Jesus' Tomb Opened for First Time in Centuries

[Shad]

We were discussing circumstantial evidence. Again, if enough is there, then there is no need for Johnny's testimony. What you're saying is giving the benefit of a doubt to Johnny (based on nothing or being soft?), but the circumstantial evidence would destroy that argument.

Circumstantial evidence within historical methods have issues, are not unanimous, rely on inference and probability. Probability in this case is against your conclusion as people do not resurrect, we just have stories about them doing so. So a resurrection itself has a very low probability. More so you must make a case for why this one resurrection is an exception while other resurrection stories are not otherwise anyone can claim a conclusion that people are psychic or were UFO abductees based on your flawed standard.