Anonymous wrote:Even after he intellectually accepted the probability that Jesus is who he claimed to be
Not OP, but I think this is what OP was getting at: you say he "intellectually accepted the *probability* that Jesus is who he claimed to be", and yet you haven't given us any evidence that could reasonably lead one to that conclusion. Why probability? That's OP's original question as I understood it.
Anonymous wrote:12:25 pp, as I said, the OP is free to ignore my recommendations. Perhaps you have better suggestions?
I hope the OP finds what he/she is looking for.
Anonymous wrote:God/Jesus may not be real, but if you act as if he's real, we'll all be better off. (The New Testament's love "thy neighbor and turn the other cheek and meek shall inherit the earth" God, not the "fire and brimstone and you shall sin and be damned" God that many "religious" leaders claim they represent).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Even after he intellectually accepted the probability that Jesus is who he claimed to be
Not OP, but I think this is what OP was getting at: you say he "intellectually accepted the *probability* that Jesus is who he claimed to be", and yet you haven't given us any evidence that could reasonably lead one to that conclusion. Why probability? That's OP's original question as I understood it.
OP here... yes, that is what I'm talking about. I know that the "evidence" may not be irrefutable, so there will be some degree of "faith" required, but I would like to know what makes people tip the scales in favor of belief. Maybe it will be enough for me too. Right now, I kind of feel like an imposter when we go to church.
But I have yet to see a single PP who does not have faith in Jesus actually take him on directly. That's the difficulty. Instantly, there is talk of Poseidon and the FSM (ad nauseum), but not Jesus. Lord, liar, lunatic, guru, myth? Rise from the dead or not? Specifics? Never.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, read 'The Evidence that Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell.
Books by Christian apologists (like the above) really do no more then validate what somebody else already believes. I read the above book as well as some others and did not find them convincing. And I'm not sure if the above book still cites Josephus as a valid source as "proof" or not - it definitely is not.
I suggested it because it addresses OP's questions. She is of course, free to ignore my suggestion but This is what he/she wrote in his/her OP (OP, I would also suggest 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel,a former atheist):
"I'm looking more for historical answers, "evidence" if you will, that the Jesus stuff is real. Although I've heard all the Bible stories and spent a good bit of time in church in my days, I just keep thinking I must be missing some bit of info. that glues it all together."
This is what the product description says on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0785242198/ref=aw_d_detail?pd=1&qid=1326991939&sr=8-1
Amazon.com Review
Bestselling author and Christian apologist Josh McDowell hopes The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict will further document historical evidence of the Christian faith. As such, it is a straightforward compilation of notes prepared for his lecture series, "Christianity: Hoax or History?" The entire book (over 750 pages) is laid out in outline form, which makes it easier for researchers, scholars, and students to access. As a result, this is not reflective fireside reading. Rather, it is a tool for locating supporting "evidence" whenever the need arises. Part I addresses the trustworthiness of the Bible; Part II offers historical evidence and supporting attestations for Jesus' claim to God; Part III addresses "radical Christian criticism" of the Bible; Part IV is devoted to quelling the voice of numerous skeptics, including "a defense for the existence of miracles" and "answers to divergent worldview."
Product Description
Evidence I & II-The classic defense of the faith: Now fully updated to answer the questions challenging evangelical faith today.
The New Evidence maintains its classic defense of the faith yet addresses new issues.
The New Evidence is destined to equip believers with a ready defense for the next decade and beyond
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, read 'The Evidence that Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell.
Books by Christian apologists (like the above) really do no more then validate what somebody else already believes. I read the above book as well as some others and did not find them convincing. And I'm not sure if the above book still cites Josephus as a valid source as "proof" or not - it definitely is not.
Anonymous wrote:Even after he intellectually accepted the probability that Jesus is who he claimed to be
Not OP, but I think this is what OP was getting at: you say he "intellectually accepted the *probability* that Jesus is who he claimed to be", and yet you haven't given us any evidence that could reasonably lead one to that conclusion. Why probability? That's OP's original question as I understood it.
Even after he intellectually accepted the probability that Jesus is who he claimed to be
Anonymous wrote:OP, read 'The Evidence that Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell.
Anonymous wrote:OP, read 'The Evidence that Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell.