Who ever said I was certain? Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as absolute certainly. I could be wrong, and maybe one day I will stumble upon that part of the 99.99% that I do not know that will convince me. But until then, the .01% of knowledge I possess leads me to conclude that the probability of Jesus being God is quite low.
Actually, Paul claimed to be a witness of Christ after his resurrection:
You actually let it slip you were a “she” in another thread. I think it was when we were discussing Goth Catholics.Paul is not a witness; he came well after the fact. As for the others, it is obvious that their ideas, ideals, works, and goals influenced each other. They did not each operate in their own separate vacuum, they were friends and followers of the same person.
I do not discount their accounts entirely; as I’ve said before, I have no reason to doubt that the Sermon on the Mount was given, no reason to doubt that the kid got lost in the Temple, and so on and on. I do have substantial reason to doubt that Jesus was God incarnate – this simply defies common sense. Such a thing has never, according to the gospel sources, happened before or since; there is no way for them to prove that the Word descended from heaven into the form of a human being; and the idea of a compound nature both human and divine contradicts the definition of nature as the whole makeup of a person.
If you told me you ate breakfast today, I’d believe you, or at least would not have reason to doubt you. If you told me you ate it on Mars, well, that just won’t fly without something a little more concrete.
See, this is one of those questions like ‘is there a God?’If I don’t tell you, you’ll never know unless you meet me in person!
Although you are both certainly entitled to your opinions
Then i apologize for misjudging you. I’ve always assumed atheist believed it is certain there is no God.
Claim, shmaim. I could claim to be talking to Elvis right now. Paul was not there, he did not follow Jesus through his ministry, he did not see him crucified.
No argument there. But they are not the only people to have died for adopting a religion early, as I mentioned earlier. Zoroaster is generally thought to have been martyred in much the same way Thomas Becket was. Sumayyah bint Khabbab, the seventh person to accept Islam, was speared through her genitals in Mecca, becoming its first martyr.
I did?
I don’t remember saying that – though I have let ambiguity slip a little bit in both directions. You still might be wrong 
There are some of those out there, but I don’t consider myself one.
Fair enough.
I suppose Mir that if there were no personal God, i’d have to agree with you. I suppose if there were a personal God but there were no good reason for him or her to take on human flesh, i’d also have to agree with you. But i’m interested in what you believe.
geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/gospelwriters1.html
No im not-but you can keep up the facade for others if you want-i wont “narc” on you again.Claim, shmaim. I could claim to be talking to Elvis right now. Paul was not there, he did not follow Jesus through his ministry, he did not see him crucified.
No argument there. But they are not the only people to have died for adopting a religion early, as I mentioned earlier. Zoroaster is generally thought to have been martyred in much the same way Thomas Becket was. Sumayyah bint Khabbab, the seventh person to accept Islam, was speared through her genitals in Mecca, becoming its first martyr.
Some Christians are martyrs, but hardly all martyrs are Christian. And that some people who saw the founding of a faith died for it does not make that faith true; I’m sure you would agree that Zoroastrianism and Islam do not possess ‘fullness of truth’. Argument from martyrdom is about as useful as argument from majority: emotional, illogical, and falls down utterly when you figure that there are more Muslims in the world than Catholics.
I did?
Yes, i agree that people are willing to die for what they believe to be the truth. Muslims today are blowing themselves to bits and taking out scores of innocent victims with them in hope that The God will reward them with Paradise.
No problem. Take it easy!
Please understand i’m not trying to argue you into agreeing with me Mir. I’m just trying to show you why i believe this evidence is compelling.
Fine. Believe whatever you want. Far be it for me to dispute the authority of the Internet Bible College.
You cherry picked a few quotes and claimed that proved your assertions about Scriopture. I showed you that it far from and cut n dried as you tried to mislead people into believieng… Of course even if your thesis had been right it would have in no way undermimed the authority of Scriputre. The people you quoted all beleived that Scripture was the inspired word of God.
History has shown that ignorance is seldom blissful.
My knowledge of faith is not something you are qualified to comment upon, Bobby-boy. You have no idea. You really don’t.
For me, the quotations of the early church fathers are strong evidence for the early dating of the New Testament. Princeton University professor Dr. Bruce Metzger writes:
We also have the wrritings of St. Papia who lived near the turn of the First century:
Good post, but I’m curious why you quoted me at the top, since what I said had nothing to do with the dating of the NT, but with the authorship of the 4 Gospels.
Papias affirms they were written by those who’s names are attached to them although I fail to see how this is relevant. As we see from the Writings of Papias he had acess to all four of the gospels no later than the early 2nd century.(somewher around 115 AD). He refered to them by the same names used all along.