Resurrection: Making Sense of Historical Data

Due to personal study commitments, I have been unable to blog as frequently as I would have liked; however, with Passover upon us I feel compelled to share this excellent article by Chris Price regarding the resurrection of Jesus. The historical evidence for the resurrection is something that I personally find very compelling. Enjoy!



Resurrection: Making Sense of Historical Data

On Easter Sunday we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus not as fiction, not as a product of wishful thinking, not as a beautiful metaphor, or an existential experience, but as an actual historical event. Jesus died for sins in our place, and then three days later God raised Him bodily from the dead in a transformed physical body, a different mode of existence that stretches the descriptive power of our language to its limits. (1)

Many people in the ancient world understandably had difficulty believing in the first Christians’ claims about Jesus. The resurrection of Christ is a belief that probably shouldn’t be held by any thinking person without sufficient evidence. Therefore, the purpose of this post is to outline some of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ.

Jesus Died

In order for Jesus to rise bodily from the dead He would first have to die. No credible historian believes that Jesus didn’t die on a Roman Cross by crucifixion. Jesus’ crucifixion is mentioned by all four gospels, including various epistles contained in the New Testament. Jesus’ death is also recorded by non-Christian historians like Tacitus, Josephus and the Jewish Talmud and, therefore, is witnessed to in early historical sources with multiple lines of evidence, including hostile sources (Talmud).

Moreover, we know too much about how brutal crucifixion was in the 1st century to seriously deny that Jesus didn’t die. For example, if a Roman soldier failed in his duty, his life would be forfeit so they were highly motivated to accomplish the job. To quote a popular pastor and theologian,

Jesus was crucified, and a professional executioner declared Him dead. To ensure Jesus was dead, a spear was thrust through His side and a mixture of blood and water poured out of His side because the spear burst his heart sac. Jesus’ dead body was wrapped in upwards of one hundred pounds of linens and spices, which, even if He were able to somehow survive the beatings, floggings, crucifixion, and a pierced heart, would have killed Him by asphyxiation. Even if through all of this Jesus somehow survived (which would itself be a miracle), He could not have endured three days without food, water, or medical attention in a cold tomb carved out of rock. In summary, Jesus died. (2)

For reasons like those stated above, it becomes clear that Jesus died on the cross. And it is worth pointing out that to suggest that God would not allow a prophet of His to endure such a humiliating death, shows a profound lack of awareness about the fate that many prophets in the Old Testament endured (see. Hebrews 11). Moreover, implying that God disguised someone to look like Jesus and had that individual crucified in Christ’s place is to accuse God of radical deception, impugning the trustworthiness of His character.

The Tomb Was Empty

Jesus died and was buried in a tomb. Three days later the tomb was found empty. We can be sure of this, as a matter of history, based on these lines of evidence.

First, if you read the Gospels you find that the women discovered the empty tomb. In the 1st century Judaism women were not allowed to be legal witnesses. Their testimony was not considered valid or taken seriously.

But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment.
— Josephus
Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman.
— Talmud (Rosh Hashannah)
Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women.
— Talmud (Sotah) (3)

This is not a very positive view of women that is for certain! In light of this cultural context, if you are going to create a story about an empty tomb you don’t make women the first eyewitnesses. This is a counterproductive detail included by the writer simply because he was committed to telling the truth. In addition to this point, in the stories surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus you have the leader of the disciples (Peter) denying Jesus and many of the other disciples running away discouraged and hiding fearfully behind closed doors when Jesus is killed. The leaders of the church look like cowards! You don’t include these embarrassing details about your leaders unless you are a movement really committed to authenticity and telling the truth.

Second, the disciples started preaching about the death and resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem, the very place where Jesus was publicly killed and crucified a few weeks earlier. So, at the very least, this required an empty tomb otherwise the opponents of Christianity, which were many, could have just found the tomb and produced the body. ‘Here is your risen Christ!’ Even a skeleton in the tomb would have done the job!

Third, Joseph of Arimathea provided the tomb that was found empty on Easter Sunday. Joseph was a rich member of the Jewish ruling council in Jerusalem, called the Sanhedrin, the same council that handed Jesus over to Pilate to be killed. As a result, there was some resentment between the early Christians and the Sanhedrin, which makes it extremely unlikely that the early Christians would create a story that paints a member of the Sanhedrin in such a great light. Moreover, because Joseph was a prominent, well-known man, a burial in his tomb would make Jesus’ burial site extremely easy to locate by people in Jerusalem, making it impossible that the disciples or women could have gone repeatedly to the wrong tomb.

Continue reading>>> HERE <<<

92 thoughts on “Resurrection: Making Sense of Historical Data

    1. Evidence that we know was written during the time in question.

      Example: A contemporary account of the Apollo 11 mission.

      As far as I am aware there is no evidence whatsoever outside of the bible of the resurrection.
      In fact, outside the bible there is no verified evidence for the miraculous biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth.


      1. Ark,
        People in that time didn’t necessarily document their lives while they were living, this is why I ask because though there might not be contemporary evidence for Jesus, there also isn’t contemporary evidence for Caesar, who was far more prominent and influential during his lifetime, than a peasant like Jesus. Yet we have historical evidence for the Gallic wars no doubt but still far better evidence for the reliability of the NT than Caesar’s Gallic Wars. So without providing contemporary evidence yourself your benchmark of contemporary evidence is a straw-man which fails to have any real purchase on defeating the claims of Habermas’ minimal facts. 🙂

        Well if your willing to associate with Jesus mythers then your not being consistent with your application of historical data, are you? It’s difficult for me to actually take you seriously when you adopt such a fringe position. Expecting “verified evidence” “outside” the best sources is not good historical method, it is exposing your suppression of historical data. Once again not consistent unless your going to expect every historical event to be verified by a separate culture and context. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  1. there also isn’t contemporary evidence for Caesar, who was far more prominent and influential during his lifetime, than a peasant like Jesus.

