(July 10, 2015 at 11:32 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Dumb question: how are Randy's 3rd and 4th facts even relevant to what he's trying to prove? Admittedly, I'm not intimately familiar with all of the Jesus story. I grew up Catholic, but that was more on the cultural side than the religious side. I know Jesus was supposedly killed because he was considered a criminal/upstart, and that he supposedly rose from the grave three days later.
But, why are people's changes of heart even meaningful to the events in question? Yeah, they add to the narrative of the effects Jesus' sacrifice had on people, but why are they relevant to the actual events? The argument presented isn't that Jesus was a good guy, or that his sacrifice changed people's hearts, but that he came back to life after death.
If you had the thankless task of trying to present an argument for the historicity of the alleged resurrection, you'd probably throw as much shit against the wall as you could, too. That's all that is really happening here. Too bad for Randy that none of it sticks, except to his shoes.
