Johnny Skeptic

Better stated, if the God of the Bible exists, why doesn't he provide more evidence that he exists?

If you had lived 5,000 years ago, and you had a flying pig, and it was the only flying pig in the world, and you wanted everyone in the world to believe that you had a flying pig, would you have sent 11 people (disciples) all over the world to ask people to believe that you had a flying pig and keep your flying pig at home, or would you have sent the 11 people AND your flying pig on a tour around the world? Obviously, you would send the 11 people AND your flying pig on a tour around the world? Why?, because you would have known that faith AND tangible, firsthand evidence is much better evidence than just faith alone. Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 4:23-25

“And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.”

John 2:23

“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.”

John 3:2

“The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.”

John 10:37-38

“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

John 11:43-48

"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation."

John 20:30-31

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

And there you have it. Obviously, the writers of Matthew and John placed great importance upon faith AND tangible, firsthand evidence, and so did a lot of other people who were not convinced by Jesus' words alone.

Keith&Co.

Nearly every child in my elementary school believed that Washington cut down a cherry tree and told his father 'i cannot tell a lie.'

They also believed that the civil war was fought to free the slaves.

And they believed that communist and atheist were synonyms.

The popularity argument is a non-starter.

Half-Life

The education is a very good point in my favor. People were very dumb back in Jesus' day. How then, was Jesus' writing so legendary that not even the most brilliant scholars of today know exactly what Jesus meant by his exact words?

His words are still debated to this very day!!! Would a "random dumb 1st century Jew" be able to attract this much of a following based on nothing?

Toto

I am sorry, but you are making less and less sense.

First of all, Jesus left no writings. You are think of things that were written down by others, who claimed that he said them, and current scholars dispute the meaning in part because the words were transmitted and translated with less that perfect accuracy, and have been removed from their social context.

But even then, who said that Jesus was dumb? But even if he were, what does that have to do with collecting a following? (And we've tried to explain that religions are not based on the intellectual content of the message.) And even then, Jesus didn't collect the following, his later apostles took care of that, and some of them were very well educated.

Half-Life

Even worse for you to explain. he left no writings and yet has the largest religion in the world based on nothing but lies?

Look at this page showing the dates of the books:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8331/dates.htm

All of these people were in on the conspiracy in the 1st century? Maybe if we had one book or 2 books, but over 20 NT books!?!?!

Seriously, all these writers just "happened" to want to believe in a Messiah in the 1st century?

Sheshbazzar

The Sanhedrin were simply being used as foils and "bad guy" plot "characters" by the anonymous writers of the NT.
The actual historical Sanhedrin likely never left any writings about this "Jesus of Nazareth" character or his alleged followers, simply because of the fact that they had never even heard of him or of any such events as are recorded in the NT.
None of it being genuine contemporary history with the Sanhedrin of the day, but all a Gentile mythology fabricated and elaborated over the next four centuries.
They could not offer protest, nor refute a fable that they had never even heard of during their lifetimes.

fta

Perhaps you just answered your own question?

Joe Bloe

Perhaps because his words don't really make all that much sense?

Joe Bloe

Through much of Christian history, it was not the largest religion in the world. Given current birth and conversion rates, it won't be long in the future when Muslims outnumber Christians and Islam is the largest religion in the world. When that happens, will the fact that it is the largest religion in the world mean that it is therefore based on nothing but truth?

Joe Bloe

Um, if the book of Acts is as legendary as the gospels, then these stories didn't really happen, at least not like how the later legends developed before they were finally written down.

Just like Mormonism was squashed.

Oh, wait ...