Do you have any problem believing the writings of Plato? There's about a 1200 year span between the original writings and the oldest available copy (of which there are 7). Aristotle? That's about 1400 years and about 50 copies. The New Testament has over 5000 copies floating around, and they all show a remarkably high similarity with respect to content.

A lack of witnesses is a good start. Unreliable sourcing is another. Mohammad was given the in a form that only he was privy to, and then passed this along to his followers. The propagation of the Bible does not flow from a single unverifiable source.

I have gone to great lengths to try to convince myself it is false in college. I failed. But I committed myself at the start of the exploration to leave the door open that it could be true, and this is probably where we part company. If you close the door before you begin, you reach the conclusion you wanted to reach (from both sides of the door).

The missing component is one that you will not accept as evidence, which is the personal experience. This is something that I don't expect you to accept.

How do you *prove* someone loves you?

Your first statement was

I listed some of Jesus' miracles most of which were not "performed mostly for the 12 disciples." Your statement here is false.

Where in these scriptures that talk of Jesus' miracles does it say if the receiver of his miracles were Jewish, Gentile, etc...? Are you stating that Jesus never performed a miracle on a Jew? I'm not sure if this is true or not so I will wait for you to point me to scripture that states that Jesus never performed miracles on Jews.

I would have to see someone rise from the dead in order to answer this question -- which, I really don't understand in the first place.

But, seriously, seeing somone rise from the dead would help....

these statements are excellent. you truly are a teacher.

This reminds me of another hypothetical: If it was discovered that the New Testament was *IN FACT* a gigantic conspiracy, would you stop believing? My answer is "yes." I would have a lot of things to reconcile to myself, but it were really, truly, undeniably true, I would have no choice.

The truth is, I have no idea what I would do if I were totally 100% convinced that this guy came back to life and made these claims. There would be a level of research (Who is he? What type of heaven does he claim to represent? etc.). I have no idea what my conclusion would be.

But the hypothetical is not reality. What if people had 5 hands instead of 2? We can play around in the intellectual imaginary space, but eventually we come back to the reality that we don't have 5 hands.

Jesus did perform miracles for the Jews, but he didn't want everyone to see them. most of his teachings were for the diciples, so they could spread the word after he fulfilled the prophecies. i know he feed thousands of people, and raised the dead, and such, but he never performed those miracles in the heart of Israel, which is Jeruselem. he performed his miracles on the countryside with the country folk of that time.

what i mean is the Jewish clergy demanded that Jesus prove he was the son of God. the Messiah they were waiting for. the King of Israel. when he would not prove himself to them, because they wanted miracles and other things, they deemed him a false prophet. False prophets were to be stoned according to the laws of moses.
If Jesus had performed miracles for the Jewis clergy to prove he is the messiah, would they have still requested his death?

There is so much fail in this thread.

Big Erf,

You just recently posted a thread saying you were leaving these discussions because you were questioning your faith. Now you're going around acting like you know everything about everything.

Does that not strike you as ridiculous? Absurd? ****ING ******ED?

To my knowledge Plato and Aristotle do not resurrect themselves and claim to be the Son of God.

I don't see how you can claim reliable sources for the resurrection of Christ. What are your sources exactly? I just read Timothy Keller's "A Reason For God" and his argument for reliable sources of the resurrection is nothing short of hilarious. He mentions that immediately after Christs death churches popped up everywhere and flourished. Thats amazing that the church boom happened after Christ's death but they didn't start writing about his life until 50 years later.

Meh I've been raised Christian and went to Christian schools my whole life except college. All religions that claim they are the exclusive path to heaven are nothing short of divisive.

As far as proving someone loves me I have lovetracker with a HUD display. Everytime my wife comes home I collect information and log it my lovetracker. I have a pretty large sample size (6 years) and she's a TAG which is a good thing for women.

So he was the David Koresh of his time but just a little more peaceful minded with a lot better intentions. It seems like this is the more logical scenario than him being the Son of God. Perhaps Jesus was delusional thinking that he really was the son of God. He honestly thought that God would save him.. hence "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" bit while he died on the cross.

Thanks for an honest answer. I really think it is weird that you wouldn't believe the new guy. Say his message his logically the same as Jesus (love your neighbor etc) it seems at that point you have a logically unjustifiable level of faith in Jesus. (You are trusting your ability to read and interpret the Bible more than your ability to see something in front of you and interpret) Perhaps that is true, your level of faith is above logic, but then it is silly to talk about any logic whatsoever when it comes to Jesus.

the reason why he said that is because he know his body needed to be sacrificed. he was human. he was also very hesitant about following through with it, but he had to in order to fulfill the prophecy. no, he didn't want to die.
as part of the prophecy, he needed to die.

But people really really believe that the things that are attributed to them were actually their words. And they don't doubt. The just believe.

I've never read that book, so I cannot supply any reasonable commentary of his argument.

I think this is the second time that the number 50 came up, so I'm going to ask for some sourcing. I believe that the number 50 addresses the text that is most closely dated to Jesus' crucifixion, which is different from saying that they didn't even start writing until 50 years later. For example, Luke claims to have gone around interviewing people, and based on the life-spans of the time this becomes a difficult proposition to reconcile.

I agree that this is true of Christianity. It does bring division. And it doesn't claim to do otherwise.

Yes I understand the Christian reasoning behind it, but you find my reasoning seriously flawed even though it is a more likely or reasonable scenario.

While he does teach these things, those things were not the thing that he used to verify his ministry. I would suggest reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis for more information. I don't really know where to begin explaining things, but it seems that you're attempting to characterize Jesus' teachings as merely moral. If this is so, then the latter half of chapter 3 will address it. Otherwise, you just might need to sit down for a few hours one afternoon and do a little background reading.

(I should point out that at some points, Lewis' words feel outdated because he was writing to a different culture than the one we're in. So there might be an analogy or a point that doesn't quite make sense because he's writing to a different audience.)

We can start with wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

Yet Christianity can cure the world as long as you fall under its spell! Didn't Hitler have the same sort of thinking? No religion that claims exclusivity to the entry of heaven will unite a world. The believers of these types of religions do not see beyond 10 feet in front of their face.

This begs the question... Do Atheists or Christians value life more? With this "Christianity does bring division and it doesn't claim to do otherwise" mindset its hard to see how you value life more than I. All it takes is someone in a position of authority and your line of thinking to bring on "Armageddon" because they believe such things.

Since the death of Jesus is ~30-35 AD (depending on the exact dating convention), this would mean that

This would put Mark at being written as close as 33 years after the death of Jesus, and this is the date of completion, not the date on which he started writing.

Show me where Christianity makes this claim. (Edit: Claim = "Cure the world.")

But by denying religion, you somehow reach a place where you can in fact unite a world? [sarcasm]That's realistic.[/sarcasm] People are so fundamentally screwed up that there will always be something to fight over. That's just how it is with us.

It really begs *that* question?

I forgot to include mention that you can access the full text through wikipedia's article on the book. I don't know the state of the copyright of that text, but there it is.

No, I didn't mean that at all. I only mentioned equivalent teachings as I personally would have an easier time rejecting somebody that rose from the dead if their teaching were hate your neighbor.

I just think that your belief in Jesus is not rational since apparently if somebody did the same exact same thing that you believe Jesus did right in front of your face and said the same things he did but was called Max you wouldn't believe in him. I have no problem if your belief is not rational.

Wow I have actually been fully 100% convinced by this thread that you cannot both be a smart person and believe in Christianity. It just cannot be done. There is a certain intelligence level where, if you reach it, you just realize there is simply no way.

Theists, seriously, just take mushrooms once. Just once. That's all I ask. Seriously, taking mushrooms for the first time literally bumps your intelligence level measurably. Not very much, but for most of you it's all you need to push you into that bracket of "understanding".

Sorry, I think I completely misunderstood the nature of your hypothetical. You went from someone denying Jesus to someone teaching equivalently to Jesus. This is a major jump.

Your hypothetical runs into a problem of prophecy, which is the way that the Bible describes how the messiah could be identified. Aspects of this includes the location of the birth of the Messiah, lineage, and so forth. Another issue the ministry of John the Baptist as the prophet who pointed to Jesus' ministry, which is another aspect of prophecy but not directly pointing to Jesus.

It's hard to intellectually conceive this hypothetical because it would cause a crisis of faith of the type of "Two messiahs?" If the man did in fact satisfy all the conditions and lived the type of life that he was described to supposed to live, and claims he will die a substitutionary death, then actually do it... I have no clue what I would think at all.

You stated "I agree that this is true of Christianity. It does bring division. And it doesn't claim to do otherwise." So according to you Christianity will always bring division. You are ok with a religion that shows intolerance... nice. Additionally, didn't God give his only begotten son to cure the world in a sense?

LOL so religion serves as the crux for inevitable arguments? Well in that case I believe in Christ! If the world was free from superstition it would eliminate many needless fights and arguments. It would be refreshing to see what we would fight over after that.

Absolutely... if you are so small minded and arrogant to think that God has a special place and purpose for you then you must be small minded and arrogant enough to think that it would your duty to carry out God's will (Armageddon) if the conditions were correct. If a devout Christian finds himself in a high authoritative position, he will attribute his position to God and God's purpose for him. Add this silly belief with access to military resources and other destructible means and you have potential for some serious mayhem.

Now put an atheist in that position... oh wait this country is so ****ed up that atheists cant get that high in power. Its amazing that all you need is a belief in the Christian God (no college degree, no political background, etc...) and you can be president. That is all the we require of our politicians. Its good to see they've done such a great job.

I second this and take xtc at least once. You'll feel like this lady but without having a stroke.

Yes, but hardly the sense you imply.

You can accept the reality of the sinfulness of man, or you can reject it.

I'm curious to know what you know about "Armageddon."

Edit: The bolded part represents a false implication that is probably rooted in your understanding of "Armageddon." It will be useful to the discussion for you to flesh it out.

??? Please emphasize

Huh? What does this have to do with what I said? You are all over the map.

Armageddon is a place rather than an event but it is widely used to describe an "end of times" event. The way that I am using it now is in reference to Revelations. Someone who believes that Revelations will occur could refer to such events as Armageddon. Should I have used "events in Revelations" as a better way to describe my point? Armageddon typically means end of times... Revelations and its events in a nutshell or a catastrophic world ending event... capiche?

How is this a false implication? You believe in the Bible right?