OT: The resurrection

[conversationpc]

Bible spoiler

Your Bible must be wrong. In mine, he dies on page 729. You need a different translation.

[heardonthestreet]

I think that history is finally repeating it self. The little girl down the block from me has told her parents that she has heard voices in the night and was told that she would have a virgin birth around the end of December.

We all knew it was coming, right? The voices came from her cell phone but what the hey? Sign of the times.

[conversationpc]

I think that history is finally repeating it self. The little girl down the block from me has told her parents that she has heard voices in the night and was told that she would have a virgin birth around the end of December.

We all knew it was coming, right? The voices came from her cell phone but what the hey? Sign of the times.

I still haven't received a response to my text message to the Almighty regarding how Noah survived on the ark with all those animals crapping and farting all over the place.

[heardonthestreet]

I think that history is finally repeating it self. The little girl down the block from me has told her parents that she has heard voices in the night and was told that she would have a virgin birth around the end of December.

We all knew it was coming, right? The voices came from her cell phone but what the hey? Sign of the times.

I still haven't received a response to my text message to the Almighty regarding how Noah survived on the ark with all those animals crapping and farting all over the place.

Pollution had to start somewhere.

[Rip Rokken]

We all knew it was coming, right? The voices came from her cell phone but what the hey? Sign of the times.

Technology, baby! Rollin' with the times! A phone call always beats waiting for a response from God via MySpace.

[Rip Rokken]

I still haven't received a response to my text message to the Almighty regarding how Noah survived on the ark with all those animals crapping and farting all over the place.

Haha... talk about not being tested beyond what we could bear.

[Marc S]

RipRokken

Dude... when you take another person's words so far out of context, you endanger your credibility. My first draft of that message actually included a comment that it spoke well for the IQ of the people in the discussion (yourself included) that they weren't using the term "OWNED", but I thought the joke was more effective without the explanation and cut it out.

Yes, I got sick of seeing the term "OWNED" on other boards to the extent that it rapidly became meaningless, and made the people using it look like idjits that had nothing substantive to say.

Regardless, I don't throw bombs, toss insults, so as to keep things lite... just so ya know!

Ok Sir, I'll yield, credit is due, I did stretch it somewhat sideways, point taken

DAVE - Getting a life as a confirmed member of "The God Squad"

Dave, your sign off line is superb

[conversationpc]

DAVE - Getting a life as a confirmed member of "The God Squad"

Dave, your sign off line is superb

I thought you might like that.

[Rip Rokken]

Ok Sir, I'll yield, credit is due, I did stretch it somewhat sideways, point taken

LOL! Yield?!? Now you've totally caught me off-guard, and I feel bad for secretly planning to turn you in for that huge bounty the military is offering...

Just kiddin'!!! I guess that's not really you in the picture.

[Rhiannon]

A phone call always beats waiting for a response from God via MySpace.

http://www.myspace.com/jesustheesonofman

Now that you mention it.

[Marc S]

Now that is a scary webpage. Oh dear. And I didn't realise that Robert Powell was really Jesus....? Knock me down with a feather, I thought it was a story? Doh!

[Rip Rokken]

A phone call always beats waiting for a response from God via MySpace.

http://www.myspace.com/jesustheesonofman

Now that you mention it.

LOL! I doubt it's really Him -- not enough friends.

[Rhiannon]

A phone call always beats waiting for a response from God via MySpace.

http://www.myspace.com/jesustheesonofman

Now that you mention it.

LOL! I doubt it's really Him -- not enough friends.

You could take that into a very deep rhetorical meaning if you wanted... but in my own opinion, I think Jesus would've chosen colors that weren't so harsh and clashing. ...Just me.

[Marc S]

Blue Radio Girl

You could take that into a very deep rhetorical meaning if you wanted... but in my own opinion, I think Jesus would've chosen colors that weren't so harsh and clashing. ...Just me.

Ooh, do you think so, I'm not so sure?

Off to bed.

[Wheels Of Fyre]

What I've been arguing is that the Bible really isn't what tradition has led us to believe. With every new scientific discovery the Bible as evidence and/or fact slowly dissolves away. In so doing faith becomes something of a delusion.

