Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?

Now that isn't what I said, is it? The point was to demonstrate the credibility of the writers, on which I would certainly think the judgment of anything they said does depend. And I mentioned far more than just style, I gave a list of elements that I believe establish their credibility.How else could we validate the resurrection than by witness reports?

Mostly it means that people don't really know what the Bible says or aren't really thinking it through, and that the atheist propaganda is succeeding.

The evidence is the credibility of the writers, as I said. All the accounts that present themselves as historical accounts are historical accounts. Not interested in taking any "outs," it's your suppositions that need the correction, not mine,.

You are misusing the word "style," I included the straightforward style of narrative among other characteristics of the writers of the Bible such as the lack of whitewashing in their accounts, such as the inclusion of incidental facts and so on, that all go to their credibility as reporters. It's their credibility that is the basis for taking their reports about the resurrection seriously, reports that include the disciples' discovery that Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb, and their personal encounters with Him after He'd risen.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Perhaps you haven't been following the discussion, which is all about how their credibility is established by their writing itself, their presentation of incidental facts as in any straightforward credible historical report (time of day, who all was present, that sort of thing), their inclusion of negative information about some of the participants, such as the men's lack of trust of the reports of the women who saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion. The point is that the Biblical accounts demonstrate their historical credibility in the way they are written. And I quoted C. S. Lewis somewhere, who was a professor of literature of the mythical type, who said the Biblical reports are nothing like myth. This observation was one of the things that made a believer out of him in spite of himself (as he said he came kicking and screaming into the Kingdom or something like that as I recall). Again, the credibility 9of the writers is in their writing. As for knowing them, one gets to know them from their writing and from what others wrote about them. Not rocket science. And this is NOT about "style" in that irrelevant modern sense that ringo used the word either. I've already answered all this, and all you will do by continuing it is require me to repeat myself.I'm not interested in making this thread into anything in particular, but believers have evidence for our belief and that's all I wanted to say. Already you require me to repeat myself. Why is there any problem about a talking serpent in the Garden of Eden, or a talking donkey during the Exodus, when the God of the Bible is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent? The serpent is understood to be how Satan presented himself to Adam and Eve, not as a natural phenomenon. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.