Quote Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost View Post
I haven't read that book and I'm not likely to. I'm up to my eyes writing up my doctoral thesis. It's on the interwar era in South Wales. As an historian I know that historical "evidence" is a. rarely, if ever, objective and b. often not accurate. Your claim that this book examines "every facet" of the events is a bit daft. No offence intended. My own research has brought to light new evidence (acknowledging the caveats I've mentioned above) which calls into question some well-established views on historical events in interwar Wales. Any study which claims to offer the definitive account of anything should be treated with extreme caution. We are constantly revising our views on historical events in the light of new research. Otherwise there would be no point in historians bothering to do new research. Your view is clearly different, but personally I would be especially sceptical about any research which found that the most likely explanation for the events it describes is dead matter being brought back to life. I'm not going to pursue this matter with you. If you think I'm wrong or afraid to debate it then that's fine. It's simply that I find the whole thing ludicrous, it holds very limited interest for me and I have, what to me, are more important things to do with my time.
When you declare that if the evidence leads to Christ's resurrection being a fact of history then your skepticism will kick in, then this means [in this case] you are creating a fresh set of rules for the way you view science and history simply to maintain your world view.
Your denial is certainly more sophisticated than many others here, but in the end it is still denial and an unwillingness to honestly engage the evidence head on.

I'm sure Gofer would agree that this is the most important issue (who Christ actually is) that anyone will consider at any point in their earthly life; as it will impact their eternal destiny.