What Real Evidence Exists for The Resurrection?

[cottage]

The problem with your "supernatural event" is that it describes a resurrection of the physical body in a certain time and place. That makes the claim historical as well.
You cannot separate the "supernatural" (whatever THAT is) from the historical, as far as the Resurrection is concerned.

I’m afraid I disagree.And supernatural means not existing in nature:The term ‘resurrection’ implies that organic material having been irreversible transformed, the corruption beginning even before the body has cooled, is then restored to its former condition. But a body that is said to have returned to its former integrity with flesh that has not been subjected to the least degradation, or any biological evidence for its demise, is no different to a body that continues to live without interruption. Either there was no resurrection or the body was not the body of Christ (we don’t have to accept that Thomas put his hands in the holes any more than we do that Betty and Barney Hills were supposedly abducted by aliens).

[FONT=Arial, Times, Roman]"Dr. Greenleaf, formerly the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Times, Roman]was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ![/FONT]"

and....

[FONT=Arial, Times, Roman]"After investigating the evidence of the resurrection, Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England, stated, ". . . there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true." [/FONT]

Ah, yes, Dr Greenleaf. (Testimonies of the Evangelists) His method was to subject the testimonies to Municipal Law and to treat those affirming the truths as witnesses. Unfortunately, although the good Doctor went to great lengths to explain the legal tenets, there remained that same picky-point that can be levelled at all the historical evidence: there are none who can be cross-examined. I can copy you my piecemeal disassembly of his account, if you're interested?
And I will gladly do so with the findings of his Worship, Lord Darling, if you can provide me with the necessary link?

 

[godnotgod]

I’m afraid I disagree.And supernatural means not existing in nature:The term ‘resurrection’ implies that organic material having been irreversible transformed, the corruption beginning even before the body has cooled, is then restored to its former condition. But a body that is said to have returned to its former integrity with flesh that has not been subjected to the least degradation, or any biological evidence for its demise, is no different to a body that continues to live without interruption. Either there was no resurrection or the body was not the body of Christ (we don’t have to accept that Thomas put his hands in the holes any more than we do that Betty and Barney Hills were supposedly abducted by aliens).

I think there is a misunderstanding here: when I refer to the Resurrection, I am referring to the Resurrection plus the Ascension into Heaven, as I believe most Christians are also using the term to mean. So, what we have here is the Infinite descending into finite time and place on the earthly plane to execute a miraculous/historical event. They become inseparable upon the birth of Infinite being as flesh and blood, which walks and talks within the context of historical time and place.

"Supernatural" is meaningless. It is only a concept. In reality, all we know for certain is that THIS world exists, and that is the natural world. You are separating reality into separate realms, but the nature of reality is that it is inseparable. In fact, we do not even have the "natural" world, "natural" implying "un-natural": all we can really say is that we live in THIS reality, and NO OTHER REALITY. So, when we refer to a miraculous or supernatural event, we are always experiencing such in THIS reality, rendering the two one and the same.

Ah, yes, Dr Greenleaf. (Testimonies of the Evangelists) His method was to subject the testimonies to Municipal Law and to treat those affirming the truths as witnesses. Unfortunately, although the good Doctor went to great lengths to explain the legal tenets, there remained that same picky-point that can be levelled at all the historical evidence: there are none who can be cross-examined. I can copy you my piecemeal disassembly of his account, if you're interested?
And I will gladly do so with the findings of his Worship, Lord Darling, if you can provide me with the necessary link?

I was only including these two as examples other than those of the Christian apologists, the point being that professional people make testimonies to the effect that the resurrection is a historical fact based upon what they deem as "overwhelming evidence". The list of professional people includes scientists, historians, and others. The point is that such claims are being made at all, but especially in light of their being made by educated people under the color of authority. I am agreeing with you that the source, though credentialed, is erroneous.

 

[cottage]

I think there is a misunderstanding here: when I refer to the Resurrection, I am referring to the Resurrection plus the Ascension into Heaven, as I believe most Christians are also using the term to mean. So, what we have here is the Infinite descending into finite time and place on the earthly plane to execute a miraculous/historical event. They become inseparable upon the birth of Infinite being as flesh and blood, which walks and talks within the context of historical time and place.

