I think Im an atheist.

[dean]

I think family guy did a skit on that idea when one of the characters went to an alternate dimension where there was no religion. Humanity, not bogged down by the Dark Ages now live in a sci fi world of flying cars and cures for all that ails us, but they go to the Sistine Chapel and there's no art, just photos from some wannabe artist that are really bad.
 

[The Gravekeeper]

And the real kicker is that without the church funding scientists during the Renaissance, who knows how the history of scientific discovery would have unfolded? Maybe we would be more advanced technology-wise, maybe we wouldn't (seeing as how experiments and prototypes cost money). Speculation on alternate history is fun!

[Newt]

There are degrees of bias, Indy.

I searched “resurrection myths history of”

I was not looking for anything about any specific book, nor about Strobel or Strobel’s work.  I was looking for discussions of the relative timelines of the various mythological traditions to do with resurrection.  One of the first handful of results that came up was “Lee Strobel The Case for the Real Jesus Reviewed”.  Since the material seemed so very apropos the discussion at hand, I used it.  That it also directly referenced Mr. Strobel’s writing was a bonus.

IF Mr. Strobel has corrected his misapprehensions on the relative timelines of the various resurrection stories in his subsequent works, I applaud him!  If not and he continues to adhere to and promote his manipulated timelines as discussed in the article I linked to, then I must conclude that his work and works continue to be specious.  It relegates him to the same bin as Erich Von Daniken, Whitley Strieber and Velikovsky.  

When attempts are made to bolster a Truth (capital very much intended) solely by means of assailable constructs, the unfortunate side effect is that that Truth becomes perceived to be potentially questionable by association and implication.  This is why I find such patently ridiculous assertions as in the book(s) in question to be objectionable in the extreme.  That trusting people will be taken in by their allure distresses and offends me.

[AndyC]

And the real kicker is that without the church funding scientists during the Renaissance, who knows how the history of scientific discovery would have unfolded? Maybe we would be more advanced technology-wise, maybe we wouldn't (seeing as how experiments and prototypes cost money). Speculation on alternate history is fun!

Whether there would have been a Renaissance at all without the church is another question. Religious orders preserved a lot of knowledge through the Dark Ages, and the fear of an all-seeing and all-knowing God played a big part in holding civilization together in the absence of Roman law and order. Religion can be a powerful civilizing influence. People who argue that it holds us back don't usually take that into account.

[indianasmith]

There are degrees of bias, Indy.

I searched “resurrection myths history of”

I was not looking for anything about any specific book, nor about Strobel or Strobel’s work.  I was looking for discussions of the relative timelines of the various mythological traditions to do with resurrection.  One of the first handful of results that came up was “Lee Strobel The Case for the Real Jesus Reviewed”.  Since the material seemed so very apropos the discussion at hand, I used it.  That it also directly referenced Mr. Strobel’s writing was a bonus.

IF Mr. Strobel has corrected his misapprehensions on the relative timelines of the various resurrection stories in his subsequent works, I applaud him!  If not and he continues to adhere to and promote his manipulated timelines as discussed in the article I linked to, then I must conclude that his work and works continue to be specious.  It relegates him to the same bin as Erich Von Daniken, Whitley Strieber and Velikovsky.  

When attempts are made to bolster a Truth (capital very much intended) solely by means of assailable constructs, the unfortunate side effect is that that Truth becomes perceived to be potentially questionable by association and implication.  This is why I find such patently ridiculous assertions as in the book(s) in question to be objectionable in the extreme.  That trusting people will be taken in by their allure distresses and offends me.

Thanks for weighing back in, Newt.  I read the website in its entirety the other night, and while I agree that he did point out some logical weaknesses and questionable statements from the scholars Strobel interviewed, I frankly found that his criticism was rife with some blatant presuppositions, outdated scholarship, and prima facea judgements that were just as egregious as the stuff he was criticizing.

