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

[Thumpalumpacus]

I already provided that info...if you can't keep up with the thread, either try harder, or tough shit.

No, you didn't. You linked to one entry in a wikipedia bibliography, the information in which consisted of title, author, publisher, and ISBN. There was no indication that the book containted a study, and there was no information that I had asked for.

Stating that you satisfied my request is dishonest on your part. But it's cool, I've already figured out that you're a liar. I'm just elucidating it for anyone else reading this thread.

Thanks for providing, in this reply, one more example of your dishonesty.

Science haven't been able to prove abiogenesis...fact....and the vast majority of all historians believe in the historical Jesus...fact.

Until you demonstrate that "fact" with a study of histroains, this is argumentum ex culo and nothing more.

Do a google search and educate yourself on both history, and the incompotence of science in certain areas.

Except, that isn't the topic here, now is it? The topic is, you are going to demonstrate Christ's existence.

You're failing miserably, and desperately tossing out any critique, real or imagined, you can think of in order to smokescreen your utter inability to deliver the goods.

Rather than admit that your faith is Jesus is faith, you're driven to cloak it in academic respectability.

I used to be surprised at how many believers are absolutely ashamed to admit that their beliefs are faith, but no more.

From the perspective of a nonbeliever, there are only two reasons for you to gussy up your faith in the trappings of science: you either wish to convince me, or you wish to convince yourself.

And if you wish to convince me, your dishonesty is going to torpedo that effort.

Well, apparently you are too...since you are apparently ignorant of the historical concensus regarding Jesus of Nazareth, otherwise you wouldn't be asking me these dumb ass questions.

That's not methodolgy. That is data. Data which you have proved reticent to provide. Hell, if I had something as rock-solid as you claim to have, I'd be beating your face in with my numbers.

The fact that you're hiding these numbers means that either they don't support your claim, or you just pulled your claim out of thin air. Which is it?

Navigate through the pages and look at my references, or do your own research, and come back and rejoin the conversation when your knowledge level increases.

No. You've asserted that you can demonstrate the historicity of Jesus. In pursuing that intent, you've asserted that the "vast majority" of historians regard his existence as historical. I have asked you for supporting data.

In line with my above assessment of your motives, since you've clearly ceased trying to convince me, I'm left to conclude that you're trying to convince yourself; and that leads ineluctably to the conclusion that your faith is so weak that you must look for any "support" you can find, no matter how flawed it is.

You know your faith is weak when you must lie to yourself in order to buttress it.