Can the Resurrection of Jesus be Defended

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There are no (Christians present) in actual point of fact. None that will support the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus as a point of "logic, reason and critical thinking." Unless there happens to be a Christian newbe present that I am unaware of who wishes to tackle the job. None of the Christian regulars here will defend the story of the resurrection beyond a "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," defense.

Not so. None is all. I would defend it gladly. Logic and reason reveals what is most evident and what the Bible reveals is absolutely most evident. Start the thread up if you dare. Bring your best arguments.

[Danmark]

The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses. Both those categories are considered evidence in a court of law.

This is just plain false. Assuming you are correct that the gospels were written by those who interviewed eyewitnesses, that is classic hearsay when the interviewer is giving testimony.

I challenge you to demonstrate by ER (evidence rule) or specific case law to support your position. You need to withdraw this claim if you cannot support it.

At the very least you should give your credentials for rendering a legal opinion.

' "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by
the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered
in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.'
ER 801
Here, the declarant is the 'witness' and the author of the gospel is the one offering the hearsay.
The exceptions to the hearsay rule do not apply in part because the 'testimony' is given decades later.

If you think one of the exceptions applies, state your case.

But even then, you have the problem of admitting the document in the first place.

In any event you should withdraw your claim about what 'would be admitted in a court of law' unless you can support it.

And you should reread my claim before making silly challenges. I said the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or (meaning and) those who interviewed eyewitnesses. Do you deny eyewitness and hearsay evidence are considered evidence in a court of law?


As far as your being a legal expert I will refer you to Simon Greanleaf, Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University and the one credited with making that school's law school one of the most prominent in the nation. His Treatise on the Law of Evidence is still considered by many the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure. He was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Gospel accounts and ended up a believer after looking at the evidence. From Wikipedia:

"Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief. Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists. He is distinguished as one who applied the canons of the ancient document rule to establish the authenticity of the gospel accounts, as well as cross-examination principles in assessing the testimony of those who bore witness to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ."

If you reread MY post you will see that I clearly distinguished between eyewitness testimony [what lawyers call 'direct' evidence]

So why do you dismiss the direct evidence in the Gospels? Perhaps because of an a priori agenda that dismisses the supernatural?

and hearsay. Hearsay is not admissible unless it falls under one of the exceptions.

Yes, it was accepted here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/justice/i ... on-verdict

Rather than address the very specific argument I made about why hearsay (statements of alleged witnesses recorded in a book by another about stories of events that took place [if at all] decades earlier, you drop a name.

Your appeal to the testimonial does not make you a legal authority.

I don't claim to be a legal authority, do you deny Greenleaf was? Does the fact he was born in 1783 make him not a legal authority? Funny coming from skeptics who trot out the same tired arguments that have been around for centuries.

The fact you have to go back to Greenleaf (born in 1783) shows desperation and want of argument. Greenleaf is cited regularly by Christian Apologist blogs.

Which what, is supposed to disprove his work? Its the same tactic we see here that dismisses someone because they are a Christian. That is bigotry, not debate.

He is not cited by lawyers,

Why would they, if they aren't concerned by the subject of this forum?

or hasn't been for 100 years, and his work of Christian apologetics to which you refer was not a legal text.

I didn't say it was, Greeleaf used the legal method to determine the truth of the Gospels, which is about the only way we have today to operate on.

Instead of citing an ancient,

The 1800s were 'ancient'?

out of date,

Please show how his arguments are now out of date.

and inapposite authority, perhaps you could make your own argument. Explain to me how the hearsay accounts would be admissible in a court of law, or withdraw your specious claim.

I posted a recent case above about that.

Greenleaf is rather clear that he is supposing cross examination; that is, he is acting as if witnesses were cross examined in a court of law, while admitting they were not.

No kidding, the witnesses are dead.

This tried and failed argument reminds me of Strobel's silly THE CASE FOR CHRIST, where another non jurist journalist pretends he is acting like a lawyer. Ridiculous! This silliness can only fool inexperienced lay people. Why you non lawyers want to venture forth giving legal opinions is beyond me, other than as I say, out of desperation.