    I was under the impression that you regard the miracle working biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth to be god incarnate? I would hardly call someone who is supposed to have done all those wondrous things that John claimed all the books in the world would not contain?
    Do I have this right?
    And based on the numbers of people who traipsed after him he had a very large following indeed.
    So he was either a smelly little itinerant rabbi or some wondrous miracle worker that pulled crowds of thousands who’s deeds were so numerous they could not possibly have gone unnoticed.

    Which was he?

    Furthermore, at the time of his crucifixion the Saints climbed out of their graves and went walkabout n Jerusalem did they not?

    An event such as this would have attracted the attention of people would you not say? Or do you adopt Licona’s position and believe this is more analogy?

    And exactly what historical data am I suppressing?
    And for this I would like you to be specific, please.


  2. Sorry. Typo.
    It should read:

    I would hardly call someone who is supposed to have done all those wondrous things that John claimed all the books in the world would not contain as not being prominent and influential.


    1. Ark, the historical veracity is contingent on a person of antiquity being in able to record in writing or through artifacts the course of their lives.

      My argument is not that Jesus wasn’t influential in the sence that he had a broad audience, rather it is the fact that Caesar had greater access to such means of writing or artifacts than Jesus did.

      This is why it is so remarkable that the persecuted followers of Jesus were able to record such reliable manuscripts given their inaccessibility of said means, and perhaps the belief that Jesus would return in thier lifetime.

      As far as the resurrection account from the end of Matthew’s Gospel, I would side with Licona. I think the case can be made that the genre shifts to apocalyptic imagery at this point in Matthew. If it was historical Luke would have mentioned thier names in Acts according to the emphasis placed on the resurrection of Messiah, this would have been evidence worth noting in Jerusalem. I could be wrong about that.

      I would say, if a person denies the historical evidence for the person of Jesus, the manuscript evidence for the synoptics and for the letters of Paul like Corinthians then that would imply a suppression of historical evidence. To be more specific.


      1. But what historical evidence is there for the biblical character, the miracle working, Jesus of Nazareth?
        Once again, can you please be specific and at least offer a link or a reference can fact check.


  3. I suspect your framing me with your “miracle working” part of your question. I would say the synoptics or the epistles found in the NT; however, you probably mean extra-biblical and feel that I might be unaware of the controversy over Josephus writings.

    Do the manuscript fragments of the NT satisfy your question?

    And yes an edit would be a godsend. 🙂


    1. Oh, I would dismiss Josephus out of hand as do all genuine scholars and I am pretty sure you would regard the TF as nonsense.

      The NT is not contemporary evidence.

      Yet, if we consider that the comment at the end of ”John’s” gospel has merit
      it is not unreasonable to expect some contemporary mention of this miracle working individual.
      After all, he had a large following and there were a great many writers of all disciplines active during this time.

      So, any contemporary evidence please?


      1. In an oral culture with the capacity to memorize speeches and long lectures there were not many scribes among the poor that Jesus preached to.

        One should conclude that John is awestruck and convinced that Jesus is the unique messiah sent by God. The reference to the volumes that would be written if it were possible is a figure of exemplary speech regarding the perfect life of Christ.

        To claim ‘genuine scholars’ reject Josephus appears to be a “true-Scotsman-fallacy”. Can you support your claim with reason why you would “dismiss” Josephus?


  4. Again you are using apologetics on me and I will not accept this method of discussion of dialogue.

    The Testimonium Flavianum is regarded by all scholars except die-hard fundamentalists as a Christian interpolation. Period
    Some scholars consider there is a core to the passage but not all.
    I wonder have you studied it?

    So, once again; do you have any contemporary evidence for the miracle working character, as portrayed the bible , Jesus of Nazareth, that you could direct me to please?


    1. There is no contemporary evidence for anyone in that time period. Big deal, can you provide a selfie of a Pharaoh? Your expectations are not consistent scholarship, but perhaps you need me state it outright.


      1. Thank you. No contemporary evidence.

        However, there were writers active during this period; Seneca, Philo, Pliny the Elder, to name three who were contemporary and none made any mention of any miracle performing rabbi who had a large following, was tried and executed by Pilate and rose from the dead three days after execution.
        Not a peep.
        And there were plenty other contemporary writers who were active during this period, none of whom even alluded to anyone called Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Nazarene , Yeshua Ben Joseph etc etc. Neither during his supposed lifetime nor at any the during theirs.

        As the Gospels are unreliable: penned by unknown authors, are known to contain interpolations, historical and geographical errors, it reasonable to assert that there is no reason to accept that there is any veracity for the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth.

        As for you comparison to Julius Caesar, and evidence, I recommend you dip into actual history as it sounds as if you repeating a classic apologetic trope.


        1. My apologies if you were expecting apologetic-free responses, I have tried to be as clear with the title of this blog as possible.

          May I remind you that it was Christians that copied and passed on not only Josephus but also Philo! if you dismiss the first a priori and demand it of the second you obviously are inconsistent with your approach. The truth is that Josephus was arguably the greatest historian of that time period, it appears you have a bias against Josephus. Based on this bias that should discredit your claims based on your earlier reasoning. So which is it? You seem to be selecting rebuttals arbitrarily.

          It’s understood that Jesus was an obscure figure in his day and his teachings didn’t start to upset Rome until after his death. Though writers existed in his time Jesus was simply too obscure to enter their writings. If you have a defeater for this position please present it. That’s how it happened, to expect otherwise is to try fit history into your reductionistic box.

          As far as the reliability of the NT I couldn’t disagree more my friend! The NT is far more reliable than Homer, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Plato, Tacitus, Caesar, Pliny… need I go on? As far as years between original autographs and the first copies and as far as number of manuscripts are concerned. We have sufficient early, eyewitness and honest testimony surrounding Jesus from the NT and extra-biblical sources.

          So are you willing to through out Homer, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Plato, Tacitus, Caesar and Pliny to show your commitment to consistency?

          Liked by 1 person

            1. I would because if Christians passed on Josephus and Philo then why is only one “tampered” with? Regardless, I’m willing to accept that the writing style appears to change and thus it is possible that there has been an embellishment. But even if you remove the embellished parts Josephus does make claims about Jesus and his followers, thus, an early source for inculpating historical evidence.