  He bluntly stated that none of the canonical gospels claimed to be eyewitness testimony.  What about John's statement: "This is the apostle who witnessed these things, and wrote these things"?  Not to mention that Matthew, according to every single bit of early testimony available (including Papias, who wrote with about 50 years of Matthew's original composition), was in fact written by ONE OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES?  Then there is Mark, who, again according to some very early testimony, was the primary interpreter for Simon Peter - about as direct an eyewitness as you can get!  Only Luke says up front that he was  not an eyewitness of the life of Christ, but then goes on to say he had "carefully interviewed those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the Word."  But no, the author simply says "No eyewitnesses wrote in the Gospels" and leaves that unsupported statement hanging.
  He also completely rejected the whole chapter on fulfilment of prophecy, apparently because he either questions whether  the prophecies were supposed to be about the Messiah or assumes the Gospel writers made up the events . . . with absolutely no proof either way!  I challenge anyone to read Psalm 22 or Isaiah 51-52, then read the accounts of the Crucifixion recorded in the Gospels, and not see the fulfilment of those prophecies.  Especially Psalm 22, which was written by King David 1000 years before Christ and 700 years before the Phoenicians invented crucifixion, yet describes the death agonies of Christ on the cross in vivid detail!
  He says that Luke is "not a classical historian."  Sir William Ramsay, a Biblical archeologist who spent 25 years excavating in the Holy Land, said that Luke was "a first-rate historian, deserving to be ranked among the greatest historians of antiquity."  Who am I to believe?  A man who spent 25 years in research and excavation, and originally approached the Gospel accounts from a very skeptical point of view until convinced otherwide, or an internet critic who didn't even sign his name to his dissection of Strobel's book?  (I couldn't find his name, anyway.  I may have missed it because it was very late when I finished it.)
  He also states that "where the Synoptic Gospels don't copy each other, they contradict each other."  I find it interesting that where there are minor differences in the wording of a narrative or sermon in the Gospels (which is sure evidence of eyewitness testimony, since people notice different things in a statement or event and emphasize different aspects of it), the critics always scream "Aha!! Contradiction!" But when the accounts echo each other word for word, they say "Aha!!! They were all copying from _____!"  (Fill in the blank, sometimes it's Mark, or the mythical Q document, or whatever).  The fact is there are no irreconcilable contradictions in the narrative accounts of the Gospels, only minor variations that point to different perspectives on the same event.  The whole issue of whether Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark becomes moot when you realize that all three of these works were written within the same decade by authors who knew each other and worked together.  They drew upon many of the same sources, especially the teaching and memories of Simon Peter and the other apostles, as well as their own experiences.
  these are just three examples that come to the top of my mind in reviewing the website I read a few days ago.  I actually spent a good deal of time going over it in my head after I went to bed that night, and there were a number of others, too, but I have slept since then and really don't care to read the whole page again.
  My overall point is that, while he did point out a number of weaknesses in Strobel's book, and in apologetic works in general,  his webpage was far from the systematic debunking that it claims to be, and that his own criticisms were filled with some of the same weaknesses that he slams in his subject matter.

  In the end, faith is just that - Faith.  Either Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, or He was not.  But I do believe that history backs up many of the claims made about Him, and those historical truths make the path to faith a little easier for the mind to take.  But in the end, my faith rests in Christ Himself, not in whether or not Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell or others may have written good books defending Him.  I enjoy this sort of discussion a great deal, and appreciate your input.

[Jim H]

There are many answers to this question.  I don't think it as cut and dry as saying, "If there is a God, he'd have the world operate as WE think it should."

The short answer is "who knows why he allows Ethiopian babies {or anyone else} to suffer." 

And if we can't properly view him through our human lense, than all discussions about this being amount to nothing.

I will say that, in THE CASE FOR FAITH, Lee Strobel has a chapter dedicated to this question - if God is good, why is there so much suffering allowed in the world?  The chapter is an absolute masterpiece.

I should find my copy of it (one of several books given to me by someone from a Christian group).  As I recall it though, almost all the arguments in that book were targeted more at people looking to confirm their Christian beliefs..  I found it all quite unconvincing when attempting to view it from a neutral POV.

the book of Job deals with alot of issues similar to this.

How anyone could read that book and still LIKE the God of the bible let alone worship him is truly amazing to me.  It's particularly bad when the youngest friend (Elihu I think?) of Job makes the "How can we understand God?" type argument - except we don't need to, as we earlier read EXACTLY why God did this.  And God's motivation is stupid and childish at best.  Ugh, I hated that book. 

  Now some myths - like the cult of Mithras, which in its fully developed form emerged about the middle of the second century - DID include a dying and rising savior figure, but every one of those myth cycles POST dates Christianity by a century or so.

A better example is Zoroastrianism.  Quite a few similarities. 

OK:  The elements of Osiris that resemble Christianity are far exceeded by those that do not.  You have to do a heck of a lot of editing to make the two compatible.

The point isn't that they exactly copied it, but that it appears ideas were used from outside sources.  There are WAY MORE of those in the Old Testament than new of course - you know, like the nearly direct copying of the Noah flood myth from the far older Utnapishtim flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh.  101 Myths of the Bible is a helpful book in this regard.

