If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

Well feelings are subjective.   Do you put much weight in feelings?  I see feelings as perhaps a need to look closer, or further investigate.   However, I don't expect others to have the same feelings that I do, or to accept them.   I think that you need a rational case to dismiss evidence.

I don't think that the Gospels or Paul constitute "evidence".  I've asked you about this before, as to why I should accept the Gospel of Matthew but not the Gospel of Peter?

I've answered before.   I think that we both agree, that it was written late.  It's not even considered among those closest to the accounts of Jesus in the Early Church.  Our earliest references to it (~200 AD); are condemning it as a forgery not from Peter, suggest not to read it to congregations and that it contains Docetism which did not fit with what they heard from the apostles.  If my memory is correct, then we had very little knowledge of it, because a copy was not found until quite recently of which the earliest copy is ~ 8 - 9th century.  

Do you have reason that you think it should be accepted?

---

Oh yes.... witness testimony is not evidence.
So then.... set Bill Cosby FREEE!!!!   We also seemed to have shown, that is not the case recently, or are you saying that the democrats had no reason to cite delay and to not confirm Kavenaugh?

As well, witness testimony is used in historical research, and in criminal trials all the time.   Atheists just seem to have double standards when it comes to things that don't fit their narrative.

Once again, asshole, testimony must be cross-examined.  In case you missed it, a lying, drunken, scumbag is now on the supreme court because the testimony of the accuser was not cross-examined and neither was his.

Produce your fucking witnesses and let's have at them!  Your silly-assed "paul" contradicts himself so much that a first year law student with  D average could rip him a new asshole on the stand.

If you think that historians demand/expect  to personally cross-examine witnesses from 2000 years ago; then you are more delusional than I thought.  This would also mean that you discount most of history.   I notice that when you are trying to make a case against Christianity, that you hold different standards though.  Why is that?

Also Dr. Ford was cross examined (although I think they handled her with kid gloves) by the senate; so was Judge Kavenaugh.