              1. Now you are back to thinking like a fundamentalist.
                However, you do say ….”But even if …”
                So you are least you are beginning to lend a little critical thought to the issue.
                Are you aware the earliest copies of the TF did not contain this passage?
                And it wasn’t quoted by any Church Father before Eusebius got his grubby hands on it.
                And Eusebius is on record expressing his beliefs regarding the ethics of bending the truth to further the Christian doctrine.

                Well, I’ll not push it. You must come to reason in your own time.


  5. Good repost petrus. Always timely.

    If I can add a related point. There is precedence in understanding people’s incessant gripes with the scriptural narrative.

    The Lord Himself said as much: if ye believe not what Moses wrote, neither will you believe my words, for He wrote of me. So in discussing the ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ of the resurrection of Christ, we need not look far for the opposition, for many many people who ask for proof……………deny Moses even lived!

    Talk about a conversation that is irrelevant. Sooooooooo, after the Lord’s resurrection, did He appear to they who said Moses never lived, or to unbelievers? What would have been the point. Scripture interprets itself, is tamper proof, and stands alone, not needing confirmation from people who do not believe its contents.

    Tis genius of God really, and the present day ‘new’ complaints against God and scripture, are simply old arguments in new clothes. Scripture reveals the promises of the Creator, yesterday, today, tomorrow, and forever.

    And btw, to quote myself: it is much easier to believe that the scriptures are true, than for a man to believe he will live to see tomorrow.


      1. Hmmm let’s see, you are admitting Moses lived?

        If you say he did not live, then you are feigning sincerity, and your question is full of guile. If he did live however, you have answered your own question.

        And btw, to say he did NOT live, is to cite the Lord Jesus Christ as a liar. Not too smart there, as He is full of grace and truth…..

        Word for they day: Guile.


          1. Mr ark-

            Do you somehow think that your petulance has credibility?

            Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.’

            God tells Joshua:

            ‘There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.

            Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them.

            Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper withersoever thou goest.

            This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.’

            And of course, Christ Himself said this:

            ‘For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?’

            Hellooooooooooo? Again I say, guile and petulance.

            (apologies to the host here; not sure he is aware of the games people play)


            1. Fine, I hear you. No need to shout. I don’t want you to have an infarction on Petrus’ blog.
              So, please be specific and tell me which book in the bible you believe Moses wrote. Thanks.


  6. @ pklopper re Caesar and contemporaneous evidence:

    Neither Tacitus nor Josephus were even born before Jesus was killed. Therefore, their evidence is not contemporaneous. A primary source, yes, but one to be treated with caution (as are all sources).

    We should distinguish between primary and secondary sources and contemporaneous ones, of which there were plenty for Caesars. Coins, monuments, stele, triumphal buildings, sarcophagi … You are aware that when assessing history we look at more than just second-hand writings?

    It should also be said that the bible is not regarded as a credible or valid source for any genuine history degree.


      1. Thanks Pklopper.

        Right. So by agreeing with what I say, ie Tacitus and Josephus are not contemporaneous, the bible is not a credible source to a historian, you are therefore agreeing your earlier statement is invalid? This one:

        In order for Jesus to rise bodily from the dead He would first have to die. No credible historian believes that Jesus didn’t die on a Roman Cross by crucifixion. Jesus’ crucifixion is mentioned by all four gospels, including various epistles contained in the New Testament. Jesus’ death is also recorded by non-Christian historians like Tacitus, Josephus and the Jewish Talmud and, therefore, is witnessed to in early historical sources with multiple lines of evidence, including hostile sources (Talmud).


        1. I wouldn’t go that far to say that the previous statement is invalid. I think a strong case could be made for the reliability of the NT without having contemporary sources. Whether historians question it doesn’t mean its false or unreliable (non sequitur) they must scrutinize everything because of their critical historical methodology. 🙂


  7. Roughseas assessment is spot on. This is why Habermas’s minimal facts argument is a sham, I’m afraid as it begins from from a pre-suppositional position – something no historian worth his or her will take.
    Yes, it satisfies Christian’s worldview as they have already been somewhat indoctrinated into this view.

    But with not a stitch of corroborating evidence the correct position to adopt is to state this is based solely on faith.

    Difficult, I realise. But telling the truth and being scrupulously honest is never easy.

    This is why Licona was subject to such vitriol by the likes of Geisler and his cohorts over his statements regarding the dead saints rising and going walkabout.
    And the bloke lost his job in the process.
    Dare I say , How Christian?


  8. @ pklopper

    Sorry but I am still laughing at the ‘bad seed’ planted on your blog, (intended to sit and sit until somebody swallows the camel) that the bible is not a credible source to historians………..

    Yep, Joshua never lived, there was no Jericho, Moses did not have a brother named Aaron, no Daniel, no Hananaiah, Mishael, no Azariah, no King Darius, no Esther, no Mordecai, no Xerses, Isaiah never lived, nope, the bible is not credible, but the apostate unbelievers and the atheists are completely reliable and trustworthy? Please.

    It is the word of God that gives credibility to ALL of history. All. A.L.L. The victory of the atheist is to merely SUGGEST that there is no credibility with the historical narrative.

    The genealogies of Matthew and Luke shut every mouth as to the ‘historical credibility’ of scripture, which proves completely the reliability of the text.

    The playground antics of unbelievers worldwide throughout time, and the infantile gripes of late by atheists are nothing new, as scripture is always assaulted. Strange then how people will spend their lifetime and resources trying to squelch a book that they say is fraudulent. Seems a tad insane.

    ‘The bible is not a credible source to historians?’ Of course not. They have issue with the very first line of scripture: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.’ No surprise here. The there is that little word ‘sin…………’

    And of course, to your post here, the life and times of Jesus the Messiah, and His death, according to the scriptures……………and that He was buried………..and that He rose again……………..according to the scriptures……………and the building of His church, is further proof that God’s word is the anvil that has wore out every hammer against it.

