[malakhi]

Obviously the historical question is about purported resurrection, not his existence or death. There is more historical evidence for Jesus than for many figures of distant history. But the claims of the Bible are not historical fact. Catholicguy may accept them as such but that doesnt mean that historians do. It's a matter of faith, not history

Yes. And what in that do you find offensive? I'll try a rewrite:

Obviously the historical question is about the purported miracles of the Exodus, not Moses's existence. There is more historical evidence for Moses than for many figures of distant history. But the claims of the Bible are not historical fact. malakhi may accept them as such but that doesnt mean that historians do. It's a matter of faith, not history

Now, I disagree with what this says, but I'm scarcely offended by it.

[Catholicguy]

Are your emotive states normative?