I dismiss the Ascension just as I dismiss the Resurrection. They are both supposed supernatural events with no proof for either.

"Supernatural" is meaningless. It is only a concept. In reality, all we know for certain is that THIS world exists, and that is the natural world. You are separating reality into separate realms, but the nature of reality is that it is inseparable.

So what is resurrection and the Ascension then, if not supernatural! By definition they are events that occur outside of nature, especially in the case of the Ascension. It is not me, but Christians who want distinguish between this world and another.

I was only including these two as examples other than those of the Christian apologists, the point being that professional people make testimonies to the effect that the resurrection is a historical fact based upon what they deem as "overwhelming evidence". The list of professional people includes scientists, historians, and others. The point is that such claims are being made at all, but especially in light of their being made by educated people.

And they are made by believers for believers. I have had protracted exchanges with some of them. Atheism doesn't have a monopoly on intelligence or the professions. Intelligent minds suspend reason or rationalize their beliefs into a form that is acceptable.

 

[godnotgod]

Faith is always the fall-back position. As with the PoE every possible theodical argument is employed, but when confronted with the truth that there is no logical necessity for evil, it then becomes purely a matter of faith that God is good.

Yes, and that most likely is because of the issue of metaphysical anxiety. To convince oneself that there ultimately exists a good God is a means of assuaging one's anxiety over ignorance about one's fate in his current existence and in the 'afterlife'. At best, Christian 'faith' is but a thumb-sucking pacifier. One still remains as ignorant as when one began.

 

[godnotgod]

I dismiss the Ascension just as I dismiss the Resurrection. They are both supposed supernatural events with no proof for either.

We are discussing this from the point of view of Christian beliefs, not ours, correct?

So what is resurrection and the Ascension then, if not supernatural! By definition they are events that occur outside of nature, especially in the case of the Ascension. It is not me, but Christians who want distinguish between this world and another.

What we call the natural world is considered to be a miraculous creation, and is, by definition, also supernatural in essence. The Resurrection and the Ascension are NOT events that occur outside of nature; they occur IN nature, and IN historical time and place. The Resurrection occurred out of the natural state of death, and the Ascension is of a physically occurring fleshy body. They are not supernatural, but extraordinary and inexplicable. Again, we are speaking in terms of Christian beliefs. The Christian is referring to a force acting over and above what he calls nature, nature being a controlled entity. But in reality, the force he is referring to is acting within the natural world. Jesus is born into the world; he performs miracles within this natural world; he resurrects from the natural state of death; he ascends physically within a physical context of time and place. All of this refers, then, to a historical context.

Now, if you were only referring to alleged events that occurred outside of man's experience, such as the rebellion of Lucifer in the heavenely realm, then it cannot be historical. The Christian will say that it is purely supernatural, but he is saying that from the point of view of his indoctrination, and his doctrines are held only within the mind. So, what he thinks has occurred in some far off place is actually seen and originates from within his own mind, though he places the authority for his belief outside of it.

 

[cottage]

We are discussing this from the point of view of Christian beliefs, not ours, correct?

As a sceptic, why on earth would I look at this from a view that I happen to believe is fiction?

What we call the natural world is considered to be a miraculous creation, and is, by definition, also supernatural in essence. The Resurrection and the Ascension are NOT events that occur outside of nature; they occur IN nature, and IN historical time and place. The Resurrection occurred out of the natural state of death, and the Ascension is of a physically occurring fleshy body. They are not supernatural, but extraordinary and inexplicable. Again, we are speaking in terms of Christian beliefs. The Christian is referring to a force acting over and above what he calls nature, nature being a controlled entity. But in reality, the force he is referring to is acting within the natural world. Jesus is born into the world; he performs miracles within this natural world; he resurrects from the natural state of death; he ascends physically within a physical context of time and place. All of this refers, then, to a historical context.

Of course these are supposed supernatural events! The Hills claimed an alien abduction. By your reasoning that wasn’t a supposed supernatural event but an historical one because it occurred in time and place. And ascending from this world to another is neither natural nor physical.

Now, if you were only referring to alleged events that occurred outside of man's experience, such as the rebellion of Lucifer in the heavenely realm, then it cannot be historical. The Christian will say that it is purely supernatural, but he is saying that from the point of view of his indoctrination, and his doctrines are held only within the mind. So, what he thinks has occurred in some far off place is actually seen and originates from within his own mind, though he places the authority for his belief outside of it.

