<<Of course they had a compelling reason to lie if Jesus was not the
son of god.>>
What was that compelling reason? The fact that Jesus was not who he said he
was? They were compelled to make up a story about a resurrection, one that
sent them to persecution, and eventually to death. All of them?
This is an unreasonable supposition. Or maybe I'm missing something. What was
the motive for all of them to lie, IYO?
<<Coincidence cannot be used to show the supernatural part of the gospel
merely the historical nature of the account.>>
But if you have reliable, historical testimony of the miraculous, why do you
reject it? The only answer is a modern bias against supernaturalism. But this
is an assumption only.
Jim