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

[robvalue]

I just... I don't... my brain can't comprehend it.

They see people lie and exaggerate every day of their life, but they don't stop for one second to think that someone 2000 years ago could have done the exact same thing.

And once again, I'll wheel this one out... the very best you can demonstrate with text is what people believe happened. Not what actually happened. And when it comes to supernatural claims, or ones that rest on medical evaluations, then you are attempting the impossible. Sorry. You cannot demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that what you want to have happened, happened. Even if we granted that every word is 100% what people believed happened. Even if they were eye witnesses. Still no good. Evidence must meet the claim. It's just too bad if there isn't any more evidence, you don't get to adjust the reliability of the evidence you do have. The fact that there isn't other evidence is in fact evidence that your evidence is even worse than it seems on its own.

And...... further.... EVEN IF you could somehow prove he really did "come back to life" that still does not demonstrate how, or why. It's a medical anomaly. So what? The fact that he blathered incoherently before and afterwards demonstrates nothing.

I tried pointing all this out before to save time, but was heartily ignored.