I’m sorry but I don’t know what your argument is or what it is meant to address.

 

[godnotgod]

As a sceptic, why on earth would I look at this from a view that I happen to believe is fiction?

Because those who claim it is real need to be asked for the evidence that supports their view. So we need to understand the premises they base such claims upon.

Try not to look at it as a sceptic; try just looking at it. "Sceptic" is already a preconceived notion about what you are looking at.

Of course these are supposed supernatural events! The Hills claimed an alien abduction. By your reasoning that wasn’t a supposed supernatural event but an historical one because it occurred in time and place. And ascending from this world to another is neither natural nor physical.

There is no "this world" or "that world", but only ONE world. From the point of view of aliens, the ability to fly around space in saucers and abduct other beings is perfectly natural and ordinary. When they abduct one of us, it is historical, because they are entering our frame of reference, which is time and place.

"On Thursday, Oct. 23, 1984, three people were abducted by unidentified aliens flying an unknown spacecraft from the vicinity of Meadow Lake in Toledo, Ohio. This is an event of historic proportions."

The event is only extraordinary from our point of view.

However, it is not necessarily a supernatural event, by certain standards, "supernatural" implying the intervention of a divine nature.

I’m sorry but I don’t know what your argument is or what it is meant to address.

I was trying to give an example of a non-historical event, one that is considered purely supernatural, so as to provide a frame of reference.

 

[footprints]

Amazingly, so is yours. Nobody here has tried to disprove the resurrection, although one could offer arguments as to why such an event was unlikely to have happened. The OP called on people to offer evidence in favor of the resurrection. The best that you could come up with was the puzzling idea that facts were subjective things. Well, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Personally I believe you should read all posts before making such statements. It would help in giving your post some credibility and not lost in some illusion of your own creation.

There is enough evidence for and against this case without having to go to personal beliefs. Personally I accept all evidence from both sides as being credible. Your belief pattern allows you to only see one side.

 

[footprints]

Now, if we were talking about which hand holds the M&M peanut, your guess is as good as mine, as you imply. The nature of the subject matter is not unusual to begin with. We know what M&M's are, and that there is a 50/50 chance of it being in one hand or the other. Everything here is pretty straightforward. Proof of which hand it actually is in occurs when both hands are opened.

But when you make a claim for something completely preposterous to begin with, where little or no evidence exists, which is treated as if it were fact, is unprovable, and then proceed to say that your guess is as good as mine as to its validity, we have a problem, and that problem lies with you and why you have chosen to regard such a claim as valid. Then, to continue to insist that such a claim is valid only on the basis of faith renders it even more incredible.

But proof is not so much the issue here, as evidence that exists for the claim being made. So far, we have virtually zilch.

Perhaps it would be more instructive to discuss why Christians believe what they do, in this case, the Resurrection, because evidence certainly is not the basis, so it must be something else.

Why do I get the feeling that Christians don't really understand the nature of what they are claiming: that a man, and only ONE man ever, first returned to life after death, and then proceeded to ascend into the sky!

I wonder if, in light of all of the symbolism they use in their religion, whether it is possible for them to understand what the theme of resurrection means symbolically as it pertains to their own existence.

I am not sure what you M&M analogy pertains to, is this like a spaghetti monster?

Perhaps it would be more instructive to discuss why Non Christians believe what they do, in this case, the Resurrection, because evidence certainly is not the basis, so it must be something else.

Why do I get the feeling that Non Christians don't really understand the nature of what they are claiming: that many Christians believe that one person opened the gates so many could ascend to Heaven!

I wonder if, in light of all of the symbolism they use in their other religion, non religion, whether it is possible for them to understand what the theme of resurrection means symbolically as it pertains to their own existence.

 

[footprints]

I don't think your fellow Christians are as stupid as you think they are. To believe in the resurrection as a matter of faith is one thing. To consider it conclusively proven as a historical fact is sheer idiocy, and while I'm very critical of Christianity, I do know that not every Christian is a sheer idiot.

Well perhaps it is your fellow Christians I was thinking about then. And perhaps you should learn to read while you are at it, it would certainly save you a lot of embarrassment.