[Flick James]

The problem with this whole debate is that it tends to polarize too easily, as I think Jim H was trying to point out. One side tends to become the side trying to invalidate Christianity as a complete myth, while the other side defensively reacts by refusing to acknowledge anything contrary to the idea that Christianity is a unique and original faith.

Just to make myself clear, I was in no way trying to paint a picture of Christianity being a plagiarized religion. However, to deny that any modern religion has borrow elements from older religions is the equivalent of burying one's head in the proverbial sand. The early gnostics cannot be explained away. They were a part of the early Christian faith. They were a mystic and esoteric lot that also embraced many of the apocryphal works that were omitted from the modern Bible. The Gnostics were the big connection between the early Christian faith and more eastern traditions. Gnosticism both influenced and was influenced by Christianity. It is through the Gnostics that some of these elements borrowed have worked themselved into Christian traditions. Not the only means, certainly, but it's simply ridiculous to deny the influence of gnosticism on the early Christians. Emperor Constantine, in an effort to solidify the faith and gain unity, allowed the Council of Nicea to decide on what constituted the scripture and what did not, doing away with the more esoteric nature of Christianity that existed up to that point, and of course, Gnosticism was no longer the profound influence on the faith that it had been.

Besides, the Christians before the first Council of Nicea are a dramatically different lot than modern Christians. The early Christian were practically socialist, embracing common property concepts and altruism. The culture of the early Christians is in stark contrast to our modern Western culture of rugged individualism and free thinking. Christian socialists at least understand that the values eschewed in scripture have a closer relation to socialism than what many modern Christians would have us believe. I always find it amusing that our Pledge of Allegiance was written by one such Christian Socialist, Francis Bellamy, and that so many Patriotic Americans don't know that, or get very upset when it is brought up to them. My main point to all of this is that I don't know that Christians really know much about their own traditions of faith and how they came about. This is understandable, because faith is transmitted through what they learn from the Bible, and through the guidance of their churches.  

[indianasmith]

Gnosticism is a fascinating phenomena.  They seem to have been trying to blend elements of Greek Platonic philosophy with NT Christianity, but the Gnostic gospels and epistles that survive reflect a very wide variety of beliefs - all of them seemed to share a conviction that physical matter was inherently evil and could NOT possibly be handled, touched, or used by God.  So their interpretation of Christ was that he simply was not flesh and blood, but only appeared to be such.  So the whole Crucifixion and Resurrection narrative was of secondary importance to them.  Essentially, there philosophy was not that man is lost and needs to be saved from his own sinfulness, but rather that man is ignorant and needs to be taught.  While there is an appealing nature to that point of view, a long hard look at humanity leads me towards the "hopelessly lost" conclusion.
   However, one thing worth pointing out is that ALL the Gnostic gospels postdate the New Testament books by almost a century.  While some have tried to argue that the Gospel of Thomas was written very early, the textual and linguistic evidence tends to point to a date after 175 AD - in other words,  nearly 150 years after the life of Christ and about 80 years after the last books of the NT (John's Gospel and Epistles) were written.  The Gnostics had a tendency to write their own gospels and epistles and stick the names of the original disciples onto them, but none of their works were ever really accepted by the mainstream church.  A great deal of the Christian literature of the Second Century - the works of the so-called Apostolic Fathers - spent time denouncing Gnosticism.
  It is true that the early Christians, as described both in the Book of Acts and early Roman testaments, did practice communal living.  It is also worth noting that human greed wrecked the Jerusalem commune (the story of Ananias and Sapphira) just as it has wrecked every other attempt at socialism and communism that mankind has tried.
  One last note - it is a very common misconception that the Council of Nicea somehow dictated or decreed what books would be in the New Testament.  That is not true.  What Constantine did was ask the assembled bishops (and this was the first gathering of leaders from the entire Christian community since the Jerusalem Council described in the Book of Acts, around 48 AD) to provide him with 50 copies of the Christian Scriptures, to be sent to all the major cities of the Empire.  He also asked them to come up with a universal confession of faith that all Christians could agree on, and to determine whether the teachings of Arius of Alexandria were true or if they were heresy.  The Council produced the Nicene Creed, which passed with only 3 dissenting votes, copied the Christian Scriptures (some think the two oldest complete manuscripts of the NT, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, are surviving copies of from this time), and after giving Arius a careful hearing, determined his teachings to be false and misleading.
   One thing that did become apparent, though, is that there was some disagreement over a handful of shorter NT books.  Some churches recognized and used them, others did not.  These books were Jude, II Peter, and II and III John.  There were also two very popular Christian writings - the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache - which many wanted to include.  A second council  was held at Hippo in 400 AD to rule on these works.  They determined that the short epistles were, in fact, apostolic in origin and should be included, while The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, although doctrinally solid, did not come from the time of the Apostles.  So those two works were still read and studied in the early church, but no longer considered Scripture. 
   Many people have tried to challenge their findings, but one thing worth remembering is that they were 1600 years closer to the time of Christ than we were, and, now that Christianity was legal and aboveboard, they had access to records and documents that no longer exist today to make their determination.  I believe that all the books of the New Testament, as we have them today, come to us from the time of the Apostles - even II Peter, which many scholars today dismiss as non-Petrine in authorship. 
   The standard set by the Council of Hippo was simple enough.  1.  Was this work written or sponsored by one of the 12 apostles?  2.  Was it recognized by the early church as an inspired work?  3.  Does it line up, historically and doctrinally, with the other NT Scriptures?
  At any rate, I continue to enjoy this fascinating discussion and the respectful and tolerant tone that has pervaded it throughout.  I think we lost RC sometime ago, but if you are still following this, my friend, thanks for starting this dialogue!

