Originally Posted by Dreamliner
The irony, coming from people who hew to johnny-come-lately, cobbled-together religions derived from old-man-mumbling sects which coelesced centuries after Jesus.
The difference is, all of us whom you so dubiously describe can make arguments from Scripture and a reliance on faith to support our belief. You... can't. Or at least shouldn't. An argument from scripture is an argument to prove a future event. Your whole belief is that we are now talking about a past event. So you can't make honest arguments based on predictive texts, and ignore that you should be arguing based on historical fact.
It would be like me trying to prove that the iPhone exists by only documents announcing the planned release of it, but none that establish the actual release of it. The Second Coming of Christ is a subtle thing? A fact of history completely overlooked, even to disparage and discredit it? Manifestly impossible. As a Catholic, it is far easier to defend even the truly challenging doctrines like transubstantiation than to defend that.