I personally don't believe I would ever consider any Christian Stupid.

 

[footprints]

Not really.

If I claim to be the son of my mother's husband, I doubt that will even excite much doubt in my audience. If I claim to be the son of Elvis Presley, it will be reasonable for them to demand some pretty convincing evidence. If I claim to be the son of Rudolph Valentino, they will be justified in dismissing my claim out of hand, and in demanding the most extraordinary evidence even to consider it.

Yes Really,

Only your own Faith, holds this belief in you. A very lousy analogy.

Even you being the son of your mothers husband, would be the subject of conjecture. Albeit DNA evidence would go a long way to suggesting this was right, anything else would be blind faith.

Unfortunately we cannot test the DNA of Jesus. However we could test this in you to see if you were really the son of your mothers husband, or the son of another person.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes Really,

Only your own Faith, holds this belief in you. A very lousy analogy.

Even you being the son of your mothers husband, would be the subject of conjecture. Albeit DNA evidence would go a long way to suggesting this was right, anything else would be blind faith.

Unfortunately we cannot test the DNA of Jesus. However we could test this in you to see if you were really the son of your mothers husband, or the son of another person.

All Smoke and I have been trying to say is that ordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence to prove their validity, but extraordinary claims, which the Resurrection is, absolutely does. But in the case of the Resurrection, even ordinary evidence is lacking. All we have is a story, with second and third hand allusions to hearsay evidence.

OK. So the claim that the Resurrection is a historical fact doesn't hold much water, and the Christian must find refuge in his faith. Here the whole story changes. We are on different ground, with different kinds of questions that must be asked in the face of the claim being made. Please remember that Christians are the ones advancing and promoting not just an ordinary claim, but a miraculous event the magnitude of which is quite spectacular; an event not witnessed first hand by anyone. Not a single one of the alleged 500 eyewitnesses of St. Paul provide any testimony whatsoever, either oral or written. Don't you find it a bit odd that no one thought to question any of them; to document what they had seen and heard, even if they might only be mundane details, for the single most important event in the entire history of mankind? As I mentioned earlier, even comets have received more recorded documentation than did the Resurrection of the Son of Man.

I'm sorry, but if you fail to see, in the most common sense sort of way, that something is seriously wrong with this story, then you must be blind, or ignorant, or both.

But to return to the issue of faith alone, the question becomes: why does the Christian find it so easy to casually believe that something as fantastic as a Resurrection, followed by an Ascension (two miracles, back to back, really) could have occurred? What I am suggesting is that there is a very good reason as to why the Christian not only readily chooses to believe it as true, but MUST believe it. For, without the Resurrection, as St. Paul tells us, we have no Christianity.

Does anyone here understand why that is so? Because, as far as I can see, the Resurrection performs no real function, as the Crucifixion does. It is the Crucifixion which is the executive agent that miraculously wipes away man's sin and guilt via of the shedding of divine blood, and exactly how that is accomplished is a topic for another thread.

If you are brave enough to provide an answer for the Resurrection having a function, I would like to hear it. Seems Christians keep avoiding this question, so I keep asking it.

Another poster suggested that the Resurrection was a symbol of cosmic renewal, of the promise of some new world that was coming down the divine turnpike. Now that is quite a miracle to perform just for the purpose of providing a sign to some other future event, and then one which was witnessed by virtually no one!

We are now on Christian ground, that of faith. We have left the ground of Reason and Logic and Provable Facts behind. This should be easy for any Christian to solve, right?

 

[Copernicus]

There is enough evidence for and against this case without having to go to personal beliefs. Personally I accept all evidence from both sides as being credible. Your belief pattern allows you to only see one side.

I am quite aware of the fact that you accept all evidence from both sides, which is why you agree with every criticism I've made of your posts.

 

[Trusue]

You do well to keep yourself hidden, you have the kind of faith that is exposed as hypocritical.
A true Christian believes God's word, he does not doubt the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the only evidence a true Christian has to build his faith, even from the size of a mustard seed, you don't even have that much faith. You do well to start reading your copy of the Scriptures.