Strobel studied law at Yale Law School. And you?

On a side note, I am enjoying seeing Calvin's Bulldog demolish your arguments over on the other thread.

Don't know why you insist on personalizing things. Aren't the arguments themselves the issue? At any rate you must have missed Calvinsbulldog's gracious apology to me.

You ought to read the URL's you cite to. Then you would have seen this:

Her statements would be struck down in most courts of law: In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that hearsay violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness testifying against him or her.
But Illinois passed a special law in 2008 that allows such hearsay evidence in rare instances when prosecutors believe a person was killed to prevent his or her testimony.
The law quickly became known as "Drew's law."
Defense attorneys argued that it was unconstitutional. They said it unfairly targeted Drew Peterson because it was passed after the case had already made national headlines.

As I wrote, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. I invited you to find one. You have not. In the case you reference [I should add, it is customary to reference to Courts of Appeals opinions, not news reports ] cites a statutory exception to the hearsay rule specific to Illinois, rather than one of the many exceptions listed in the ER's. My qualifications, are not relevant. My arguments should be sufficient, but since you demand it: In addition to being a trial lawyer for over 30 years, (including two death penalty cases) I have had dozens of successful appeals and have frequently been asked to lecture at Continuing Legal Education seminars. The first request to teach law that I accepted was when I was still in law school and our Harvard educated evidence professor asked me to teach a section on trial practice.

Let me know when Strobel finishes law school.

BTW, I never let an opportunity to brag about my children. My daughter graduated from Harvard Law several years ago.

[East of Eden]

The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses. Both those categories are considered evidence in a court of law.

This is just plain false. Assuming you are correct that the gospels were written by those who interviewed eyewitnesses, that is classic hearsay when the interviewer is giving testimony.

I challenge you to demonstrate by ER (evidence rule) or specific case law to support your position. You need to withdraw this claim if you cannot support it.

At the very least you should give your credentials for rendering a legal opinion.

' "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by
the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered
in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.'
ER 801
Here, the declarant is the 'witness' and the author of the gospel is the one offering the hearsay.
The exceptions to the hearsay rule do not apply in part because the 'testimony' is given decades later.

If you think one of the exceptions applies, state your case.

But even then, you have the problem of admitting the document in the first place.

In any event you should withdraw your claim about what 'would be admitted in a court of law' unless you can support it.

And you should reread my claim before making silly challenges. I said the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or (meaning and) those who interviewed eyewitnesses. Do you deny eyewitness and hearsay evidence are considered evidence in a court of law?


As far as your being a legal expert I will refer you to Simon Greanleaf, Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University and the one credited with making that school's law school one of the most prominent in the nation. His Treatise on the Law of Evidence is still considered by many the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure. He was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Gospel accounts and ended up a believer after looking at the evidence. From Wikipedia:

"Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief. Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists. He is distinguished as one who applied the canons of the ancient document rule to establish the authenticity of the gospel accounts, as well as cross-examination principles in assessing the testimony of those who bore witness to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ."

If you reread MY post you will see that I clearly distinguished between eyewitness testimony [what lawyers call 'direct' evidence]

So why do you dismiss the direct evidence in the Gospels? Perhaps because of an a priori agenda that dismisses the supernatural?

and hearsay. Hearsay is not admissible unless it falls under one of the exceptions.

Yes, it was accepted here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/justice/i ... on-verdict

Rather than address the very specific argument I made about why hearsay (statements of alleged witnesses recorded in a book by another about stories of events that took place [if at all] decades earlier, you drop a name.

Your appeal to the testimonial does not make you a legal authority.

I don't claim to be a legal authority, do you deny Greenleaf was? Does the fact he was born in 1783 make him not a legal authority? Funny coming from skeptics who trot out the same tired arguments that have been around for centuries.

The fact you have to go back to Greenleaf (born in 1783) shows desperation and want of argument. Greenleaf is cited regularly by Christian Apologist blogs.

Which what, is supposed to disprove his work? Its the same tactic we see here that dismisses someone because they are a Christian. That is bigotry, not debate.

