Originally Posted by Thunderstick


So to answer your question as to whether I could establish the fact of the resurrection from the laws of evidence in a courtroom--absolutely yes
if we can agree to the laws of evidence that are already established and we do not contrive new ones.


wishful hypothetical?...come and talk when you can cite real world nitty-gritty case law on the subject.


Originally Posted by Starman
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
.. Furthermore your approach would invalidate all history as fact because you cannot personally validate the events
as an eye-witness. However on the basis of faith in the historical evidence professors teach history. They look at the evidence and try to
make reasonable conclusions and then they teach history.


My approach requires proof to establish fact...and there's substantial physical evidence, proof and fact - that eg; WW1 and WW2
actually happened even though I did not eye-witness those wars taking place.

The Romans were in the UK, Africa, etc ,as a matter of fact. proven by the combination of Roman records,
remaining Roman structures and vast number of recovered relics they left behind from 400 yrs of occupation.

...so how does my approach ' invalidate all history as fact'..??


do you stick by your sweeping statement?

Collins Dictionary;
"If someone makes a sweeping statement or generalization, they make a statement which applies to all things of a particular kind,
although they have not considered all the relevant facts carefully."



-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.