OLAADEGBU:

Let's go again but this time using Abraham Lincoln. The fact that Abraham Lincoln was born, became president, or was assassinated cannot be proven using scientific methods.  To be scientific it must be repeatable (as in the testing of gravity).  The proofs that Lincoln did exist and was a historical figure are:
1. The written evidence, 2. Eyewitness testimony, 3. Physical evidence that remains to this day at the Ford Theatre, birth records and newspaper articles regarding his election. All these facts are acceptable in a court of law as proof to a judge and jury. Garry T. Ansdell (D.D.) made a case out of this when he statethat "The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is evidential:

[b] I'm not disputing the existence of Abraham Lincoln, or even that of Jesus, what I'm disputing is the alleged ressurection of jesus according to the NT.

Obviously, a judge must be impartial, and objectively weigh all of the relevant evidence. As an individual examining the case for the resurrection, you should not be swayed by conjecture or hearsay, but demand clear proof, what i demand from you is clear prove.

Like I said the resurrection narratives in the NT may be convincing testimony for people who have not read them very carefully. As a responsible judge, though, you can’t be satisfied with just a casual examination of the evidence, especially if biased witnesses gave the testimony. The stories told in the New Testament, and the passion narratives in particular, are so inconsistent, that the resurrection story collapses under careful scrutiny. The conflicting testimonies of the disciples are so unreliable, that they would not stand up to critical cross-examination in any court of law. In fact, there is virtually not one detail of the crucifixion and resurrection narratives upon which all four Gospel authors agree. Yet, it is upon this story that the entire Christian religion stands or falls. [/b]

1. the empty tomb still exists,
2. His birth record is documented all the way back to Adam and Eve,
3. the four Gospels record His death;
4. the location, even the names of the political leaders who sentenced Him are historically recorded;
5. there were more than five hundred eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after the resurrection, recorded by the New Testament writers;
6. the very existence of the Christian faith, based on His death and resurrection;
7. the cultural and political evidence at the time, including the Roman calender separating all of time into Before Christ (B.C.) and in the year of our Lord (A.D.)."This is circumstantial evidence that suffices.

I will not be addressing the above post because I don't want to further derail this thread which you have succeded in. You should please create a new thread for this discussion, lets face the OP once and for all. I'll not be addressing any post that has nothing to do with the point I raised i.e. your lie that Jesus didn't come from a family line of idolatry and the interbreeding.