Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 2384 by no evidence no belief]


John the Apostle according to the Church Fathers, wrote the Gospel of John, three Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation. Some modern higher critical scholars have raised the possibility that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos were three separate individuals. But the fact is that some of the early Christians believed that this guy born somewhere near the year 6 AD died at age 94 in year 100AD. It is not valid for you to use the average life expectancy to support the assertion that The Gospels were written 30 to 90 years after Jesus's death by anonymous authors that never met anybody who had ever met anybody who had ever met Jesus.

The estimation of the Church Fathers is clearly biased, and by all accounts rejected by today's academia.

You are right that using average life expectancy is not an accurate way of estimating stuff. It could be that everybody in the chain of hearsay died at age 17, meaning that there are a half dozen layers of hearsay. Or it could be that everybody died at age 65 meaning only two layers. Or any combination inbetween. Estimating based on typical life expectancy is the best we can do.

Somebody reaching the age of 94 int he first century seems very unlikely indeed to me.

[Boosh]

Fair enough. This is certainly a reasonable argument but it has some major flaws in it.

a) The infrequency of miracle claims does nothing to increase or decrease the probability of the resurrection.
b) Our understanding of how the world works is not concrete
c) Therefore, the resurrection is a reasonable conclusion to make if and only if the background knowledge and circumstantial evidence supports it (which it does).

The fact that we don't have many reliable reports of dead people coming back to life means nothing. Christianity claims that one person rose from the dead, not many people. And yes, the resurrection absolutely does contradict our understanding of how the world works. This is probably the best argument against the resurrection, but like I said our understanding of how the world works is not set in stone. The philosopher David Hume suggested that even though we may observe something over and over and it occurs the exact same way (such as the sun rising everyday) we cannot say with absolutely certainty that the even will continue to repeat itself. This makes room for the idea that suspensions in the natural order are possible.

You could have made this argument in one sentence: Because people are never 100% certain something can't happen, its reasonable to think it could happen.

These kinds of arguments are not good when a 99.999999% more likely alternative exists. You can definitely say "you aren't sure the sun will rise tomorrow, don't count on it!" But I don't think anyone is going to hold their breath. The thing is we have zero reliable claims of dead rising. All recent claims have been debunked. Another account of it in a 2000 year old book written by people with near zero understanding of how the natural world works is not reliable at all, even with circumstantial evidence.

Yes, I have no problem admitting that this is a difficult story to accept for nonbelievers. But, the basic point that underlies this entire story is has to do with the possibility of miracles. Everything you mentioned above is a miracle. My argument has been that miracles are possible and we should believe a miracle has occurred if our background knowledge and circumstantial evidence supports it. The resurrection is an event that was claimed to have occurred in the ancient world, so what other means of discernment are we going to use other than ancient historical textual criterions?

The thing I think you're missing is that the sort of circumstantial evidence you're using is weak. You can't even use that to convict in a court of law on a contemporary non miraculous claim. Using it to verify a miraculous ancient claim seems sensible to you? There's many other claims of ancient hocus pocus I can't figure out why you (presumably) only believe the Jesus one in particular. The fact we know with 99.99999999999999999999999999999% certainty people don't rise from the dead 3 days after they died should trump circumstantial evidence from 2000 years ago right?

It a little bit more complicated then that. Again, you have to take into consideration what the background knowledge is. Palestine was a backwater territory of the Roman Empire at the time, and by most accounts nearly every single Roman Emperor passionately hated and persecuted Christians. But regardless of all this, the disciples manage to spread their religion throughout the Roman Empire within a rapid period of time regardless of the widespread persecution against them. In addition, Christianity becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire by the time of Constantine and Jesus remains to this very day the most revered and well known person on the face of the planet. This all seems relatively impossible if Christianity was based upon a lie.

Does it seem impossible? I don't think the truth of this claim matters. All that matters is whether people believed it. Certainly truth matters a lot in today's time with superior scientific knowledge and media accessibility, but in a time of complete ignorance and hearsay as the primary information dissemination does truth matter at all?

No, not unless I have good reason to. Here's the problem with atheists like you. It seems that you reject much of what the Bible says simply because the Bible says so. If it's within the Bible then it must obviously be fake, fabricated and inauthentic. This faulty reasoning is the exact equivalent of what fundamentalist Christians do. According to them, if the Bible says so then it must obviously be 100% true. You are no better.

