Quote Originally Posted by quickdodgeŽ
But how is Christ evidence of God? If Jesus was a miracle worker, maybe he was just born that way. Who's to say that God gave him that "power?"

Because, as I stated a minute ago, I don't see Christ as being evidence. There is no proof that he is of God. Later, QD.
The person of Christ would be evidence of God in that at his resurrection he demonstrated his ability to overcome that which the laws of our universe do not suggest that anyone or anything could overcome that was subject to such laws.

The very claims made by Christ that he was the Messiah, God in the flesh, and the connections with the prophecies that he would be the Lord of Lords. There are also claims of his origin existing during the process of creation, but that is going to be too much for this discussion.

Basically, in simple terms, Jesus said, He was God, and the people who didn't believe him or tried to stone him said prove it, and he said okay. I will die and i will be resurrected after three days. And he did.

Now the problem with the stolen body argument is that Christ was witnessed in the flesh by hundreds of people after he was buried and entombed. So to say the body was taken does not counter his physical living presence sitting next to you or speaking to crowds or knocking at your door.
Archaeology is perfect proof of history, dude. You can touch the results of archaeological digs. The pottery, bones and multitudes of other items found can be touched and seen.
Not exactly true. You cannot always touch and feel everything. There are fragments of things that are remaining and there are drawings of things that are remaining. In the case of drawings or paintings, you don't know if something never existed or not. Just because you find a picture or schematic of something doesn't mean it was built. In fact, to prove that archaeology is not exact, just look at the number of archaeologists who will say that human civilizations cannot be traced back more than 7 or 8 thousand years, versus the ones who say, 10, and the onese who say 12 and so on. This shows that even in their fields there is a place of where evidence is not always accepted and does not necessarily lead to conforming views. This is also big with the evolution discussions. There are at least 8 or 9 different versions of evolution out there. One person presents evidence for their differing view and some don't like it and some do, does it mean that person is wrong, nope, it just means their evidence was not suitable for the person who viewed it.

So what to you constitutes good evidence. As said before, if I said well, their are numerous witnesses of events and things that God did, and they wrote their accounts on scroll and passed them down from generation to generation, you would say this is not acceptable, even though we still have several of the original scrolls.

If I point out the writings of first century historians like Josephus and mentioned the claims he made in regards to the followers of Christ and the things that people said on the street about Jesus and that he was seen after his death, you would simply dismiss that.

I could say the very laws as they are demonstrated in our universe are examples of a transcendent God. but you would dismiss that. so what is suitable?

[QUOTEBelief in God is strictly faith based. There's no other way to put it or show otherwise. I wish there was.][/QUOTE]
This argument reversed is a game on semantics because everything is based on faith. You demonstrate faith every day in your life. But it is not BLIND faith if I can tell you that I have much reason to believe my sources and my investigation into this to be validated by every form of study I have ever taken. And I am a firm believer that when discussing something of this importance that if I cannot see God in EVERYTHING then he is not the God that I believe him to be, but I can see him in everything and I can understand (within reason and my human rational) his purpose or place with regards to everything I have ever researched.

another breif example is people who say they think evolution is real. There are some who couldn't even tell you what evolution is, and then there are some who have spent countless hours researching it to come to their conclusions and their beliefs. This is the same on just about any institution I can think of where subjective thought comes into play.

Sounds like you're promoting Ch-Ch-Ch-Chia Jesus. Later, QD.
funny one.