For me, that forensic evidence is entirely non-existent.
There is plenty of evidence for the Perpetrator. It just gets disallowed by multitudinous juries of one.
But, that doesn’t make it so.
Here is a list of forensic evidence. Which ones are you talking about?
That might make a good opening post for a new topic.
Huh. That all looks material in nature. We are talking about the immaterial God.
So Josh McDowell and Alex McFarland were also resurrected at the same time? Or maybe somebody flubbed the grammar.
Or maybe someone purposely read it other than in the obvious way it was intended? I could understand if English is not your mother tongue and you are unfamiliar with the basic tenets of Christianity.
I read it in the obvious way, though I’m quite sure that was not what was intended.
You wanted him to pedantically separate the prepositional phrase with commas and put it with the subject. Yeah, I got that, but that’s not how we talk.
You just can’t seem to make a post without tossing in an insult. Really adds to the conversation.
Yeah, I replied in kind again, didn’t I. Thanks for catching that. At least I didn’t initiate it.
Of course you’re never responsible, it’s always someone else at fault. Go ahead and post a few more gratuitous insults since that’s your chosen style to hide your lack of content.
Oh, the irony.
Documents, eyewitness testimony; an examination of their internal consistency; the evidence for lack of collusion, by way of minor perspectival disagreements; the lack of reasonable motivation to fabricate; the medical forensic considerations, etc. Not just the material artifacts --although there potentially are some.
We are, in fact, still on-topic about modes of investigation, verification, and argumentation, along with logical reasoning.
Two thousand year old documents claiming there were eyewitnesses is hearsay, not eyewitness testimony. It’s no more valid than King Kong has eyewitnesses who saw the giant ape climb the Empire State Building.
With your background, I would have thought you’d be more familiar with the extant NT manuscripts and their numbers with respect to other historical documents of the period.
Shall we talk about gratuitous derogatory and disrespectful remarks, let alone neither peaceful nor peaceable ones, as a chosen style and how they add value to the conversation?
We are supposed to be a bit more careful when we write than we are when we talk.
In any case, I was just pointing out that the chosen wording was amusing. I’m not sure why you are insisting on making a big argument out of that – although I suppose that, too, is amusing.
Others were claiming that there was material evidence (i.e. forensic evidence) for the Resurrection.