[lester1/2jr]

I read "the early christians" a while back. it was very difficult reading, that style. It's by the guy who wrote the rise and fall of the Roamn empire, all however many volumes they are. One thing he talked about was how the early christians were still practicing jewish stuff, but they dropped it so they could recruit more pagans, basically.

[Flick James]

Gnosticism is a fascinating phenomena.  They seem to have been trying to blend elements of Greek Platonic philosophy with NT Christianity, but the Gnostic gospels and epistles that survive reflect a very wide variety of beliefs - all of them seemed to share a conviction that physical matter was inherently evil and could NOT possibly be handled, touched, or used by God.  So their interpretation of Christ was that he simply was not flesh and blood, but only appeared to be such.  So the whole Crucifixion and Resurrection narrative was of secondary importance to them.  Essentially, there philosophy was not that man is lost and needs to be saved from his own sinfulness, but rather that man is ignorant and needs to be taught.  While there is an appealing nature to that point of view, a long hard look at humanity leads me towards the "hopelessly lost" conclusion.
   However, one thing worth pointing out is that ALL the Gnostic gospels postdate the New Testament books by almost a century.  While some have tried to argue that the Gospel of Thomas was written very early, the textual and linguistic evidence tends to point to a date after 175 AD - in other words,  nearly 150 years after the life of Christ and about 80 years after the last books of the NT (John's Gospel and Epistles) were written.  The Gnostics had a tendency to write their own gospels and epistles and stick the names of the original disciples onto them, but none of their works were ever really accepted by the mainstream church.  A great deal of the Christian literature of the Second Century - the works of the so-called Apostolic Fathers - spent time denouncing Gnosticism.
  It is true that the early Christians, as described both in the Book of Acts and early Roman testaments, did practice communal living.  It is also worth noting that human greed wrecked the Jerusalem commune (the story of Ananias and Sapphira) just as it has wrecked every other attempt at socialism and communism that mankind has tried.
  One last note - it is a very common misconception that the Council of Nicea somehow dictated or decreed what books would be in the New Testament.  That is not true.  What Constantine did was ask the assembled bishops (and this was the first gathering of leaders from the entire Christian community since the Jerusalem Council described in the Book of Acts, around 48 AD) to provide him with 50 copies of the Christian Scriptures, to be sent to all the major cities of the Empire.  He also asked them to come up with a universal confession of faith that all Christians could agree on, and to determine whether the teachings of Arius of Alexandria were true or if they were heresy.  The Council produced the Nicene Creed, which passed with only 3 dissenting votes, copied the Christian Scriptures (some think the two oldest complete manuscripts of the NT, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, are surviving copies of from this time), and after giving Arius a careful hearing, determined his teachings to be false and misleading.
   One thing that did become apparent, though, is that there was some disagreement over a handful of shorter NT books.  Some churches recognized and used them, others did not.  These books were Jude, II Peter, and II and III John.  There were also two very popular Christian writings - the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache - which many wanted to include.  A second council  was held at Hippo in 400 AD to rule on these works.  They determined that the short epistles were, in fact, apostolic in origin and should be included, while The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, although doctrinally solid, did not come from the time of the Apostles.  So those two works were still read and studied in the early church, but no longer considered Scripture. 
   Many people have tried to challenge their findings, but one thing worth remembering is that they were 1600 years closer to the time of Christ than we were, and, now that Christianity was legal and aboveboard, they had access to records and documents that no longer exist today to make their determination.  I believe that all the books of the New Testament, as we have them today, come to us from the time of the Apostles - even II Peter, which many scholars today dismiss as non-Petrine in authorship. 
   The standard set by the Council of Hippo was simple enough.  1.  Was this work written or sponsored by one of the 12 apostles?  2.  Was it recognized by the early church as an inspired work?  3.  Does it line up, historically and doctrinally, with the other NT Scriptures?
  At any rate, I continue to enjoy this fascinating discussion and the respectful and tolerant tone that has pervaded it throughout.  I think we lost RC sometime ago, but if you are still following this, my friend, thanks for starting this dialogue!

