Originally posted by Gary
View Post
In any case this still suffers from the Historian's Fallacy because you are trying to demonstrate what was reasonable 2,000 years ago is equivalent to what's reasonable now without citing any experts, and even more to the point, this is still a Red Herring. It is a throw away argument, not about the reasonableness of the Ressurection, but instead whether it was reasonable 2,000 years ago. If you have a point you're making by pursuing it, you should say so, because I frankly do not trust you to understand how informal debate works after having read your formal debate.
If you insist to continue this line of discussion about Saul, then I will excuse my self.
Comment