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

[Jenny A]

You just keep repeating that over and over as if it's evidence for your point. You already agreed that the fact that a number of historians agree does not make it true, so stop using that statement as if it does.

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.

You began with the evidence on which historians must rely one way or the other and there isn't much of it. Reasonable minds can be unconvinced. And indeed there are historians who remain unconvinced.