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

[Esquilax]

Well, if included in that majority are individuals that are not Christians, I would think that would make there interpretations of the evidence legitmate...I know how you people like to say "those sources were by people that already believed in Christianity"....no, that isn't the case here. Notice when I say ''majority", I also point out that some are non-Christian as well.

The vast majority of all historians apply some historical methodology...the same methodology that they apply to any other historical person/historical claim in history, and they draw the conclusion that Jesus "the man", existed.

Point blank, period.

If I were partial to making the exact same deflectionary arguments you do, I would here dismiss your entire case, scoffing that you don't have a solution to the problem of your god's life coming from non-life, and therefore all the things you say about his supposed son are irrelevant and necessarily untrue until you come up with that solution. After all, how can we accept your answers here when you haven't dealt with the very basis of your god?

Of course, I'm not making that claim because I'm not a dishonest moron seeking to delay the conversation until my opponent gets bored so I can claim an unearned victory. I just think it's interesting that a good majority of the arguments you've used since coming here also apply to you yourself. But then, we already know and understand your entire position rests on a deep well of hypocrisy that you will never acknowledge, and may not even understand exists.