    The bible is not a credible source to historians? Ha, and men have wings like sparrows, and apes can write sheet music. Perhaps the historians should take their heads out of the sand.

    Scripture stands alone as the only account of history which CAN be trusted entirely.


    1. @ Colorstorm.
      Aaah, CS , do not try to paint Petrus with quite the same dead-from-the-neck-up brush that is now fossilizing in your dried-up paint thinners of reasoning powers.

      Fortunately, Petrus is still capable of critical thought and unlike you has not completely switched off and abrogated all personal responsibility.

      Truly, you need to get out a little more in the fresh air. Just ask your nurse. I am sure she’ll allow you ten minutes?


      1. The Hittites. Yes. Good one.
        Well, Petrus, this is how science works. When it makes mistakes it owns up and moves on.
        People like Albright were convinced he would prove the bible to be true.
        By and large he failed.
        It is a little disingenuous to try to point score on such issues and think this makes your entire case and it is disappointing that you would take this approach.

        As of yet you have not offered a single piece of evidence to back a single biblical claim regarding the Exodus. Not one.

        Neither have you made an effort to offer a reasoned reply regarding the evidence for the internal settlement pattern of Canaan.

        How can you claim ”truth” yet not engage evidence put forward by some of the world’s most respected scientists and archaeologists and think a somewhat smug comment about the Hittites suddenly justifies your view of the Old Testament?

        It isn’t ”funny” at all.


  9. Insults noted, but it is obvious you stayed clear from every bit of truth. Care to dismantle the genealogies of Matthew and Luke that verify history and the truth of scripture?

    Care to assert that the lineage of Abraham , Isaac, and Jacob is a fabrication? Care to suggest that Solomon was not David’s son? Are you never embarrassed at your petulant antics?

    May I refer to an oft used quote: God has never lost an argument to ants, and His word is forever settled in heaven. You have nothing but the red face of disappointment, to infer that scripture cannot be trusted. God is not on trial; man is.

    And strange then eh, how scripture draws you even while you deny its relevance.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The genealogies are fiction.
      The Pentateuch is historical Fiction. This is accepted by every major ( non- literal believing ) biblical scholar and archaeologist that I am aware of.

      Feel free to list any that disagree.

      I am wondering if you are embarrassed by your willful ignorance?

      If you have a genuinely intelligent question to put to me then please, feel free to do so.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. So far all I’ve seen is an assertion. It’s your word against his. An arbitrary difference in opinion. We have already discussed your inconsistent approach to historical evidence therefore I’d take your claims with a pinch-of-salt.

        Circular reasoning of atheism:
        1) God doesn’t exist
        2) There’s no evidence for God
        3) Any evidence for God isn’t evidence
        4) God doesn’t exist.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. But we are not talking about ”God” in the way you, as a fundamental Christian, understand it.

          So let us try to approach this with a little more integrity shall we?

          1. YOUR god is the character, Jesus of Nazareth for whom there is no contemporary evidence. None.

          2. YOUR god is a manifestation in the flesh of Yahweh.
          Yahweh, as already explained and as shown by the Ugaratic Texts was a Canaanite deity that the Israelites adopted.

          3 The Human Genome Project, initially headed by Francis Collins, a Christian, has established that the human race could not possibly have derived from a single pair – Adam and Eve – as depicted in Genesis.

          This is not circular reasoning but straightforward logic backed by archaeology and science.

          Christians have a poor habit of claiming non-believers take the bible out of context.
          Well,when looked at as a whole and taking into consideration that Paul firmly believed sin derived from ”Adam” it is perfectly clear the individual genealogies are not only non-compatible but simply a work of fiction, and no amount of theological gymnastics will solve this problem for you.


          1. We might not be talking about the same God, that’s a given, my view is that God is the greatest possible being.
            1) That doesn’t mean we have no evidence for Jesus, we have excellent sources for his life, death and influence.

            2) The Israelites were prone to idolatry but to say, one is the cause of the other, because it happened first or it appears older, is a classical fallacy (Post hoc, ergo propter hoc). Your putting far too much weight on a tablet than is reasonable and bias. It cannot accomplish what you wish it does.

            3)Allow me to grant your premises and allow you to refute a ‘Mitocondrial Eve’ and a ‘Y – Chromosomal Adam’ since your so certain of your position. You might assert that it is a weak inference based in the scientific evidence but this sort of thing is not repeatable by science and thus science is limited in its claims regarding origins. The possibilities are still wide open.

            I don’t make any claim to be able to solve every problem. This is why I advocate more people getting involved in the sciences so that we can continue to uncover knowledge everywhere.


            1. I don’t need to refute the Adam and Eve argument as the HGP already established that the biblical Adam and Eve are simply fiction; we could not possibly have derived from a single couple.
              Furthermore, it is you who has to demonstrate the HGP findings are not only false but also that there is positive evidence for the biblical Adam and Eve. Faith just won’t cut it I’m afraid.
              Perhaps you should email Collins and his team?

              I have already explained that there is archaeological evidence that Yahweh was a Canaanite deity. This is also something pretty much all renowned archaeologists recognise.
              You can Google this before you retort all I am doing is making claims.
              What are you struggling to grasp?

              If the name appears on the tablet ( which has been carbon-dated by the way) and is the same as in the Pentateuch what else can one possibly deduce?
              Are you also going to tell me the name on the Pilate Stone is not the Pilate in the New Testament?
              Must I now say that you are putting far too much weight than is reasonable and it cannot accomplish what you wish it does?
              Must I cry hypocrite?

              Re Jesus:
              There may well have been an eschatological itinerant preacher named Yeshua; Josephus names several, but we have no verifiable evidence whatsoever for the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth. Nothing.

              And you still have not deem it fit to offer a response to the global archaeological consensus that the Captivity, Exodus and Conquest tales as portrayed in the bible are nothing but geo-political myth.


