"The reference was to your claim of a supernatural event. You hadn't offered any evidence for it with the exception of historic writings,"
lol, well there is a reason for that. You were arguing that supernatural explanations are completely open to the whims of the individual. I am pointing out that this point is valid, but being valid that means that when Christianity agrees with the point and makes itself out to be based on an actual event in history, that is good. So yea, I'm only offering evidence from history because that is one thing that sets Christianity apart. If the resurrection did not happen as a fact of history than Christianity is not true. Period.
"based on multi-generational word-of-mouth transmission."
This view does not fit the facts, I'm afraid. See my thread about arguments for Jesus's existence.
"I try to get to the essence when answering your post."
Great, so when I do the same how about giving me a little slack. For you to accuse me of ignoring a point because I don't speak directly to it when basically that's your whole approach borders on hypocrisy. Hey, address the 'essence' all you like, but when others do it too don't throw around accusations that they are then 'ignoring things.' Although, I haven't ignored anything.
"There, there. Don't let the bad Atheist give so much grief."
There you go again. Blatant hostility. More ad hominem. Such vitriol in a public forum!