It appears John has simply no idea how to produce any evidence of a resurrection. This is not too surprising, as there is no evidence of a resurrection.
His evidence now consists , apparently, in the fact that the Holy Roman Empire made and preserved a lot of copies of the New Testament, while the works of Tacitus were not copied as frequently.
There are literally millions of copies of the Book of Mormon, but I'm sure John would laugh at the claim that every time the Book of Mormon is reprinted, it becomes more and more backed by evidence.
How can the number of times a Gospel was copied possibly count as evidence for it?
His claim that the earliest copy is from 100 AD is simply unfounded. The earliest manuscript is called p52. It does not contain the name 'Jesus', and dates from 125 to 150 AD.
His other claim is that a Christian called Papias alleged that somebody called Mark based his book on what Peter had said.
This is all just hearsay, as meaningless as claims by Mormons that Brigham Young believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
It is a plain fact that the Gospel of Mark never identifies any author or any source. It never gives any even half-decent attempt at chronology, or any attempt at showing how the author came to learn things like Pilate thinking it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him , or what Satan said to Jesus in the desert.
It has none of the markers that ancient historians used to indicate that they were writing history.
It is a theological tract , using the Old Testament to create stories about Jesus.
For example, the stories of Elijah and Elisha were plundered by the anonymous author of Mark to create new stories about Jesus.
Take 2 Kings 4:27-37, where a distraught parent of an only child comes to Elisha just as in Mark 5:22-24 (which continues in verses 35-43) a distraught parent of an only child comes to Jesus,pleading for help.
In both stories someone tries to discourage the parent from bothering Elisha and Jesus.
In both stories it is unclear to some people in the story whether the child is dead ,dying or asleep.
In both stories the child is in a house some distance away.
In both stories a second source comes from the house and confirms that the child is dead.
In both stories Jesus and Elisha continue anyway to the house.
In both stories the parent precedes Elisha or Jesus
In both stories Elisha and Jesus seek a high degree of privacy by turning people out of the house before their miracle .
The story in Mark is such an obvious rewrite of the story in Kings that if I remind you that Jairus in Mark 5 falls at Jesus's feet, you can guess what the parent in 2 Kings 4 did.
The name Jairus has 2 meanings. 1 is 'he enlightens'. The other is 'he awakens'. Is not 'he awakens' a remarkably apt name for someone in a resurrection story, where Jesus says that the child is not dead but sleeping?
As confirmation that Mark used 2 Kings 4 for his stories of the feeding of a crowd, and the raising of a dead child, Mark 5:42 says that after the miracle, the parents were 'amazed with great amazement' (exestesan ekstasei megale), while 2 Kings 4:13 we have 'amazed with all amazement' (exestesas... pasan ten ekstasin tauten)
Another example of the Elijah/Elisha miracle stories being recycled to provide material for Mark's book is the feeding of the 5,000.
In 2 Kings 4:42-44, Elisha has a great many people to feed with only a few loaves of bread and a little other food. He delegates the task of feeding. There is a complaint that the quantity is too small. The feeding continues and everyone is fed. There is surplus bread left over. This older story from Kings has exactly the same plot as the feeding of the 5,000 - only the numbers are different.
The feeding of the 5,000 is such an obvious rewrite of the story from Kings that if I remind you that Jesus used barley bread, you can guess what type of bread Elisha used.
On page 176 of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, written by a raft of Catholic scholars, it says that 2 Kings 4:42-44 is 'obviously the inspiration for the NT multiplication miracles'. I like the word 'obviously'.
It is obvious, isn't it?
Which is more likely, that somebody fed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread or that a religion was based on frauds and lies - as every religion throughout history has been based on?
We know from modern experience that when Paul says Jesus 'appeared' to 500 brethren, he means no more than what is meant when followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi claimed that he levitated in front of them.
At least the followers of the Maharishi produced photographs of the Yogi in mid-air. 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't even have anything other than bare claims that Jesus 'appeared'. No details, no confirmation, no dates, no times - this all adds up to no evidence.
John asks me to get back to the facts.
The facts are that early Christians claimed Jesus 'appeared' to them (in much the same way as modern Christians claim Jesus appears on the side of a slice of toast??), but early converts to Jesus-worship simply scoffed at the idea of God choosing to raise a corpse.
From this solid fact, attested to by primary evidence - namely the letters of somebody who was there - we know that early Christians did not spread tales of corpses rising from graves.
Or else early Christians would have believed what had converted them.
What had converted them was vague tales of 'appearances'.
Only when we come to anonymous works, works which plagiarise each other and plagiarise the Old Testament, only then do we come to stories of Jesus eating fish and ascending into the sky.
But there is nothing to back up these anonymous works, or anything which says there are anything other than the fabricated stories we know Christians were making up as early as when Paul was writing 2 Corinthians 11:4.
But if John has any real evidence, then he should start producing some very quickly.....