You are trite...Is it "magic" when it happened but you choose denial? It's not magic. It's history...and history refutes the basis of your claims to knowledge and priority. Denial is not magic but it's all history leaves you with.
No it wasn't. How the fat did you invent this claim? NO ONE has ever made a claim this absurd. The Warlord Muhammed was no scholar, and he certainly didn't spend time examining Christian claims. The neighborhood where Islam began its bloody jihad was bereft of even a vestige of the pure and primitive Christianity you see in the book of Acts.
You know nothing at all...do you? Who told you this? Attribution is debated, and always leans toward the authorship ascribed. Luke's is demonstrably authentic, and stands as one of the best historians of his age for accuracy.
Your desperation is apparent and woefully ludicrous in every post. Jesus "coma" that he "recovered from" included a beating that products over six hundred wounds front and back, acknowledgement of his death that precluded the usual breaking of his legs...and a stab through the heart for good measure by a Roman lance.
Cured? He was dead for four days. In Jewish minds the soul quits the body after three. Lazarus wasn't "cured". He was dead. He was raised from the dead.
Lazarus wasn't god...just a friend of Jesus. He wasn't in a coma. He was dead.
The word really worries you...because the artifact is incontrovertible proof...of something you really really really want to deny with impunity.
No it is not. It is controverted by the studies showing it is a Medieval fake.
Muhammed was illiterate. He used scribes.
Based on what Shroud?
There is no magic in history. That’s not history.
If the character of Christ was based on a real person, that person was probably illiterate.
Do you claim to possess all knowledge??
Your guesses are no where near fact.
Trying to communicate on your level. When in Rome and all that.
False claim...The latter would give you an excuse for unbelief. You have none.