I think this is a good objection, many atheists have the same magnitude of incredulity as a believers' credulity. In either case someone who is certain all claims are true or false on this issue are probably not reasoning properly. The thing is that the Bible for non believers is a pretty sketchy source of information, there's plenty of stuff in it that's so obviously false its absurd people believe it. When a source loses credibility like that people generally don't trust other things it says, and require more proof of veracity than a neutral source.

[no evidence no belief]

There are bad atheist arguments and bad theist arguments. I think the argument that miracles are impossible is a bad one. I don't think most intelligent atheists say such things. What i think they say, is something more like this:
(a) We've never had reliable reports of a dead person come back to life in such a manner or similar manner
(b) the resurrection contradicts our understanding of how the world works
(c) therefore the resurrection is not a reasonable conclusion to make based on ancient documents.

Fair enough. This is certainly a reasonable argument but it has some major flaws in it.

a) The infrequency of miracle claims does nothing to increase or decrease the probability of the resurrection.

It's not just the infrequency. It's the overwhelmingly strong empirical medical, biological, chemical, physical evidence that corpses don't just "rarely" come back to life, but NEVER.

It's very infrequent for people who buy lottery tickets to win the lottery. It's not just infrequent, it's impossible, for a person who did NOT buy /obtain a lottery ticket to win the lottery.

It's very infrequent for for people who's heart stops, to have their heart spontaneously restart beating after a few seconds or even minutes (Lazarus Syndrome). It's not just infrequent, it's impossible for a person who is brain dead, heart dead, all organs failed, blood fully clotted in its veins, bile spewing from mouth, nose and anus, copious amounts of methane from bacteria breaking down intestine inflating or even bursting the belly, enzymes in the brain having turned it into mush, returning to life and floating into the sky.

b) Our understanding of how the world works is not concrete

True. We are not 100% sure that it's impossible for decomposing corpses to come back to life. We are 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure.

If if you flip a coin and there's a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance you'll get head and a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance you'll get tails, what's more reasonable to assert that you can't be sure it will not be tails but you assume it will be heads, or to assert that you can't be sure it will not be heads, but you assume it will be tails?

c) Therefore, the resurrection is a reasonable conclusion to make if and only if the background knowledge and circumstantial evidence supports it (which it does).

Well, first of all, the background knowledge absolutely does NOT support the resurrection. Everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry, physics tells us that corpses coming back to life and floating into the air cannot happen.

Are you saying that it's reasonable to believe something that is contradicted by overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence on the basis of circumstantial evidence?

If so, I'm assuming you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

The empirical evidence contradicting Bigfoot and Lochness Monster is much less than the empirical evidence contradicting the resurrection, and the circumstantial evidence for Bigfoot and the LochNess monster (sworn testimony from hundreds of people alive today) is much stronger than the circumstantial evidence for the resurrection.

The fact that we don't have many reliable reports of dead people coming back to life means nothing.

We don't just have a lack of reports of people coming back from the dead. It's that we have millions upon millions upon millions of conclusive reports based on overwhelming empirical data that corpses do NOT come back to life.

Christianity claims that one person rose from the dead, not many people.

Yes, and science tells us that NO people came to life, not ONE. So you have to weigh overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence against circumstantial evidence.

And yes, the resurrection absolutely does contradict our understanding of how the world works. This is probably the best argument against the resurrection, but like I said our understanding of how the world works is not set in stone.

True. We are not 100% sure that corpses can't fly. We are only 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% sure. Theoretically there is a TIIIIIIIIIIINY possibility that the same science that allows us to fly to mars and transplant hearts is fundamentally wrong in every way, and that corpses, horses, dragons and pigs can fly after all. But surely you agree that it would be madness to take these kinds of virtually impossible theoretical absurdities seriously when it comes to determine what one should believe actually happens in reality.

The philosopher David Hume suggested that even though we may observe something over and over and it occurs the exact same way (such as the sun rising everyday) we cannot say with absolutely certainty that the even will continue to repeat itself. This makes room for the idea that suspensions in the natural order are possible.

Sure. Flying corpses are about as likely at the sun not rising tomorrow.

I would see the ascension of Jesus into heaven as a logical consequence of the resurrection. If Jesus did rise from the dead and his claim to be the son of God was vindicated, the ascension necessarily follows along with the other miracle claim in the New Testament.

That does not follow.