He is not cited by lawyers,

Why would they, if they aren't concerned by the subject of this forum?

or hasn't been for 100 years, and his work of Christian apologetics to which you refer was not a legal text.

I didn't say it was, Greeleaf used the legal method to determine the truth of the Gospels, which is about the only way we have today to operate on.

Instead of citing an ancient,

The 1800s were 'ancient'?

out of date,

Please show how his arguments are now out of date.

and inapposite authority, perhaps you could make your own argument. Explain to me how the hearsay accounts would be admissible in a court of law, or withdraw your specious claim.

I posted a recent case above about that.

Greenleaf is rather clear that he is supposing cross examination; that is, he is acting as if witnesses were cross examined in a court of law, while admitting they were not.

No kidding, the witnesses are dead.

This tried and failed argument reminds me of Strobel's silly THE CASE FOR CHRIST, where another non jurist journalist pretends he is acting like a lawyer. Ridiculous! This silliness can only fool inexperienced lay people. Why you non lawyers want to venture forth giving legal opinions is beyond me, other than as I say, out of desperation.

Strobel studied law at Yale Law School. And you?

On a side note, I am enjoying seeing Calvin's Bulldog demolish your arguments over on the other thread.

Don't know why you insist on personalizing things. Aren't the arguments themselves the issue? At any rate you must have missed Calvinsbulldog's gracious apology to me.

Let's be honest, on a very minor point, not your position as a whole.

You ought to read the URL's you cite to. Then you would have seen this:

Her statements would be struck down in most courts of law: In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that hearsay violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness testifying against him or her.
But Illinois passed a special law in 2008 that allows such hearsay evidence in rare instances when prosecutors believe a person was killed to prevent his or her testimony.
The law quickly became known as "Drew's law."
Defense attorneys argued that it was unconstitutional. They said it unfairly targeted Drew Peterson because it was passed after the case had already made national headlines.

And they didn't prevail, did they?

As I wrote, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. I invited you to find one. You have not. In the case you reference [I should add, it is customary to reference to Courts of Appeals opinions, not news reports ] cites a statutory exception to the hearsay rule specific to Illinois, rather than one of the many exceptions listed in the ER's. My qualifications, are not relevant. My arguments should be sufficient, but since you demand it: In addition to being a trial lawyer for over 30 years, (including two death penalty cases) I have had dozens of successful appeals and have frequently been asked to lecture at Continuing Legal Education seminars. The first request to teach law that I accepted was when I was still in law school and our Harvard educated evidence professor asked me to teach a section on trial practice.

Impressive, but I think Simon Greenleaf had you trumped by a far piece.

Let me know when Strobel finishes law school.

BTW, I never let an opportunity to brag about my children. My daughter graduated from Harvard Law several years ago.

Congratulations.

[East of Eden]

Well it's true I suppose. You never mentioned heaven, even though that message is implicit in the Gospels.

Actually, the gospels have very little to say about heaven, as such. They (and Jesus) are all about life on earth, in this age and in the age to come -- "your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven," and all that.

Not really.

http://julianfreeman.ca/doctrine/jesus-heaven

First, please don't respond to an argument with a link to a website. If you have an argument to make, make it.

See #16 of the forum rules.

There is so much nonsense on this forum I'd spend 8 hours a day if I didn't post links. No sense in reinventing the wheel.

Second, the author of this little article affirms the point I made: he writes, "it is interesting to me how little Jesus himself says about heaven." The exact point I made.

Finally, of the handful of passages he points to, almost all of them, in fact, are not about heaven, but rather the kingdom of heaven. The gospels regularly speak of the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. But it is clear from the text that this concerns God's rule on earth. "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

So, yes, really, the gospels say very little about heaven.

I honestly don't know how you can say that from my link. How many things does Jesus have to say about heaven to make it real?

[Danmark]

And they didn't prevail, did they?

I take it from the news article that the defense objected on the grounds of both hearsay and that Drew's Law was passed ex post facto. The trial judge over ruled the objections and allowed the testimony. Whether or not the judge is reversed on appeal,* what stands is the general rule that hearsay is not admissible unless it qualifies as an exception to the rule. I've alluded to some of them, since they are time sensitive:

(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or
explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was
perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.

