MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Free]

Do you understand the difference between a persuasive argument and actual tangible evidence?

Here are the definitions:

Persuasive Writing:


That is what you are attempting to do above, and the argument above is not persuasive at all.

Now here is what tangible evidence is:

Tangible Evidence:


That is what you need to do.

You are providing a very poorly scripted persuasive argument and confusing it with tangible evidence.

Decisions are made on the evidence, not on poorly scripted persuasive arguments.

Are you really asking for tangible evidence for the non-existence of a character alleged to exist two thousand years ago?

Do you think it is unreasonable to find some kind of ancient text which disputes historicity?

A person that has no contemporary evidence that supports them existing and just happens to conform to your personal bias, that person?

In my opinion, and no offense intended, but this clearly demonstrates the weakness of the Mythicist argument, for there is one thing that Mythicists either fail to understand, or intentionally ignore:

Paul was a 1st century contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, and he wrote of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Requiring further evidence such as "oh but, he never met Jesus" is completely irrelevant to the point.

Talking about your"poorly scripted persuasive arguments".

Yes, as had just been demonstrated once again with yours. No offense intended.