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

[His_Majesty]

What you have there is suppose, suppose, suppose.

If you don't like the idea of rational responses to YOUR objections, then you shouldn't be objecting.

If you have to: suppose away all the obvious problems by inventing eyewitness sources even though your authors don't claim them

Bullshit. You asked who were the witnesses to the exchange with Jesus and the thieves on the cross, and I gave you the names of those that were near the cross during those exchanges (according to the narrative)...which would make them eyewitnesses.

But you've demonstrated that you are good at ignoring what I say to spew your crap. I mean, I CLEARLY and DIRECTLY answered exactly what you are maintaining DIDN'T happen, and you clearly and DIRECTLY ignored the crap out of it

; suppose extraordinarily long lived authors to make them contemporaries

I gave you at least five men who lived past the life expectancy of their time..now that was about two posts ago...and when you responded, I noticed you didn't respond to that particular point I made...and now, two posts later, you are reiterating that same point as if I never addressed it two posts ago. Pathetic.

And then you say "extraordinarily long lived"...well, those five men I mentioned also lived extraordinarily long, but we will just sweep that shit under the rug, huh? Just put on the skeptic hat when it comes to the Bible, huh?

Bullshit.

, which still does not make their accounts contemporary

Yes it does. If the eyewitnesses are still alive to tell the story 40 years later, they are STILL contemporary, Jenny.

; assume events must of happened when there is no evidence for them on the grounds that finding evidence would be unlikely; assume that a dead man spent 40 days explaining it all because a non-contemporary source says a dead man visited for 40 days----- then you don't have any evidence. And if you don't have evidence, you don't have proof.

Huh?

What you have is faith. Fine with me. Have faith. But don't come bleating about how it proves anything, because it doesn't.

The entire genre of history is based on faith, you don't know anything about history, all you know is what you were told...so whatever you believed happened in history, you believe it happened based on faith.