Daffy Duck,

You stated: "Unless anyone, including all of the "expert authorities" quoted by Spencer, actually knew or met "Jesus" up close and personal in a living-breathing-feeling human form, and actually witnessed and touched his "resurrected body" (which was of course impossible because there was no such "body") then everything one says and "believes" re all of the entirely fictional stories about Saint Jesus of Galilee are just plain and simply NOT TRUE".

This is an irrational statement when dealing with historical science. Did the historical writers about Aristotle, Nero, Luther, Captain James Cook and Captain Arthur Phillip know and meet these historical figures in a personal way of touching the person? Of course not!

The composer of the Gospel of Luke told us how he gained his information:

He drew up an account that depended on reports "handed down" (oral tradition) by "eyewitnesses" (not hear-say evidence) at the time of Jesus in the first century. Luke "carefully investigated everything from the beginning", as any competent researcher would do (Luke 1:1-4).

The nature of historical records is that they had to be recorded by people in past history, not by your incredulous statement that the contemporary "expert authorities" such as Pannenberg, Habermas and Wright had to get up close to Jesus.

The author whose links you gave is a joke with your paraphrased statement: 'Even more importantly PHOTOGRAPHS of any/all of the famous "historical" figures featured in the multivarious "religious" myth'. Photography had not been invented 2000 years ago. This author seems to be in fairyland.

Then you dump a number of your presuppositions on us for good measure:

* "fictional stories" about Jesus that are "not true". That's a personal assertion, not an attempt to deal with the historical evidence.
* "'religious 'myths'";
* 'there was no such "body"';
* 'indisputable solid documentary evidence of which there is NONE';
* 'the usual dim-witted "theists"'.

Why don't you write an article for On Line Opinion: 'Why Christianity is a religious myth promoted by dim-witted theists'?

https://www.wordonfire.org/wof-site/media/did-jesus-really-rise-from-the-dead.pdf

Oz Spen

*…The issue is not 'by the Christian, it is to be accepted as fact'. If the resurrection is not found to be fact for friend and foe to discover, it's a farce…*

I totally disagree with your conclusion.

It's actually irrelevant who, outside of the Christian believer, believes what.

Isn't it true to say, the responsibility of the Christian is to recruit for God. It's called missionary work.

The whole of the Christian message is one of faith. It's as Paul says, if the resurrection is a fallacy, then effectively the whole of the Christian message is also a fallacy.

Effectively the truth or otherwise of the resurrection is not to be questioned. The resurrection is stated as being a fact. It requires a faith in the message to believe it.

Countering this view with a scientific challenge based on physics is ridiculous. For a Christian to wriggle out of the belief of the resurrection, using the same argument of science is fruitless.

If I can locate the book you mention I'll read it. But I'm unlikely to change my mind.

As for your comment on Halal certification of Easter eggs, I'm not deeply into oxymoronic debate.

OzSpen

I should point out my position on this and other “did it or didn't it” debates.

These things annoy the crap out of me. It is the problem I have with our esteemed poster Sells.

I was born into and raised as a Calvinist. I have not the slightest problem with my belief system.

I'd remind you of one of the last acts on earth of John Calvin, it was to preside over the burning of a witch.

Calvinists don't flinch!

PS

King Henry VIII , presided over the burning of witches at the rate of 3.25 PA.

John Calvin is in good company!

diver dan,

The issue of the article was Jesus Christ's resurrection and not John Calvin and the burning of witches. Why don't you write an article on that topic for On Line Opinion?

Thus, your response with this emphasis was a red herring fallacy.