Maybe it was rather a case that:
-
These issues are more complex that you are willing to admit.
-
That whilst making valiant attempts to engage not-particularly-meaningful questions, we simply weren’t giving you the answers you wanted.
Do you know what I find “ridiculous” @thoughtful?
-
Your claim on the previous thread that you have evaluated Christianity skeptically.
-
Your assumption that falsifiability is an appropriate standard for ancient religious beliefs, when the standard is often problematical even for modern scientific issues.
-
The following claims:
None of these issues (with the possible partial exception of whether all the letters attributed to Paul were written by the same person) would appear to be not even remotely falsifiable.
Particularly given this:
Even assuming a body turned up that some people assumed to be Jesus (and I’ve no idea why they would do so), and even assuming usable DNA survived (not a certainty after so long a time, except under exceptional circumstances), we have no DNA verified to belong to Jesus to compare it to. So how would we prove that it was Jesus’ body?
Ridiculous.
Addendum. I don’t find any of your reasons “Why is belief more plausible than unbelief?” to be any more credible, but as they seem to be fairly standard apologetic responses, and have therefore been already argued to death here and/or on other forums, I don’t see much reason to flog that dead horse.