  10. @ pklopper

    Hmmm. In the usual half baked gossipry manner, you have been awarded honorary mention at other blogs, and of course, I am accused and ridiculed for coming to your aid.’ Too funny. As if the resurrection of Christ per your post is not worthy of defending. (you are providing a very good work, for many ‘sit in the bleachers from afar,’ but will never visit; indeed, but they hear and see.

    But what is extremely amusing, is how many who gripe against believers, scripture, God, and truth, have somehow found a ‘saviour’ in Collins, simply because atheists have found common ground. Aha! No Adam and Eve!

    Yet………..the same people have no use for Collins when he speaks of Elijah, Moses, and Christ with historical certainty. It’s kind of like Herod and Pilate sharing a mutual disdain for Christ, while they both are not quite so friendly toward each other.

    Soooooooo, he is correct about genes, but incorrect about the life and times of the Messiah, INCLUDING the resurrection from among the dead………….seems quite the dilemma for the unbeliever.

    And by the way, Mr Collins has asserted and agreed that apart from God, there is no moral law. Quite interesting, but not surprising.

    But it’s ok, I’m sure God can explain the first humans far better than we who sit in judgment of Him…. and did you notice the overt assault on the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke? Yeah, like they are fraudulent. Oh the lengths people travel to malign the word of the living God who raises the dead without breaking a sweat.


    1. Your a breath of fresh air my friend! I need all the aid I can get brother! Yes it’s telling what has significant validity and what is arbitrary for some of my interlocutors. A bit more consistency would go a long way. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I don’t refer to Collins stance on Moses ( though I have not read anything and am currently unaware of his position ). However, if and when he does make a public claim then sure, he will be called out and asked to refute archaeological evidence.
        Just as those who deride his science should be obliged to do before making further unsubstantiated faith claims.


      2. Oh oh neighbor, your net worth just took a hit! While some have said you are reasonable, they are now recalculating their opinion of you…………because you spoke well of someone who is held in a ‘different’ light. lol.

        Too funny. I recall scripture speaking to something like this: a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Then there is that rock of offence. Then there are the living stones. Then of course there is that rock upon which the church of the living God is built.

        Gotta love the word of God.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. @Colorstorm.
    Then Collins must be ”double minded” as he believes in evolution and does not uphold the belief that Adan and Eve were the progenitors of the human race.
    In all the time you have been dribbling your nonsensical theological verbiage over the internet not once have you ever had the integrity to offer a reasoned sensible argument to refute the scientific standpoint.
    And your little pseudo meme about Yahweh never losing an argument with ants quite accurately typifies the level of intellect you are at, I’m afraid.
    Maybe you should rather stick to arguing against indoctrinated Sunday School children?


    1. Too funny once more. The natural changes within KINDS, is hardly a partnership with your idea of godless evolution. Ask Mr Collins if he believes, as SOME, that WHALES once walked on earth like elephants. Highly unlikely. ‘After their kind’ is a universal truth quite obvious. Squirrels do not give birth to sparrows. It was God’s idea to reproduce ‘after their kind.’ A whale is a whale is a whale.

      But nice try at diversionary tactics. And btw, naked apes are hardly human because they share similarities. Yeah, like bears are human too because the mother will tear your head off if you mess with her cubs.

      God’s word is blameless, and Eve is the mother of all living, even though her posterity has become somewhat disappointing..

      Fortunately the last Adam, the second man, (in keeping with the topic of this post) rose from the dead in the power of an endless life, and many a crooked twig is made straight. and yep, God has never lost an argument…………………. to any creature.


      1. I think you are becoming delusional once more, if this is not already your default state. Collins believes in theistic evolution. Period. You do know what this is I hope?
        And STILL you refuse to address the science of the Human Genome Project.
        Oh, dear me. You aren’t one of those somewhat remedial young earth creationists by any chance are you, CS?
        Vegetarian dinosaurs and all that?
        Oh, surely not?


        1. Houdini would be impressed at your sleight of hand and diversionary tactics. I am not.

          The TOPIC here is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It occurred. Deal with it.

          I repeat: God and His word have never lost an argument, to ants, to ostriches, to fleas, bees, spiders, and certainly not people. But have a nice day.


          1. You really are struggling with basic comprehension skills aren’t you?

            Now, try stop being your usual obstreperous, ingrate self for a couple of minutes please, and demonstrate you possess at least a soupcon of intellect, by simply addressing the issue of the HGP.

            If you have evidence to refute the findings of Collins and his team and the sterling scientific work they have done over the years on this project then all you have to do is simply present it.

            And yes, it does bear on the claimed resurrection.

            Away you go, CS …. let’s see some integrity.


          2. Oh and for what its worth, you were the ne who derailed the thread with your silly comment regarding genealogies. Go back and look and please, just for once,stop behaving like an arse-hat for a change.


            1. DERAILED? Uh no. It is spot on.

              ………..Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

              Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

              Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

              Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

              Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor…

              As I said, scripture shuts every mouth.


              1. As I said, scripture shuts every mouth.

                I am not alone in wishing it would shut yours!

                Please address the HGP, Colorstorm.
                Offer some evidence to refute Collins’ work.


            2. And for what it’s worth…………..Christ is in this lineage……….as is Adam………

              So yeah, spot on as to context. You may want to seriously consider the ramifications of that which you find distasteful.


              1. This is why I am asking for evidence to refute Collins work.
                The distasteful ramifications are that your god-man turns out to nothing more than a normal human being who was unaware of the true history of the Israelites, and, like Saul of Tarsus, knew nothing about ”Adam and Eve”.
                This is why Christians are scared witless of addressing these issues with any degree of honesty.

                Look at you for goodness sake! A perfect example of severe indoctrination.
                So, once more, evidence refuting the Human Genome Project?


                1. This comment of yours right here right now……… proof that you have forfeited any interest in knowing what is true.

                  You allege that the man Christ Jesus was UNAWARE of the true history of the Israelites, to which He would reply, Get thee behind me……….

                  And that Saul then Paul, knew nothing of Adam.

                  You have by your own words tightened the noose using your own recalcitrance. Tis a sad sight really.