(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling
event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress
of excitement caused by the event or condition.

(3) Then Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A
statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind,
emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan,
motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not
including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact
remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution,
revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will.

(4) Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or
Treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or
treatment and describing medical history, or past or present
symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general
character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as
reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

(5) Recorded Recollection. A memorandum or record concerning
a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has
insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully
and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness
when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect
that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record
may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an
exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.
_ from ER 803 [Washington State]

_________________
*I'd prefer to see transcripts and briefs, but judging from the news account I'd guess the judge's evidentiary ruling was error. What Courts of Appeal often do, however, is to find the error 'harmless.' This happens particularly in murder cases. Essentially the harmless error 'rule' says, "Hey, this guy would have been convicted even if the judge had not let in the testimony."

The reason I suggest his ruling was error is that there are many precedents for courts ruling that when the legislature mucks about with the rules of evidence, they are invading the province of the Court, thus violating the separation of powers doctrine.

[East of Eden]

And they didn't prevail, did they?

I take it from the news article that the defense objected on the grounds of both hearsay and that Drew's Law was passed ex post facto. The trial judge over ruled the objections and allowed the testimony. Whether or not the judge is reversed on appeal,* what stands is the general rule that hearsay is not admissible unless it qualifies as an exception to the rule. I've alluded to some of them, since they are time sensitive:

(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or
explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was
perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.

(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling
event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress
of excitement caused by the event or condition.

(3) Then Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A
statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind,
emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan,
motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not
including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact
remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution,
revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will.

(4) Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or
Treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or
treatment and describing medical history, or past or present
symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general
character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as
reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

(5) Recorded Recollection. A memorandum or record concerning
a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has
insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully
and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness
when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect
that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record
may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an
exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.
_ from ER 803 [Washington State]

_________________
*I'd prefer to see transcripts and briefs, but judging from the news account I'd guess the judge's evidentiary ruling was error. What Courts of Appeal often do, however, is to find the error 'harmless.' This happens particularly in murder cases. Essentially the harmless error 'rule' says, "Hey, this guy would have been convicted even if the judge had not let in the testimony."

The reason I suggest his ruling was error is that there are many precedents for courts ruling that when the legislature mucks about with the rules of evidence, they are invading the province of the Court, thus violating the separation of powers doctrine.

Rather than getting sidetracked, how about if we just discuss the eyewitness testimony?

[Danmark]

Rather than getting sidetracked, how about if we just discuss the eyewitness testimony?

Good suggestion.
Witnesses need to be handled one at a time.
Following the courtroom motif,
Call your first witness.

When a witness is called, the first questions are often preliminary and lay a framework for the meat of the testimony:
Name
Background
Relationship to the parties

Then questions re:
Opportunity to observe
and what was actually seen as opposed to opinion.

Then comes cross examination by opposing counsel.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

See #16 of the forum rules.

There is so much nonsense on this forum I'd spend 8 hours a day if I didn't post links. No sense in reinventing the wheel.

In point of fact here is #16 of the forum rules. "16. Do not comment on any rule infractions made by others. Ignore any rule violations made by others and only respond by reporting it to the moderators." Doesn't really address the subject of posting links at all does it!

But let's have a look at the links you have provided, which are presumably intended to establish the proof of your position. In this case CatholicCulture.org.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ ... ecnum=6976

Maybe you know better than Polycarp, Papias and Irenaeus about who wrote them?

CatholicCulture.org
"Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their Gospels. St. Mark, identified with the Mark of Acts 12:12 and the Mark of I Peter 5:13, is mentioned in a quote contained in a letter from Papias (c. 130), Bishop of Hierapolis: "When Mark became Peter's interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what the Lord had said or done." St. Irenaeus (d. 203) and Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) support this identification. The Gospel of Mark is commonly dated about the year 65-70 in conjunction with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem."

