1robin
Christian/Baptist
I am so bored I will answer you. The simple fact that you think they have or wish they had has no bearing on the fact they have never been shown false in the least instance. No matter what claims you make right or wrong against the Gospels they are infinately worse for the Quran in every category.You've been told and shown several times that that isn't true.
You're arguing over who is the more credible non-eyewitness separated from the event by decades or more.
Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet"
J. N. D. Anderson is "...a scholar of international repute and one eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Islamic law...He is dean of the faculty of law in the University of London, chairman of the department of Oriental law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London."
This outstanding British scholar who is today influential in the field of international jurisprudence says: "The evidence for the historical basis of the Christian faith, for the essential validity of the New Testament witness to the person and teaching of Christ Himself, for the fact and significance of His atoning death, and for the historicity of the empty tomb and the apostolic testimony to the resurrection, is such as to provide an adequate foundation for the venture of faith."
"...two able young men, Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton, went up to Oxford. They were determined to attack the very basis of the Christian faith. So Littleton settled down to prove that Saul of Tarsus was never converted to Christianity, and West to demonstrate that Jesus never rose from the tomb. The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, just surely depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.' "
(By the way they admitted failure on Paul as well)
Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, well said, "Christianity knew its Saviour and REdeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith, Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself of the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts."
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html
Bolding mine, of course.
I could add these quotes from men whom like Simon Greenleaf and others have ceredentials that have no equal or at least can't be exceeded. They are infinately qualified on the matters of evidence and testimony and far exceed any puny effort
at rebuttal. About the only response to these experts plus dozens and dozens more like them is probably only the trusted and always handy claim that Christians can't be used to defend Christianity canard.