                  Incorrigible also comes to mind. Please go away.


                  1. Again, you are referencing scripture and thus it has no bearing on the scientific aspects of this dialogue.

                    You forfeit everything by aggressively avoiding a simple straightforward request: supply evidence to refute the findings of the Human Genome Project.
                    Your rambling rhetoric is merely adding to the impression that you are nothing but an indoctrinated minion, with little intellect and less integrity.

                    Go away?
                    I do believe this blog belongs to Petrus does it not?

                    Therefore, I am sure even you can distill the vernacular from the phrase, Have sex and travel?


                    1. Yep, my ‘little intellect’ and ‘less integrity’ is certain that the true God knows more about the creation of man than do you or your unbelieving friends combined.

                      As to this blog belonging to petrus, yep, we agree.


                    2. Even if theistic evolution sounds similar to naturalistic evolution, they are fundamentally different. One is unguided and the other guided. You will not engage with the scientific evidence for the first female ‘Mitocondrial Eve’ or the first male ‘Y- Chromosomal Adam’. This science shows that it is at least possible that Adam and Eve existed.

                      If your demanding scientific evidence then deal with the scientific evidence.

                      Be aware that that Scientific Naturalism, if this is your position, is self refuting so I wouldn’t put all my eggs in the science basket.


                    3. I am fully aware of the differences between the forms of evolution, I was merely stating Collins POV.

                      No, I will not engage on the topic of Mitocondrial Eve and Y Chromosonal Adam as the HGP findings show that the human race did not derive from a single pair of human as depicted in the bible.
                      To reiterate: the fallacious claims of creationists who hold to biblical innerancy concerning a biblical Adam and Eve have been demonstrated to be false.

                      Is there anything about my previous sentence I am not being perfectly clear about?

                      If you are able to refute the genetics then please do.

                      If on the other hand, you do not understand the position or you dispute the scientific findings based on your FAITH then please stop playing semantics and at least have the balls to admit this.
                      Thank you.


                    4. There’s been no demonstration of the sort. DNA evidence clearly points to a first woman and a first man. Besides the science will most probably change in the next five years however the word of the LORD has stood the test of time.

                      Outside of Jesus Christ there is no hope for mankind. Do you hope my friend?


                    5. The HGP has proved that there were a fair number or ”original humans” and NOT a single couple as portrayed in the bible.
                      Do you not understand this?
                      The biblical tale of Adam and Eve is palpable nonsense, Petrus.
                      What next; you going to offer the scientific proof fr a talking serpent?

                      Tell me, are you being obtuse on purpose, Petrus or simply taking the piss?

                      There is no evidence for anyone called Jesus Christ, he is a narrative construct.

                      The ”Lord” will eventually be shown the door.
                      Look at the stats for every developed country in the world.
                      With the exception of the USA, of course.
                      With 43,000 Christian denominations alone, and counting you lot really ought to gt your house in order if you are gong to make such outrageous and quite frankly silly claims.


                    6. I recommend you read this:


                      here’s an extract for you:

                      Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.

                      These are the scientific facts.


  12. Maybe you should study the scientific proof of talking parrots. So what. There are also many mules who do not make asses out of themselves like so many people who think that apes taught people how to tie their shoes.

    Now there is a miracle, how on earth can an ape tie his shoes? Oops.

    You will never find your ‘proof’ because truth is not valuable to you. Until you or anybody else can create a fingernail….using nothing…………..your tongue is silenced against the Creator, who EASILY raises the dead.

    And I may candidly add, that God’s word is not on trial, but men’s poor opinions most certainly are. And your ‘poor opinion’ that there are 43k groups…… purely laughable. You kicking and screaming against the truth of God and scripture merely calls attention to your childish antics. Nice work.

    ‘And God saw that His creation was very good………………….’ Gee, I wonder what happened in the mean time when we read comments such as yours………….and therein lies your answer of the first man. Science is damned without the truth of life. ALL science sings the praise of creation. It’s simple really.

    Gotta love the truth of planting into the ground………and the truth of new life………..Gotta love the word of the everlasting God.


    1. Maybe if just for once you were to formulate a response that offered just a snippet of intellectual integrity you might garner a little respect.
      Don’t ever question skeptics motives if you insist on spewing out your continual litany of nonsensical indoctrinated diatribe.
      You would embarrass even the likes of Licona and Craig and are simply a disgrace to the majority of Christians who would want to find at least some middle ground with their non believing fellow humans.
      You should be ashamed of yourself.
      But then who among your kind will point out just how truly ignorant and obnoxious you are?


      1. Ah but douglas, all it takes is one quick visit to your site (photographs excluded) to prove by your very posts and comments, that your questions are completely disingenuous.

        I am obnoxious? Ha, yet it is YOU who has asserted the truthful accounts of scripture are fraudulent. Abraham never lived eh? The genealogies are suspect? Christ knew nothing of history? Saul /Paul never lived? Please.

        And btw, it must have escaped you regarding the ape and his tennis shoes………since you and your brethren say man was derived from apes…………

        Ir surely was a good point; too bad you missed it. But once more, the post is about the truth of resurrection which even nature confirms and affirms.


        1. Ah, but John, the archaeology fully supports every assertion and the vast majority of scholars, scientists and archaeologists are in agreement.
          Those that sit outside of the consensus, the fringe fundamentalists, biblical literalists and Young Earth creationists are regarded with utter disdain, even among those within their own religion.
          Believers like you are considered an embarrassment and a major hindrance to your faith based worldview.
          And which apes might this be, CS?
          Your slip is once again showing.
          What an ignorant dipstick you truly are.


    1. Ark, I don’t mind a direct response, but there seams to be no other way to protect other true seekers from being disrespected or to prevent vulgar or inappropriate language on “G” rated public blog. We tried the other way and it failed, therefore, more oversight is necessary.