It's just the opposite from how I see it. There are tons of examples of people saying such and such in the Bible couldn't possibly be so and then some archeological discovery proves that the Bible was correct. People used to think Sodom and Gomorrha never existed until evidence was discovered ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 497476.stm ) Same thing for other places, people, etc.

I'm not at all arguing that the Bible doesn't contain some real places - it absolutely does. I'm saying it's much like any other work that references a real historical place within the context of its story. Unfortunately, a reference doesn't make a story true anymore than Tom Clancy referrencing the Pentagon makes one of his novels true.

[Wheels Of Fyre]

Faith in the purest sense of the word is belief without proof therefore ALL faith is "blind". I think you're stretching it there. Having faith in something you trust is not having faith - that's simply trust that what has happened will happen again. - like expecting your spouse to return at 6pm each day because there's a FACTUAL history of them doing so.

Perhaps in your own dictionary, but Webster's defines it:

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Your def is only one of many, and falls somewhere in the middle.

You're playing with words! My own dictionary...? I've never written one. You're actually referring to Merriam-Webster's. I'm referring to Webster's Handy College Dictionary:
(fayth) faith n. 1, belief without proof; confidence; reliance. 2, belief in God. 3, loyalty; fidelity to an agreement or promise. 4, a religious creed.

What about Dictionary.com:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

This is as problematic as people arguing over the many different versions of the Bible!

Simply put: we're talking about RELIGIOUS ideas. Within the context of that topic faith is "belief without proof". You can't logically talk about religious faith and say that it's the same as the faith you have that your spouse will come home at 6pm like they do every day. That's a disconnection from the topic.

What grave? Are you perhaps referring to the ossuary thought to be of Jesus' brother James? If so, it's pretty much proven to be a hoax.

Or are you talking about this grave:
http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/02/25/jes ... his-grave/
http://udayms.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/ ... ave-india/

It was this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6397373.stm

Hyped in a documentary put out by James Cameron, and to me seemed to be trying to grab some of the steam created by "The DaVinci Code". Amazing how many people seemed to be eager to accept it as truth. Stick to fiction, Mr. Cameron -- you are great at it!

Why is this any less plausible than all of us being descendants of Adam and Eve and the recipients of their original sin with our only hope to be saved in Christ?

[Wheels Of Fyre]

McDowell fails to mention (I can only assume that it's intentional) that the gospels can only serve as hearsay accounts. The traditionally accepted authorship of the gospels is not historically sound by any means. All four gospels were anonymously written. Even if we do accept the traditional authorship of the earliest written gospel (Mark), on which other gospels obviously relied heavily for their information, we still do not have a first-hand account--only the account of a disciple of Peter.

Not according to Martin Hengel, who is apparently one of the most learned New Testament scholars in the world...

The unanimity of the attributions in the second century cannot be explained by anything other than the assumption that the titles were part of the works from the beginning. It is inconceivable, he argues, that the Gospels could circulate anonymously for up to sixty years, and then in the second century suddenly display unanimous attribution to certain authors. If they had originally been anonymous, then surely there would have been some variation in second-century attributions (as was the case with some of the second-century apocryphal gospels). Hengel concludes that the four canonical gospels were never even formally anonymous.

Then your quoted review says...

McDowell also omits the embarrassing fact that despite Jesus' alleged fame, there is not one single writing from the actual lifetime of Jesus that mentions him.

Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.E. - 50 C.E) never mentions Jesus.
Seneca (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Nobody does.

That's refuted rather easily by Refuting Remsberg's List

Also...

http://www.forerunner.com/blog/2007/03/ ... -of-2.html

The Mythists’ argument is that no one from the time of Jesus wrote anything about him. They discount all the writings of the Apostles and early Christians because they were “biased.” They discount the dozen or so accounts of Jewish and pagan writers who mention Jesus near the end of the second century because they were not eyewitnesses. What they are looking for is a “smoking gun” – an actual letter or manuscript recording the existence of written by someone prior to Jesus’ death.

