate to amazing degrees, ignoring pain, and stopping bleeding. Christ might have been able to do the same, and this "miracle" is certainly easier to believe in than resurrection. The possibility that Christ was playing possum cannot be gotten around. Larry goes on: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Paul reports that there were over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ. In a court of law, 500 eyewitnesses to an event occurring in time and space makes a solid case. And remember, Paul was writing this (I Corinthians 15) to people who were saying there was no resurrection. The evidence he provided for those skeptics is still valid today. If you don't accept it, it isn't because the evidence is biased - it's because YOU are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Five hundred people is five hundred people. One person claiming something about five hundred people is one person. I recommend you avoid law school, Larry. You'd be eaten alive. (By the way, what is "an event occurring in time and space"? Is there another kind that people are eyewitnesses to in courts of law?) People are still refusing to admit that the Bible supporting itself doesn't demonstrate anything. A consistent statement need not be a true one. Buddhists claim that the Buddha was frequently observed in miraculous doings, and they claim huge crowds shared these observations. But it is still only the Buddhists saying it, and they obviously have a vested interest. I believe in treating different cases equally (some of you may recognize this as a thing little seen, "justice"), and thus the same attitude must be used when evaluating the claims of Christians, Buddhists, Moslems, witches, etc. Tim Maroney