      1. Sorry, did I swear at Colorstorm or you?
        And I am STILL waiting for a response from you on your position about the scientific, archaeological,and scholarly consensus regarding the Exodus etc.
        Are you struggling to formulate a response or are you simply going to ignore the issue?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. My apologies, I was under the impression that was directed at Colorstorm.
          Lack of evidence supporting the Exodus is not sufficient reason to prove it never happened. At best it is undetermined, anything beyond that is a logical fallacy known as ‘hasty-generalization’. Furthermore, basing evidence on the majority (mostly Scientific Naturalists) is a ‘bandwagon’ fallacy. Without positive evidence in direct conflict with the Exodus etc. the possibility still remains that it could have happened. You cannot deny the POSSIBILITY that it happened, though the PROBABILITY (in your view) could be unlikely. I acknowledge your arguments as attacking the probability. I’m not asserting that it was probable or even plausible… I’m simply stating it was possible. I hope we can agree.


          1. But there is evidence as I have been at pains to tell you over and over.
            The evidence shown by Finkelstein demonstrates that there was no conquest and that settlement was largely internal.
            To credit the biblical tale means YOU have to demonstrate and provide some counter evidence that at least offers the basis of refuting the archaeological evidence that has been produced.
            Even if this evidence is not in abundance there is at least evidence.

            Evidence of the biblical tale, there is nothing.
            And remember how long the Israelites were ”camped’ at Kadesh Barnea?
            There is no supporting evidence from any of the time periods speculated upon that a huge number of people were there.

            I can deny the possibility of the biblical tale as it is entirely fiction, and the archaeology shows this to be so.

            If you insist on this POSSIBILITY then at least have the integrity to please mention an archaeologist who fully supports the biblical story or supply a link to one – preferably secular and NOT Kitchen or Bryant Wood. And you should know why not these two, before you ask.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Oh please I wish there was a laugh button……….

              ‘Finklestein said this.’ ‘Goliath said that.’ Yeah, like God is weakened by the mere gripes and suggestions that His word is not good. God’s word is internally protected by the seal of heaven to prevent miscreants from tampering with history, try they may.

              You have simply agreed with the big dummy that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is irrelevant. Goliath of Gath is dead, his complaints put to rest, God is still God, and His word just as good.

              And the master slingsmith, young David, then King David, knew a thing or two about the value of a broken spirit.


              1. You really do struggle with genuine science don’t you Colorstorm?

                Are you also going to propose the Tower of Babel was real? And also Noah and his Ark?
                Are you so devoid of reality you are unable to divorce you indoctrinated fundamentalist worldview from applying just a little common sense?

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Struggle? Too funny.

                  You come to this site in the name of Finklestein, Goliath, Hawkins, and guesswork by ALL the atheists and unbelievers of today and tomorrow………….

                  and I (we) simply assert with full confidence that your issue is with the LIVING God who btw made the heaven and the earth………….

                  But it is pointless for you to continue, as your quiver has run out of arrows, so adios.


                  1. Guesswork?
                    Are you once again tacitly suggesting a global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, including but not limited to, the fields of archaeology, paleontology, genetics, geology and history?
                    Must all these people stand down and genuflect to the massive intellect of one John the Colorstorm who is apparently unable to put forward a reasoned argument for his indoctrinated beliefs but prefers to pepper all blogs he visits with innerantist rhetoric that so often embarrasses fellow Christians but would make him a shoe-in to the Ken Ham fan Club?

                    What a very silly person you truly are.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Uh sir, it is pure GUESSWORK to suggest Abraham never lived because his pocket knife cannot be found……….

                      And as to your assumption that the ‘good’ Christians are they who do not believe the scriptures……..but see it as a ‘code of conduct’ having no more relevance than Aesop……….please. Stop the perversion.

                      Finally, I do not care one whit if seven thousand so called scholars, paleo, judo, bingo, Harpo, frito, or any other ‘learned ones’ say the scriptures are false, I will present to you seven thousand misinformed men, or a whole bunch of liars. Tis a fact that has the blessing of heaven and all believers everywhere.

                      Learn a lesson today today from that big ol oaf named Goliath, and how he defied the living God, and how God’s word is always true and proves your unending stubbornness.

                      And back on point: Christ died for our sins………….according to the scriptures……..and that He was buried………..and that He rose again……….according to the scriptures.

                      HERE is your issue sir, and by the way, don’t cry about visiting blog sites, because no one twisted your arm to visit this one.


                    2. ark sez:
                      ‘you really are a troubled individual………’

                      Translation from an atheist:

                      You are insane if you believe the scriptural narrative………all intellectuals and they who KNOW history…………are CERTAIN Paul the apostle was delusional………are CERTAIN Moses never lived……….are POSITIVE Christ knew nothing of history……..

                      Let me repeat: Please go away to your place where godlessness reigns.


                    3. Please let me repeat. This is not your blog to issues commands, no matter how polite you might believe such commands are.
                      I truly consider you ought to have a few sessions with a professional therapist, or even a fellow Christian; one who can set you right regarding certain aspects of the bible.
                      Failing this, perhaps you should email Benny Hinn?
                      I feel sure you would get on like a maison en flambe.


                    4. Ok let’s get this straight.

                      Here you are, a person who believes NOT ONE one word of scripture…….setting himself as an ‘expert’ regarding a book he finds meaningless………then suggest that ‘OTHER’ Christians counsel others………that is, they who believe PARTS of the book that the expert finds useless……… further support the view of the unbelieving ‘expert’ that scripture is merely like any other book, useful perhaps to the mentally cripple………

                      The word for the day is ‘feigned.’ Nice work, but your slip is showing.

                      Perhaps you have never heard however of the Great Physician, who is more than willing to reveal ALL aspects of the scriptures……..even the parts that most people find distasteful.

                      I for one, as I’m sure the host of this blog, find redemption, sanctification, justification, reconciliation, and all manner of doctrine and righteousness……rather delightful.

                      But have a great day.


                    5. Listen, Senor Dipstick, you obviously do not understand the term Historical Fiction. Therefore, I highly recommend you go and bone up on the term then take a deep breath and afterwards try your best to write an intelligent comment. Okay? Super Duper.


