Talk about strawmen, although I can't confirm any of the details of your personal life, I have not disputed everything in your memory.
Not a strawman at all. It just goes to show that 40 doesn't make a difference and much more so if you are talking about it for 40 years. (like Spanish) -
First of all there are elements of Jesus message that according to my understanding He is only alleged to have said once such as the sermon on the mount.
Second of all I'm disputing that eyewitness testimony is sufficient for claims of miracles, it appears to me you didn't even address the statement I made about if 12 of us made the claim of miracles etc you would dismiss it without a second thought.
Yes. And you are going down the same rabbit whole as the others. Let me translate, "nothing you say will ever convince me"... which I have no problem with. I really am not trying to convince you, rather just showing how faulty your position is.
We have three people which were witnesses (Matthew, Mark and John). One who spoke to the witnesses, Luke. One who preached and talked to the witnesses, Paul
That would pretty much stand up in a court.
Ok, so let's put this claim to the test, if I can show you an actual video of a Hindu "miracle" will you accept that Hinduism is the true religion? I think even witnessing it yourself will not be enough to convince you that an actual God-given miracle occcured - or that such a miracle would prove all the other claims in the religion in question.
So here is a link of a Hindu priest praying and an island allegedly moves across the water in response to his prayer
Oh, I would believe it was miraculous in nature but not from God. Like Pharaoh magicians who performed some of the miracles that God performed through Moses.
Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone in this thread that there are miracles. It isn't the subject matter.
I think I missed the part where we actually established that Clement of Rome knew Peter let alone the others you are now adding to your claim (are you trying to do a gish gallop or seeking a resolution?) I would accept testimony as testimony of eye witnesses if I could know that it was the testimony of eyewitnesses, but I would not accept that their testimony accurately reflected actual events without sufficient evidence, which considering the miraculous nature of the claims being handed down I don't believe you have provided.
Historical... not going to go through the effort again.