A "Twelve Facts" resurrection logic puzzle

[Uccisore]

@Jayson

There needs to be a development of an an apologetic of historical process.

Why?
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with what was presented being granted and believed axioms from educated contextual deduction.
We, as a culture, are aware of enough anthropologically today that we are more hesitant to make bold claims of solid facts when we openly are aware that a huge chunk of information is radically missing that would be of great help to bringing clarity to the myriad of theories.

What’s wrong with honest educated proposition of plausibility?
Why do we need a defense of the historical process? Hell…it’s not even like there’s even one avenue in which we could claim is the uniformed historical process on this subject.
Different groups of academics and anthropologists use different approaches and processes to determine their conclusions of the same data.

Or am I missing your point?

I mean to say, “A Christian apologetic rooted in the historical process”, not “An apologetic defending the historical process itself from criticism”.

Let me put my last post into an analogy. Imagine if you and I had a debate, in which I raised points A, B, and C. You shoot them down handily. I raise poits D, E, and F. You shoot them down again. G, H, I, shot down. J, K, L, shot down. M, N, O- now, if a member in the audience walks in at this point (is born), then will see an even debate between two sides, where the important points are M, N, O. Somebody who has been around to watch the debate from the beginning would have to admit that you were winning, and would probably have adopted your position by argument H or so. In Christian apologetics, the most relevant parts of the debate have been going on for far longer than any human can live, so we’re all in the position of the late arrival. I believe that taking the long view, and looking at the debate as a whole gives a very favorable result for Christianity.