                    6. @doug
                      @pklopper (apologies for the length, but maybe some context will once and for all silence the critics. And do note his observation re.the power of the apostles words about a ‘corner…..’ And btw, this piece follows perfectly in line with the essence of the post above.

                      You may not be aware of an Austrian Jew named Alfred Edersheim who wrote many books on the scriptures of truth, incl. the incomparable ‘Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.’

                      His monumental masterpiece ‘Old Testament Bible HISTORY’ is to this day unequalled in scholarship, and it also demolishes unbelief wherever it is found.

                      Below is taken from chapter one in 1876. (read his preface if you are inclined) Key word here: History. Not fiction. History. History. HISTORY.

                      –THE devout student of history cannot fail to recognize it as a wonderful arrangement of Providence, that the beginning and the close of Divine revelation to mankind were both connected with the highest intellectual culture of the world.

                      When the apostles went forth into the Roman world, they could avail themselves of the Greek language, then universally spoken, of Grecian culture and modes of thinking.

                      And what Greece was to the world at the time of Christ, that and much more had Egypt been when the children of Israel became a God-chosen nation.

                      Not that in either case the truth of God needed help from the wisdom of this world. On the contrary, in one sense, it stood opposed to it.

                      And yet while history pursued seemingly its independent course, and philosophy, science, and the arts advanced apparently without any reference to revelation, all were in the end made subservient to the furtherance of the kingdom of God.

                      And so it always is. God marvelously uses natural means for supernatural ends, and maketh all things work together to His glory as well as for the good of His people.

                      It was, indeed, as we now see it, most important that the children of Israel should have been brought into Egypt, and settled there for centuries before becoming an independent nation.

                      The early history of the sons of Jacob must have shown the need alike of their removal from contact with the people of Canaan, and of their being fused in the furnace of affliction, to prepare them for inheriting the land promised unto their fathers.

                      This, however, might have taken place in any other country than Egypt. Not so their training for a nation. For that, Egypt offered the best, or rather, at the time, the only suitable opportunities.

                      True, the stay there involved also peculiar dangers, as their after history proved. But these would have been equally encountered under any other circumstances, while the benefits they derived through intercourse with the Egyptians were peculiar and unique.

                      There is yet another aspect of the matter. When standing before King Agrippa, St. Paul could confidently appeal to the publicity of the history of Christ, as enacted not in some obscure corner of a barbarous land, but in full view of the Roman world “For this thing was not done in a corner.” (Acts 26:26)

                      And so Israel’s bondage also and God’s marvelous deliverance took place on no less conspicuous a scene than that of the ancient world-empire of Egypt. –AE


                    7. For your sake.
                      Edersheim wrote in the 19th century. This was even before Albright ventured into the Sinai and he saw his backside regarding evidence for the Exodus, didn’t he? He even acknowledged as much and he was, at the time, Christianity’s champion.
                      After the 6 day war Israeli Archaeologists ”went forth” with the tacit command from their government and academic institutions to effectively, ”Find the title deeds” to their promised land.

                      Now in the interests of scrupulous honesty, why don’t you offer me and Petrus evidence that confirms the tale as described in the bible?
                      I am even prepared to accept a compromise on the numbers and allow that there were interpretation cock ups and it wasn’t upwards of 2 million people who supposedly fled their captors, which, incidentally would have cause an unprecedented economic collapse in Egypt which had at that time a TOTAL population of around 4 million.

                      Then we have to consider that Egypt controlled pretty much all of the region in question, having manned forts etc and would probably have noticed such a thing as 2 million Hebrews wandering about the desert. Unless you are proposing they were as blind as you are, Colorstorm?

                      Then we can consider Kadesh Barnia where Mo and Co. supposedly camped out for quite a while, did they not, and not a shred of evidence has been found to support this. Irrespective of which time frame you wish to look to.

                      Then of course there are the Armana letters.
                      Next we get to the actual ”invasion” of Canaan and Joshua’s genocidal account.
                      2 million plus people suddenly appearing on one’s doorstep will surely be noticed.
                      2 million is a lot of people. Plus all their animals and paraphernalia.

                      Even if everyone in the entire area was having their bloody afternoon siesta, such a crowd would have left a few signs of their arrival.
                      Maybe a few broken spears, swords, pottery, graves, the occasional KFC carton?
                      But no again. Not a sniff.

                      Now when archaeologists look at what possible alternatives there are for the Biblical tale they have, lo and behold, found a decidedly different picture altogether.
                      Quelle suprise, right?

                      It is an archaeological record that shows settlement was largely internal and peaceful.

                      A picture that reflects a completely different scenario that the fictitious
                      foundational myth concocted by the Israelites during the Babylonian captivity.

                      Now, if you wish too continue with this fantasy of nonsense then you are entitled to do so.
                      But I am sure Petrus has considerably more Grey Matter than to hang his hat on a 19th century writer who would never have heard of radio metric dating.

                      Have a nice day, y’all.


                    8. You are simply beating your fists against the wind douglas..

                      It is YOU who continually asserts that NO Jews of scholarship or integrity have believed the scriptural narrative as it is written……..

                      Mr. Edersheim’s works have no equal, even in 2016. Apparently this escapes your notice. And by the way, this without the fools tool, the internet of unbelief.

                      Kind of uncomfortable for your heroes Finkenstein, etc, to have to reckon with a son of Abraham…………who easily and forcibly dismisses all your claims.

                      Let God be true, and every man a liar.

                      Maybe it is time you admit defeat, and succumb to the eternal truth of the living God, before whom you stand, and in whom you live and breathe.


                    9. You are once again demonstrating the behaviour of an indoctrinated individual completely strung out on hyper-religiosity.
                      I fully understand why you behave on this manner, it is part and parcel of the symptoms of the type of mental illness associated with irrational and extreme beliefs.

                      And still you have failed to provide a single piece of verifiable evidence from Eidersheim’s work. Hardly even a quote for anyone to reference.

                      The more you continue with this charade the more you come across as suffering from some sort of delusional disability.
                      I reiterate, you really do need professional help.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s