[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel:
[b] [QUOTE]Not true. If the question being asked is "did these miracles and magic actually happen" then only an idiot would start off by assuming they didn't.

Just like the fact that you were born with 72 demons in your occipital lobe? Of course only an "idiot" would start off assuming that you weren't born with those demons in your brain. How could anyone be that "stupid?"

rodahi

Like I pointed out, the criteria for "Messiah" must be greater than the criteria for a mere prophet. Anyway, any Muslim will tell you the true miracle of Mohammed was the Koran he produced; and I certainly don't deny that he wrote that. Whether or not he was an illiterate or not is more debateable.

I am not saying that "world-wide" impact=true. But, when looking into possible Messiahs, it would seem wise to look at the claim that has stood for almost 2000 years. There have been other so-called "Messiahs" through time; and their legacy is mostly forgotten. Christianity rests on the miracle of the resurrection in ways other religions do not; most religions rest more on the teachings of the teacher: ie, the Koran, or the teachings of Gautama(Buddha). Of course teachings can survive and grow simply for their applicability and how well they work out; like Confucianism, Buddhism, etc. Christianity has the resurrection as it's base.

Jesus also came at the time Messiah had to come, according to Daniel 9. The prophetic base is a lead-in to conclude the Messiahship of Jesus. All other Messiahs previously or since could not fit these qualifications, like Jesus did.

You imply that one of the criteria of a messiah is that he/she needs to be memorable and not forgotten.

Where does that criterion come from?

This makes christianity different, not necessarily correct. Being different or unique is not the same as being right.


Care to elaborate?