 

[godnotgod]

SECOND POSTING:

But to return to the issue of faith alone, the question becomes: why does the Christian find it so easy to casually believe that something as fantastic as a Resurrection, followed by an Ascension (two miracles, back to back, really) could have occurred? What I am suggesting is that there is a very good reason as to why the Christian not only readily chooses to believe it as true, but MUST believe it. For, without the Resurrection, as St. Paul tells us, we have no Christianity.

Does anyone here understand why that is so? Because, as far as I can see, the Resurrection performs no real function, as the Crucifixion does. It is the Crucifixion which is the executive agent that miraculously wipes away man's sin and guilt via of the shedding of divine blood, and exactly how that is accomplished is a topic for another thread.

If you are brave enough to provide an answer for the Resurrection having a function, I would like to hear it. Seems Christians keep avoiding this question, so I keep asking it.

Another poster suggested that the Resurrection was a symbol of cosmic renewal, of the promise of some new world that was coming down the divine turnpike. Now that is quite a miracle to perform just for the purpose of providing a sign to some other future event, and then one which was witnessed by virtually no one!

We are now on Christian ground, that of faith. We have left the ground of Reason and Logic and Provable Facts behind. This should be easy for any Christian to solve, right?

 

[footprints]

I am quite aware of the fact that you accept all evidence from both sides, which is why you agree with every criticism I've made of your posts.

I do agree with all criticisms you make of my posts. I agree with them from your perception, and from this view I know you are correct. Fortunately for me though, I am not subjected to a single belief, and have many to choose from. I can see many beliefs better than yours.

 

[footprints]

All Smoke and I have been trying to say is that ordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence to prove their validity, but extraordinary claims, which the Resurrection is, absolutely does. But in the case of the Resurrection, even ordinary evidence is lacking. All we have is a story, with second and third hand allusions to hearsay evidence.

OK. So the claim that the Resurrection is a historical fact doesn't hold much water, and the Christian must find refuge in his faith. Here the whole story changes. We are on different ground, with different kinds of questions that must be asked in the face of the claim being made. Please remember that Christians are the ones advancing and promoting not just an ordinary claim, but a miraculous event the magnitude of which is quite spectacular; an event not witnessed first hand by anyone. Not a single one of the alleged 500 eyewitnesses of St. Paul provide any testimony whatsoever, either oral or written. Don't you find it a bit odd that no one thought to question any of them; to document what they had seen and heard, even if they might only be mundane details, for the single most important event in the entire history of mankind? As I mentioned earlier, even comets have received more recorded documentation than did the Resurrection of the Son of Man.

I'm sorry, but if you fail to see, in the most common sense sort of way, that something is seriously wrong with this story, then you must be blind, or ignorant, or both.

But to return to the issue of faith alone, the question becomes: why does the Christian find it so easy to casually believe that something as fantastic as a Resurrection, followed by an Ascension (two miracles, back to back, really) could have occurred? What I am suggesting is that there is a very good reason as to why the Christian not only readily chooses to believe it as true, but MUST believe it. For, without the Resurrection, as St. Paul tells us, we have no Christianity.

Does anyone here understand why that is so? Because, as far as I can see, the Resurrection performs no real function, as the Crucifixion does. It is the Crucifixion which is the executive agent that miraculously wipes away man's sin and guilt via of the shedding of divine blood, and exactly how that is accomplished is a topic for another thread.

If you are brave enough to provide an answer for the Resurrection having a function, I would like to hear it. Seems Christians keep avoiding this question, so I keep asking it.

Another poster suggested that the Resurrection was a symbol of cosmic renewal, of the promise of some new world that was coming down the divine turnpike. Now that is quite a miracle to perform just for the purpose of providing a sign to some other future event, and then one which was witnessed by virtually no one!

We are now on Christian ground, that of faith. We have left the ground of Reason and Logic and Provable Facts behind. This should be easy for any Christian to solve, right?

The thing is though, godnotgod, you admit you see Resurrection as an extraordinary claim. Others see it as something normal and accept it in its simplicity.

You are looking for extraordinary evidence, and I would suggest the only thing which would appease your intelligence. Your faith alone, will keep this in you.

 

[footprints]

If you are brave enough to provide an answer for the Resurrection having a function, I would like to hear it. Seems Christians keep avoiding this question, so I keep asking it.

Do you mean brave enough, due to the fact that people of different beliefs will attack it and try to ridicule it (me). I never let narrow minded people worry me, I realise they have problems and issues.

Does the resurrection have a function? Well I would say, we would first have to have sufficient evidence to establish whether resurrection is right or wrong. That would be a very good start. I mean evidence which isn't part of any belief pattern.

However, this aside, Ressurrection does have a function in reality which cannot be denied. This function is it causes debates and friction between people of different beliefs, each trying to show and prove their belief is the one true vision pertaining to God. I would say the function is to try and teach people to be resonable when discussing different beliefs.

 

[cottage]

Because those who claim it is real need to be asked for the evidence that supports their view. So we need to understand the premises they base such claims upon.

We know the premise! It is the claim that documentary evidence is proof for supernatural events. But no document can ever be a full and final proof for the existence of a Supreme Being, to which those supposed mystical events are causally attributed. And it is as plain and as simple as that.

Try not to look at it as a sceptic; try just looking at it. "Sceptic" is already a preconceived notion about what you are looking at.

Oh nonsense! I'm a sceptic because of the lack of proof, not because of any conceptions held in advance. If a thing can be proved or demonstrated then I'm bound to accept it.

There is no "this world" or "that world", but only ONE world. From the point of view of aliens, the ability to fly around space in saucers and abduct other beings is perfectly natural and ordinary. When they abduct one of us, it is historical, because they are entering our frame of reference, which is time and place.

"On Thursday, Oct. 23, 1984, three people were abducted by unidentified aliens flying an unknown spacecraft from the vicinity of Meadow Lake in Toledo, Ohio. This is an event of historic proportions."

The event is only extraordinary from our point of view.

Your discussion on the ‘point of view of aliens’ is just wandering off the subject, for if there is only one world, as you say, then it follows that ‘our view’ is the one that we all share. The Resurrection and the Ascension are held to be extraordinary, miraculous in fact, even by the claimants themselves! And that those mystical or miraculous events are claimed to have occurred in history gives them no more legitimacy than claims to alien abductions, which must also have supposedly occurred in a time and a place. We have the claim that a being was transported to another world after its dead body was returned to life. It isn’t a question of where and when those events took place, or a matter to be settled by testimony or scholarly analysis. No written account or an appeal to testimony can ever take us beyond the world of experience.

However, it is not necessarily a supernatural event, by certain standards, "supernatural" implying the intervention of a divine nature.

So what is an entity that supposedly transcends the natural world and has existed from eternity, if not supernatural?

 

[godnotgod]

The thing is though, godnotgod, you admit you see Resurrection as an extraordinary claim. Others see it as something normal and accept it in its simplicity.

Well, no, there is nothing to admit to. When I say that it is an extraordinary claim, it is not a personal view, the fact of the matter. What makes it extraordinary is that there has never been such a claim made before in the history of man. That is not my personal view. Those who accept it "as normal" do not accept the actual event as such, but the doctrine attached to the event. In other words, they accept it because it is part of being obedient to their own brand of creator-God. Obedience is the key, not faith. One dare not dis-believe, on penalty of eternal punishment. Therefore, one better have "faith"....or else!

The concepts of crucifixion as redeeming sacrifice, resurrection from the dead, and ascension into a heaven are all miraculous events, the nature of which, essentially, are magic. If they all exhibit the "simplicity" you claim, then will you will have no difficulty in explaining exactly how they are executed.

Now, had you been referring to the purity and simplicity of Yeshua's teachings, before St. Paul transformed them into the fantasmagorical and apocalyptic block-busting extravaganza that they have become, I would have no problem in agreeing with you.

Dig?

If the Christian truly understood the actual nature of what he was believing in, he would be dumbsruck.

You are looking for extraordinary evidence, and I would suggest the only thing which would appease your intelligence. Your faith alone, will keep this in you.

There is no premise upon which to establish any faith, either evidential or doctrinal.

Show it to me.

Actually, I would be quite satisfied with ordinary evidence, such as a couple of paragraphs of written testimony, either first or second hand, from a handful of the alleged 500 eyewitnesses of St. Paul. The fact that no such written testimony exists out of over 500 eyewitnesses is further indication of the fallacious nature of the Resurrection as a real event....and that does not even include the Ascension!