Alley, all that you describe (in post #177) does not constitute evidence. Not when it comes to resurrection of the dead. First you have to prove that resurrection of the dead is possible, only then the evidence you produce can be considered.
Suppose someone wrote a book in 1980 describing your hometown as it was that year. In the book, the author correctly describes: your town’s politicians, its unique laws and penal codes, the local industry, local weather patterns, local slang, the town’s roads and geography, its unusual topography, local houses of worship, area hotels, town statutes and sculptures, the depth of the water in the town harbor, and numerous other unique details about your town that year.
Question: If the author claimed he had visited your town that year—or said he had gotten good information from people who had been there—would you think he was telling the truth? Of course, because he provides details that only an eyewitness could provide. That’s the type of testimony we have throughout much of the New Testament.
Alley, now suppose in that book he claims that he saw a live dinosaur or that he saw a flying monkey. Would you believe that, because he provided details that only an eyewitness could provide?
You wouldn’t, first you would need some proof, that dinosaurs (or flying monkeys) exist today, only then you would consider the evidence provided in the book. It is the same thing with resurrection. First you have to prove that resurrection is possible, only then eyewitnesses etc. have any value.
