I heard this claim years ago from a french teacher in high school, what struck me then was his ernest desire that I believe him.
Fanatasy and fanatics are closely related.Nothing that is held up as proof stands up to scrutiny. In fact the actions of the faithful convince me they're full of crap and they know it.

But what about those 500 brethren who all saw Jesus at the same time post mortem according to Paul? This fiction is ridiculous. Did someone rent out a "Hall," and invite 500 brethren to all come at the same time to see Jesus? I am certain that this is Paul's fiction since Jesus only had 120 followers in the upper room on Pentecost when they all received the Holy Spirit.

And they are working with a big book of myths and outright lies. Google how far the concept of virgin birth go back. Something like 3000 years before the bible was ever conceived.

The early christian church exploded when christains slaughtered the people who refused to convert.

You can watch the alternate facts horror show of our current presidency and ask that?

Why are you even IN church?? I stay far away, and if someone brings up religion, I change the subject and/or remember something I need to do - somewhere else.

I don't listen to sermons. Haven't since I walked out on one 15 years ago when the preacher started slamming gays.

1. "so you could go ask them- they were eye witnesses" No, we can't. They've been dead for two thousand+ years. Just because you claim we could go ask them, doesn't mean we have time machines to do so. And, if we did, we could just go back and be eye witnesses ourselves. Cut out the middle man entirely. Also, if Jesus was fucking important, why did they wait 20 years to start writing it down? Two whole decades? That seems like some serious procrastination... also, he is probably wrong in the fact that there were witnesses still alive, as the average lifespan was much shorter then. Approx. 30 -40 years. So, if Jesus was already 33, and it was 20 years later, they would have died about 10 - 20 years before it was written.

2. He is absolutely wrong about the burden of proof flipping onto non-christians. That's a flat out lie, on his part. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. Always. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more convincing the proof must needs be. The fact that christians feel defensive is perfectly normal, because they are the ones who have to defend their claims. There could be a million reasons why christianity grew so exponentially during that time. It is NOT any non-believer's responsibility to prove the actual why of how it happened, but it is INDEED the burden of proof on those that claim that they know precisely why it happened. And, "because it MUST have been what I said it was, because I said so" is not any sort of proof at all. I mean, would you take someone's word on that big a claim on any other subject? Those who take such weak "proof" as true are the same kind of people who think vaccines cause autism, and the Earth is flat and only 6,000 years old...

Why, exactly, would I be listening to a sermon??!