Excellent input Indy. (Incidentally, Newt, I've enjoyed your input immensely and I hope you haven't thrown your hands up).

I agree that gnosticism is a fascinating system. It is still practiced or held by a very small minority of people. It is such an esoteric gathering of beliefs, and in fact had some influence on the Quakers. You've illustrated the other side of what I was trying to say about the gnostics, that they both influenced and were influenced by Christianity. I'm not so much interested in what predates or postdates what. Those arguments are much more important to those trying to establish the validity of their particular faith claims. There is enough evidence of the influence back and forth between those two systems of beliefs, and they are close enough to each other in terms of historical context that it matters little, the likelihood still remains that the gnostic beliefs have influenced Christian tradition just as Christianity has affected gnostic beliefs.

Indy, you and I have gone back and forth on the authenticity of the Biblical scriptures, the existence or non-existence of falsehoods within those scriptures, and the like for some time now via threads and PM. My claim is not that the scriptures are full falsehoods. My claim is that there is historical evidence and plenty of scholars who have supported the gamut from Jesus not having even existed at all, to him being the son of God and that the Bible is the direct word of God. Most humans busy themselves with accepting those pieces of evidence and those scholars who support their beliefs or rejecting or attempting to discredit those that do not.

In the end it comes down to choice, as you have so eloquently pointed out. You choose to have faith in these things. I choose to have trust in our Creator. The word "faith" to me has been so perverted that I cannot embrace it, even if I do appreciate certain definitions of it. I prefer "trust." I trust my Creator, because I observe see God through the Creation only. It is all I need. I don't worry about whether or not my Creator will reveal himself to me or no because He already reveals himself to me all the time through the wonders and miracles already apparent in the Creation. I find that the scriptures of the world tend to paint a picture of God that carries with him some of the worst of humanity's personality flaws. I can't fathom a jealous God. Why would God be jealous? Why would a being that is perfect and omnipotent have reason to be jealous? Jealousy is one of the basest of human emotions that I find insulting to attribute to our Creator.

I cannot shake this trust and I cannot shake those convictions, and so according to Christianity I am destined for eternal damnation.  

[Allhallowsday]

...I posted this video earlier tonight. 

That man's beauty and talent make me question that it is all random, that there is no divine direction.  True, given infinite time, monkeys probably can type Shakespeare.  But in this case, it happened DURING MY LIFETIME (Brother Iz, not Shakespeare...AHD, I would expect you to catch me on that one...     )

You're inscrutable to me. 
I too am an admirer of IZ, particularly that recording and love it, too, like millions do.  I had not seen the footage of the ashes scattering.  Thanks for that. 

[indianasmith]

Well, Flick, you have left yourself open for faith, or trust, term it how you will, to find its way in one of these days.  I do believe that God is a being of total righteousness - but also a being of total mercy.  How those two work together and balance each other out is part of the divine mystery of things.  But I haven't given you up for lost, and somehow I doubt God has either.  Keep that mind open and let's keep having these conversations.

  One note - when the Bible talks about God being a "jealous God,"  I don't think they are referring to human jealousy.  On a much grander scale, it is somewhat similar, I would say, to a teacher who is presenting a very important truth, or concept, to his students.  He gets angry when they don't pay attention - not because he is some egomaniac who wants to be the center of their universe, but because the truth he is explaining is, well, IMPORTANT!!  I can see God's frustration when people want to burn incense or sacrifice their children to something that is not even real, when they could be tuned in to the Creator of the universe.

  At any rate, this is still a very fun thread.

[Jim H]

On a brief note, RC as he has described himself is an agnostic atheist.  One who believes it can't be known for sure but doesn't actually believe either.  This also describes my own beliefs.