Such a plea for comtemporary written evidence is extremely unreasonable. We do not doubt the existence of other ancient figures who were not written about until after their death. Until the 20th century, we had no contemporary evidence that Caiaphas the High Priest or Pontius Pilate, who were mentioned several times in the New Testament, were real people either. They are mentioned by later historians, but except for the Gospels and Acts, there was not a single letter, writing or inscription by them or by a person living in theri time who recorded their sayings or doings.

All very fine sources and OPINIONS, Dave.

Let's summarize the argument:

'The question Remsberg never answers is, "Why should any of these people have mentioned Jesus?"...As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen.'



A BLIP! This argument has always made me laugh. I'll answer the question WHY:

1. Born of a virgin. A VIRGIN!
2. Turns water into wine at the wedding feast ("first miracle"): Cana.
3. Heals nobleman's son: Cana.
4. Heals Peter's mother-in-law: Capernaum.
5. Town attempts to kill him: Nazareth.
6. Preaches "Sermon on the Mount": Capernaum. Jesus' Woodstock!
7. Sinful woman anoints Jesus: Capernaum
8. Travels through Galilee: Galilee. Hounded by the paparazzi!
9. Teaches parables about kingdom: Galilee.
10. Calms the storm: Sea of Galilee
11. Brings Jairus's daughter back to life: Capernaum
12. Feeds 5,000 people: Bethsaida. That's A LOT of mouths!
13. Walks on water: Bethsaida. ON WATER!
14. Feeds 4,000 people: Tyre/Sidon. He would've fed 6,000 but didn't want to show off!
15. Peter states Jesus is "Son of God": Tyre/Sidon. Here's THE breaking news of ALL TIME!!!
16. Pays temple taxes: Capernaum. His W2 has GOT to be somewhere
17. Attends the Feast of the Tabernacles: Jerusalem. We'll find his invitation one day!
18. Heals a man who was born blind: Jerusalem. Why not? After turning water into wine, walking on water, feeding thousands of people, and raising the dead - that should've been a snap!
19. Second preaching trip: Galilee. The first was sold-out so rock on!
20. Blesses little children: Jordan. Let's not forget the children!
21. Talks to rich and young man: Jordan. It's only a matter of time in a life that we all realize that money doesn't buy happiness.
22. Tells about death and resurrection: Jordan. Running out of good things to say about life.
23. Heals blind Bartimaeus: Jericho. Encore!
24. Raises Lazarus from the dead: Bethany. Does anybody even care anymore...?
25. Cleanses the temple: Jerusalem. Authorities weren't happy about that.
26. Teaches in the temple: Jerusalem.
27. Anointed: Bethany.
28. Gethsemane: Bethany.
29. Arrest and trial: Bethany.
30. Crucifixion and death: Golgotha.
31. Empty tomb: Jerusalem.
32. Appears to the two travelers: Emmaus.
33. Appears to 11 disciples: Jerusalem.
34. Talks with some disciples: Sea of Galilee.
35. Ascension: Mount of Olives.

Yeah. Overall his life was pretty uneventful. I can see now exactly why nobody bothered to write about him.

[Wheels Of Fyre]

More on why there aren't many contemporary writings about Jesus from The Forerunner blog.

The demands for "contemporary" records (that is, accounts written during Jesus' life) are as unreasonable as the demands for eye and hair color in order to prove a person existed. Many people from history were not written about during their life times. Jesus was not an internationally known figure in 30 A.D. The Jesus movement was all of 120 people -- and later 500 by the time of the resurrection. Christians were initially thought of as a sect of Judaism, but as they started to grow there appeared enough literature by pagan authors to corroborate what the New Testament says about Jesus. There are hundreds of corroborating events in pagan literature that confirm the New Testament. None of the pagan or Jewish writers at the time claimed Jesus was not a real person. In trying to refute the early Christians, the Jews and pagans would have found this easy enough to do if He were not a true person. This idea has been made up in the last 150 years. No credible, credentialed historian holds this view.

The fact is that we know more about Jesus' life than we do about William Shakespeare. There are no "contemporary" biographies of Shakespeare. However, we have to explain the body of literature bearing his name and the other contemporary playwrights of his day who mention him after his death as being the true author.