First of all both Acts 12:12 and 1 Peter mention an individual named Mark, but neither reference in any way indicates that the individual named was the author of the Gospel of Mark. Catholic canon has simply made up this connection and declared it to be true. As if there could only have been one individual named Mark in ancient Judea. But as we see with the plethora of Marys which exist in the NT, common names were commonly used, just as they are today. Andy Dick shares a name with a former president if the United States. We are NOT forced to conclude that Andy Dick must therefore have been president. Such a baseless assertion would not only be erroneous but deceitful.

Next notice the quote taken from Papias in the Catholic Culture website. "When Mark became Peter's interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what the Lord had said or done." Now compare this to the full quote from Papias: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

Papias specifically states that Mark was not a witness to Jesus, a fact left out entirely by the Catholic position paper, which has again chosen to be purposely deceitful. Why has the Catholic church chosen to promote a systematic system of deceit and lies, one must ask one's self?

prop-a-gan-da [prop-uh-gan-duh] noun
1.information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
4. Roman Catholic Church .
a. a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions.
b. a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.


The very word propaganda you see is derived for the Catholic Church's effort to propagate the faith, and to do so with the implicit understanding that the end justifies the means.

[historia]

First, please don't respond to an argument with a link to a website. If you have an argument to make, make it.

See #16 of the forum rules.

I did, and it says not to comment on rules infractions. I'm not claiming that you are breaking a rule above, I'm simply pointing out that making a flippant remark and posting a link to a website is poor argumentation.

Second, the author of this little article affirms the point I made: he writes, "it is interesting to me how little Jesus himself says about heaven." The exact point I made.

Finally, of the handful of passages he points to, almost all of them, in fact, are not about heaven, but rather the kingdom of heaven. The gospels regularly speak of the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. But it is clear from the text that this concerns God's rule on earth. "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

So, yes, really, the gospels say very little about heaven.

I honestly don't know how you can say that from my link.

It's quite easy. I said "the gospels have very little to say about heaven." The author of your article writes, "it is interesting to me how little Jesus himself says about heaven." It seems to me, then, quite plainly that the author of this website agrees with me.

He can only find a handful of passages that even mention heaven (which again proves the point). But in so far as the author of the article mistakenly attributes passages about God's kingdom on earth as being about heaven (a common mistake many Christians make), even most of these are not applicable.

How many things does Jesus have to say about heaven to make it real?

I don't know. But luckily this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The comment I made was not about heaven being "real." The comment I made was that the gospels say very little about heaven.

This is why you shouldn't simply post links to websites as if they constituted an argument. You seem confused about the point I'm making. The author of the website, in turn, both agrees with me, and yet is confused about the nature of the passages he's commenting on. At this point, I have no idea what actual argument you are making.

[assisigirl]

To East of Eden;
I find your position here lamentable. You assert that the gospels are meant to be simple and yet you look for 'legal precedent. In truth you are staked out in your straw house while the wolves of atheism roll hysterically on the ground with derision. You could have defended the truth of the Jesus teachings, you could have reasoned logically and with conviction but no. Instead you went for the all or nothing bluff that is senseless belief. Look at this again East of Eden. Here is the exchange.

Why not look for sense in Scripture, East of Eden?
Where does citizenship reside?


East of Eden reply:Can you explain this question more?



assisigirl conclusion; You know what a house is East of Eden. It is a simple notion and one of the most common nouns in scripture for many reasons. It is a real everyday thing. Do you want me to explain this more?

Scripture warns:

Matthew 7:24
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Luke 18:10
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


You built your straw house on the quicksand of voodoo and you then proceeded to blow it down yourself with legal hot air. Why did you not build with the bricks of reality and sense that Jesus tells you will prevail ie which are in these two cases , solid argument based on good teachings sprinkled with humility. Oh no, you went for the all in, Son of God, ascended into heaven, the Messiah king , back for Armageddon, who sorts out human sin and retribution with a magic wand. Fairy stories akin to the three little pigs with the same inevitable end, delusion and death.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Rather than getting sidetracked, how about if we just discuss the eyewitness testimony?

Great idea. Where would we find this, exactly?