[Flick James]

Well, Flick, you have left yourself open for faith, or trust, term it how you will, to find its way in one of these days.  I do believe that God is a being of total righteousness - but also a being of total mercy.  How those two work together and balance each other out is part of the divine mystery of things.  But I haven't given you up for lost, and somehow I doubt God has either.  Keep that mind open and let's keep having these conversations.

  One note - when the Bible talks about God being a "jealous God,"  I don't think they are referring to human jealousy.  On a much grander scale, it is somewhat similar, I would say, to a teacher who is presenting a very important truth, or concept, to his students.  He gets angry when they don't pay attention - not because he is some egomaniac who wants to be the center of their universe, but because the truth he is explaining is, well, IMPORTANT!!  I can see God's frustration when people want to burn incense or sacrifice their children to something that is not even real, when they could be tuned in to the Creator of the universe.

  At any rate, this is still a very fun thread.

I have been open to our Creator for a long time, my friend. It's already made it's way in. I understand that ultimately you are trying to save my soul. As that is an act of compassion, I certainly can't get angry or offended over it. I'm not lost, however, or in any case no more lost than you may be, as life is indeed a divine mystery that the Bible or any other religious text written thousands of years ago by men of questionable motives can't even begin to touch.

The meaning of a jealous God can mean what you think it does, or it certainly can refer to human jealousy. You seem very unaccepting of the idea that humans could have projected human tendencies and emotions onto their deification of our Creator. This seems a perfectly reasonable likelihood given the history of the human condition. Human behavior has been attributed to our Creator throughout all the monotheistic and polytheistic religions since antiquity, yet somehow it's not possible with Christianity? Why? The Ten Commandments demonstrate not a merciful or compassionate God, but an insanely jealous and vindictive one. Five of them are reasonable advice for any civilization: don't kill, don't lie, don't commit adultery, don't covet, don't steal. Fine, I didn't need a "prophet" to go up on a mountain, by himself as usual, and come back to tell me that. The other five are angry warnings that we must worship only Him, and no other Gods (wait, there are other Gods?), or He will punish not just us but our children's children's children. Yet, somehow if I love him and keep the commandments, then a thousand of my generations will have his steadfast love. This is positively psychotic, and according to my beliefs and convictions a very insulting thing to attribute to the Creator of a thing so vast as the universe, against which we are far less than a speck of dust. I understand what you think "jealous God" means, and it would be nice it that's what it meant, but the story of the Ten Commandments, which I assume is still supposed relate to Christians today, suggests differently.

I know you disagree with this, but I continue to hold the conviction that I have a much higher opinion of and reverence for God than Christianity or Islam or any other supposedly revealed faith even allows. I don't dictate God's behavior or intentions. How can I? How can anyone? One of my biggest beefs with prophetic religions is that none of these revelations ever seem to have any system of verification. They always happen to some guy in isolation. The only exception to this are the miracles of Jesus to the Apostles, but even then you can't find any record of them anywhere but in biblical scripture, and having recently reread all the gospels pertaining to the resurrection, there is so much confusion and so many holes in the different accounts that it's a mess. And unless you can point me to any recorded history that speaks differently, there's no reasonable evidence that anybody outside the Apostles recorded any such miracles.

My convictions tell me that God gave me my reason. My God-given reason tells me that belief in the questionable revelations claimed by men is shaky at best. So instead I choose to observe the laws of nature and the Universe, and so far my Creator has revealed himself to me in the most satisfying and miraculous of ways. I don't need the Bible. I don't need the Quran. But I appreciate immensely the compassion that motivates you.   

[indianasmith]

Aw, shucks, bud, you're making me blush!!

There are a couple of ancient references to Jesus being a "worker of wonders," found both in the Talmud (admittedly hard to find, because during the Medieval era nearly all specific references to Jesus were replaced with euphemisms like "such a one" because of Church persecution) and in Josephus.

As far as the Resurrection accounts go, I see what you mean about discrepancies there, however, they strike me as the kind of discrepancies that are evident in real eyewitness testimony.  One gospel refers to some women by name, another lists a slightly different group. Were there two groups of women who went to the tomb?  Or did a few names get left off by each writer?   Did Jesus appear to them all at once, or did Mary see him separately, after the other had already fled the scene?  To me, the discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts are what give them the air of authenticity.

At any rate, I appreciate your respect for my beliefs, and I do try to show respect for yours as well.  It is still an interesting discussion.