WS never walked on water, fed thousands of people, calmed a storm, healed the blind or raised the dead! Nobody really cares much about WS the person because it's his writings that are of interest. If you're going to make claims that you've raised the dead and fed thousands of people then people are forced to either accept this by faith OR you're going to have to provide more proof in the way of contemporary recognition.

[Rip Rokken]

You're playing with words! My own dictionary...? I've never written one. You're actually referring to Merriam-Webster's. I'm referring to Webster's Handy College Dictionary

LOL... No, I'm not! Quoth the Rider, "Faith in the purest sense of the word is belief without proof". That definition only appears first in the Handy College Dictionary, which is of course an abbreviated tome -- otherwise it wouldn't be handy!

My point was that there are many definitions of faith, and to consider yours out as "it's purest sense of the word" is a matter of opinion, not fact. I'm not in disagreement at all that it's one definition of faith, nor that there is a degree of blind faith in many religions. But not all faith in God is blind -- much of it comes from personal experience.

[Indyjoe]

A BLIP! This argument has always made me laugh. I'll answer the question WHY:

1. Born of a virgin. A VIRGIN!
2. Turns water into wine at the wedding feast ("first miracle"): Cana.
3. Heals nobleman's son: Cana.
4. Heals Peter's mother-in-law: Capernaum.
5. Town attempts to kill him: Nazareth.
6. Preaches "Sermon on the Mount": Capernaum. Jesus' Woodstock!
7. Sinful woman anoints Jesus: Capernaum
8. Travels through Galilee: Galilee. Hounded by the paparazzi!
9. Teaches parables about kingdom: Galilee.
10. Calms the storm: Sea of Galilee
11. Brings Jairus's daughter back to life: Capernaum
12. Feeds 5,000 people: Bethsaida. That's A LOT of mouths!
13. Walks on water: Bethsaida. ON WATER!
14. Feeds 4,000 people: Tyre/Sidon. He would've fed 6,000 but didn't want to show off!
15. Peter states Jesus is "Son of God": Tyre/Sidon. Here's THE breaking news of ALL TIME!!!
16. Pays temple taxes: Capernaum. His W2 has GOT to be somewhere
17. Attends the Feast of the Tabernacles: Jerusalem. We'll find his invitation one day!
18. Heals a man who was born blind: Jerusalem. Why not? After turning water into wine, walking on water, feeding thousands of people, and raising the dead - that should've been a snap!
19. Second preaching trip: Galilee. The first was sold-out so rock on!
20. Blesses little children: Jordan. Let's not forget the children!
21. Talks to rich and young man: Jordan. It's only a matter of time in a life that we all realize that money doesn't buy happiness.
22. Tells about death and resurrection: Jordan. Running out of good things to say about life.
23. Heals blind Bartimaeus: Jericho. Encore!
24. Raises Lazarus from the dead: Bethany. Does anybody even care anymore...?
25. Cleanses the temple: Jerusalem. Authorities weren't happy about that.
26. Teaches in the temple: Jerusalem.
27. Anointed: Bethany.
28. Gethsemane: Bethany.
29. Arrest and trial: Bethany.
30. Crucifixion and death: Golgotha.
31. Empty tomb: Jerusalem.
32. Appears to the two travelers: Emmaus.
33. Appears to 11 disciples: Jerusalem.
34. Talks with some disciples: Sea of Galilee.
35. Ascension: Mount of Olives.

Yeah. Overall his life was pretty uneventful. I can see now exactly why nobody bothered to write about him.

You think that's something. It says 5,000 men, it doesn't say how many wives and children! HE IS AWESOME!! Oops you forgot crucifixion, death and RESURRECTION - stick to topic Fyre!! HE appeared to hundreds more after that. Gotta go!

~Wendy

[conversationpc]

All very fine sources and OPINIONS, Dave....

Yeah. Overall his life was pretty uneventful. I can see now exactly why nobody bothered to write about him.

Considering you're flying in the face of most learned New Testament scholars and historians, it's not an opinion. Are you saying you know more than those guys do, many of whom are agnostics or, in a few cases, even atheists?

