Stuart wrote: "Mark wrote: "Stuart wrote: "Everyone has kept their head in the burning bush when it comes to the impossibility of the universe-creating, planet-flooding, virgin-born, death-defeating, soon-to-retu..."
Stating that "x is impossible" does not make it impossible, no matter how many times you repeat that statement. Silly ridicule, like "imaginary deities do not sire death-defeating god-men", is not evidence, it is at best a statement of your beliefs.
I could say, "Oh, you believe that there's this magic force you call 'gravity' that makes objects fall to the ground! Ha ha ha, what a ridiculous idea!" I could say that a dozen times and it would not make it any more rational or scientific.
You asked if we had "independent verification" of the Gospels. What counts as "independent"? There are four Gospels. Each confirms the others. That's what we normally mean by "independent verification". To say that it doesn't count because they all agree is arguing in circles. If they all disagreed, they wouldn't be verifying each other.
Suppose someone is on trial for murder and the prosecution produces a witness who claims he saw the defendant do it. The defense lawyer says that this person is biased and demands "independent verification". So the prosecution produces 3 more witnesses who all say they saw the defendant do it. That, by definition, is "independent verification" and it is exactly what we have here. If the defense lawyer said, "Well that doesn't count, those witnesses are biased because they all believe my client is guilty", surely the jury would say to themselves, That's not "bias", that's, "they corroborate each other".
Tell us what you will accept as "independent verification". As best as I can figure out, you are saying that the only testimony you will accept is testimony from someone who believes Christianity is false. So until we produce someone who believes that Christianity is false and who says that it is true, you will be unconvinced. By that standard, I can't imagine how one could prove that 2+2=4.
Stating that "x is impossible" does not make it impossible, no matter how many times you repeat that statement. Silly ridicule, like "imaginary deities do not sire death-defeating god-men", is not evidence, it is at best a statement of your beliefs.
I could say, "Oh, you believe that there's this magic force you call 'gravity' that makes objects fall to the ground! Ha ha ha, what a ridiculous idea!" I could say that a dozen times and it would not make it any more rational or scientific.
You asked if we had "independent verification" of the Gospels. What counts as "independent"? There are four Gospels. Each confirms the others. That's what we normally mean by "independent verification". To say that it doesn't count because they all agree is arguing in circles. If they all disagreed, they wouldn't be verifying each other.
Suppose someone is on trial for murder and the prosecution produces a witness who claims he saw the defendant do it. The defense lawyer says that this person is biased and demands "independent verification". So the prosecution produces 3 more witnesses who all say they saw the defendant do it. That, by definition, is "independent verification" and it is exactly what we have here. If the defense lawyer said, "Well that doesn't count, those witnesses are biased because they all believe my client is guilty", surely the jury would say to themselves, That's not "bias", that's, "they corroborate each other".
Tell us what you will accept as "independent verification". As best as I can figure out, you are saying that the only testimony you will accept is testimony from someone who believes Christianity is false. So until we produce someone who believes that Christianity is false and who says that it is true, you will be unconvinced. By that standard, I can't imagine how one could prove that 2+2=4.