[Wheels Of Fyre]

All very fine sources and OPINIONS, Dave....

Yeah. Overall his life was pretty uneventful. I can see now exactly why nobody bothered to write about him.

Considering you're flying in the face of most learned New Testament scholars and historians, it's not an opinion. Are you saying you know more than those guys do, many of whom are agnostics or, in a few cases, even atheists?

Please don't put others on a pedestal and expect me to do the same!

So I'm "flying in the face". HA!

Hey - Jesus turned over tables! Jesus told the Pharisees where to go! He questioned and challenged authority and tradition.

I'm just carrying the cross.

[Rip Rokken]

Hey - Jesus turned over tables! Jesus told the Pharisees where to go! He questioned and challenged authority and tradition.

Not sure about point #2...

[Wheels Of Fyre]

Hey - Jesus turned over tables! Jesus told the Pharisees where to go! He questioned and challenged authority and tradition.

Not sure about point #2...

He told them that the kingdom of God isn't some physical place but rather, that it's a realm within them - THAT is where they needed to go.

[Indyjoe]

I may get around to checking it out. It's pretty cheap at Amazon.com however have you read the book reviews there? I'm not too impressed. Amazon's review doesn't stir me, either.

...
Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.E. - 50 C.E) never mentions Jesus.
Seneca (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Nobody does.

I hope you do! Don't be swayed by the negative review on Amazon.

Nobody does = wrong.

Here are a few that mention Christ...

Flavius Josephus (93 A.D.)
Babylonian Talmud (between 70-200 A.D.)
Pliny the Younger(110 A.D.)
Tacitus(115 A.D.)
Mara bar Serapion(2nd or 3rd Cent.)
Suetonius(120 A.D.)

~Wendy

[conversationpc]

I may get around to checking it out. It's pretty cheap at Amazon.com however have you read the book reviews there? I'm not too impressed. Amazon's review doesn't stir me, either.

...
Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.E. - 50 C.E) never mentions Jesus.
Seneca (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Nobody does.

I hope you do! Don't be swayed by the negative review on Amazon.

Nobody does = wrong.

Here are a few that mention Christ...

Flavius Josephus (93 A.D.)
Babylonian Talmud (between 70-200 A.D.)
Pliny the Younger(110 A.D.)
Tacitus(115 A.D.)
Mara bar Serapion(2nd or 3rd Cent.)
Suetonius(120 A.D.)

~Wendy

I think Fyre's point was that no, or few, contemporary historians mention Jesus. That being said, there are other historical figures that no one denied ever existed who also were not mentioned by contemporary historians. Why Fyre applies a different standard to Jesus in this case over others is beyond me.

[Indyjoe]

I may get around to checking it out. It's pretty cheap at Amazon.com however have you read the book reviews there? I'm not too impressed. Amazon's review doesn't stir me, either.

...
Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.E. - 50 C.E) never mentions Jesus.
Seneca (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Nobody does.

I hope you do! Don't be swayed by the negative review on Amazon.

Nobody does = wrong.

Here are a few that mention Christ...

Flavius Josephus (93 A.D.)
Babylonian Talmud (between 70-200 A.D.)
Pliny the Younger(110 A.D.)
Tacitus(115 A.D.)
Mara bar Serapion(2nd or 3rd Cent.)
Suetonius(120 A.D.)

~Wendy

I think Fyre's point was that no, or few, contemporary historians mention Jesus. That being said, there are other historical figures that no one denied ever existed who also were not mentioned by contemporary historians. Why Fyre applies a different standard to Jesus in this case over others is beyond me.

Got it.

In my quoting here I wasn't sure if it was Fyre that said that "nobody does" or the Amazon reviewer. Either way I had just learned of these and wanted to correct the "nobody does". I knew of Josephus, but not of the others specifically. What a "coincidence" that I should learn of them last night!

[Wheels Of Fyre]

I may get around to checking it out. It's pretty cheap at Amazon.com however have you read the book reviews there? I'm not too impressed. Amazon's review doesn't stir me, either.

...
Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.E. - 50 C.E) never mentions Jesus.
Seneca (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Nobody does.

I hope you do! Don't be swayed by the negative review on Amazon.

Nobody does = wrong.

Here are a few that mention Christ...

Flavius Josephus (93 A.D.)
Babylonian Talmud (between 70-200 A.D.)
Pliny the Younger(110 A.D.)
Tacitus(115 A.D.)
Mara bar Serapion(2nd or 3rd Cent.)
Suetonius(120 A.D.)

~Wendy

I think Fyre's point was that no, or few, contemporary historians mention Jesus. That being said, there are other historical figures that no one denied ever existed who also were not mentioned by contemporary historians. Why Fyre applies a different standard to Jesus in this case over others is beyond me.

Because how many of those "other historical figures" fed thousands of people, healed the blind, turned water into wine, raised the dead, etc., etc....?

It seems to me that Jesus did more than enough to draw attention to himself!

Ultimately, it's a futile argument. Simple logic tells me that a contemporary SHOULD have written SOMETHING about him. The apology is that he was a "blip" on the radar screen of the contemporaries which I think is utterly ridiculous. The bottom line is that we're lacking evidence outside the Bible.

Strangely, the Nag Hammadi Library which contains the Gnostic tradition is considered heretical. Well, you would think that people would say, "Hey, here's more evidence of Jesus." But no. It's "false".

[Wheels Of Fyre]

I may get around to checking it out. It's pretty cheap at Amazon.com however have you read the book reviews there? I'm not too impressed. Amazon's review doesn't stir me, either.

...
Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.E. - 50 C.E) never mentions Jesus.
Seneca (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.) never mentions Jesus.
Nobody does.

I hope you do! Don't be swayed by the negative review on Amazon.

Nobody does = wrong.

Here are a few that mention Christ...

Flavius Josephus (93 A.D.)
Babylonian Talmud (between 70-200 A.D.)
Pliny the Younger(110 A.D.)
Tacitus(115 A.D.)
Mara bar Serapion(2nd or 3rd Cent.)
Suetonius(120 A.D.)

~Wendy

Thanks for the list, Wendy.

Josephus' is perhaps the most "popular" and also the most argued:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

This has been argued as a forgery - that a Jewish man would never write this. There's a lot of debate on the authenticity of this and I have to say that while there's reasonable doubt - I'm not buying it as evidence one way or another.

As I've alluded to - I have no faith. I'm far too practical. I want to enliven my life with the Bible and all inspirational works including poetry, music, movies, etc. Whether or not Jesus existed is a matter of faith (until his so-called return which is also a matter of faith). Life is too short to have faith - unless you can make a living by selling it

I like how Wikipedia addresses faith:
Faith can refer to a religion, or to belief in one or more deities. It has two general implications which can be implied either exclusively or mutually:

To trust:
Believing a certain variable will act or has the potential to act a specific way despite the potential influence and probability of known or unknown change.
To have faith that one's spouse will keep a promise or commitment.
To have faith that the world will someday be peaceful.
To have faith that a person will pay you back.
To have faith in one's full dependence on the will of supernatural forces or deities.

To believe without reason:
Believing impulsively, or believing based upon social traditions or personal hopes.

In either case, faith is based upon the interpretation of the intangible (feelings, emotions, etc.) instead of the physically tangible and is primarily associated with religion in modern times.

I've bolded what I was arguing with Rip. I argued that the purest definition of faith is "belief without proof" and this indeed summarizes all of the above.

I don't have faith in God. I simply recognize that there some things within my control and many things that aren't. I have my job to do and so does God.

[Wheels Of Fyre]

It was this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6397373.stm

Hyped in a documentary put out by James Cameron, and to me seemed to be trying to grab some of the steam created by "The DaVinci Code". Amazing how many people seemed to be eager to accept it as truth. Stick to fiction, Mr. Cameron -- you are great at it!

It IS amazing how eager people are to accept The DaVinci Code as truth. The question then is: isn't it also just as amazing how eager people are to accept the Bible as truth?

Why should anyone believe the rantings of Dan Brown or James Cameron? Why should anyone believe the rantings of Paul or the Apostles?

Maybe James Cameron should make Revelations into a movie...? We finally have the CGI capabilities to make it possible now