If i make miraculous predictions of the future or perform magical feats in front of you, would you become credulous to ANYTHING i say or tell you? Even if Jesus magically rose from the dead or performed magic healings, that doesn't logically necessitate that anything he says is true. His claims don't suddenly become more credible or reasonable. His claims, every one of them, stand on their own merits. To believe his claims because his previous claims have been shown as true is gullibility and to engage in fallacious thinking. Not that i think Jesus is a conman, but this sounds a lot like confidence tricks which are used by conmen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

I suggest you go back and study what the implications of the resurrection are. The resurrection is the event that vindicated Jesus' claim to be the son of God. If the resurrection is true then Jesus is indeed God incarnate and all of the other miracles attributed to him, such as the ascension, come naturally. How would they not?

It doesn't follow at all. It could easily be that somebody from the year 50000AD traveled back in time to Jesus's tomb and used his superior technology to resurrect him, and then planted the stories about all his other miracles, as part of a mysterious plan we know nothing about.

Hey, I know, just like for the "Invisible Skydaddy that sacrificed himself to himself" theory, the probability of the "time travelling resurrector" theory being true is about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, but it's possible, right?

The reason why I am bringing up the fact that it can't be disproven is to show that the resurrection isn't some far fetched, unbelievable fantasy that nonbelievers are making it out to be. And yes, I've already had many debates on this site regarding the historical evidence for the resurrection.

A man performing SUPERNATURAL healings, walking on water, and MAGICALLY rising from the dead and subsequently FLYING into the sky is not "far-fetched"? If that isn't an extraordinary tale, I don't know what is! Surely you can sympathize that such tales, to those who don't already believe they are true, are extraordinary.

Yes, I have no problem admitting that this is a difficult story to accept for nonbelievers. But, the basic point that underlies this entire story is has to do with the possibility of miracles. Everything you mentioned above is a miracle. My argument has been that miracles are possible and we should believe a miracle has occurred if our background knowledge and circumstantial evidence supports it.

background knowldge doesn't support it, and circumstantial evidence is insufficient to counter overwhelming empirical evidence.

The resurrection is an event that was claimed to have occurred in the ancient world, so what other means of discernment are we going to use other than ancient historical textual criterions?

Empirical medical, biological, chemical, physical evidence.

The Authenticity of the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels
The criterion of dissimilarity states that the probability of an alleged event increases if the written content is dissimilar to the authors agenda. As in to say, I would not write down something that harms my credibility unless it actually happened. Within the Gospel narratives, we have two things that meet this criterion: the initial discovery of the tomb by women and the tomb being provided by a member of the Sanhedrin, the council that condemned Jesus to death.

I'm unaware of historians using the criterion of embarrassment in other works to establish the historicity of an account. It seems that only religious scholars who argue for jesus' existence put such heavy stock in the usefulness of the criterion of embarrassment. Is it just a coincidence that historians do not use the criterion of embarrassment as some major sticking point for historicity or is this an example of some Christian scholars trying to put lipstick on a pig? It seems to me its the latter.

Furthermore, the criterion of embarrassment sets up a false dichotomy. The only options aren't:
1) its probably true because its embarrassing
Or
2) someone made it up.

That's an argument from a lack of imagination.

A terribly weak rebuttal on your part. The criterion of embarrassment is legitimate despite your unfounded objections, and it can be applied to any ancient historical text. If the information in the text harms the credibility of the writer, if the content and the author are dissimilar, then the content within the text is authentic. And how is that a false dichotomy? Please, tell me what other options exist.

The Bible itself claims that the apostles became incredibly rich and powerful by virtue of the stories in the Bible. If the text harms the credibility of the writer, then the text is authentic? Ok. If the text cements the writer's authority as Vicar of Christ on Earth, then it means it's likely to be false, then, right?

The Genuine Claim of the Disciples to have seen Jesus risen from the dead
After Jesus' death and burial something sparked a strong conviction in the disciples that lead to their strong evangelism despite persecution by both Jews and Romans. The persecution and marginalization of Christians confirms the genuiness and sincerity of their claim, and apart from the resurrection, it remains a mystery as to why the disciples decided to preach and spread their message in the face of persecution.

Plenty of people die for their beliefs. Jim Jones, Heavens Gate, Joseph Smith, and many Mormons. Arguing that people died or were persecuted for their beliefs therefore the beliefs MUST be true or are more likely true is very very poor reasoning. It does not follow.

It a little bit more complicated then that. Again, you have to take into consideration what the background knowledge is. Palestine was a backwater territory of the Roman Empire at the time, and by most accounts nearly every single Roman Emperor passionately hated and persecuted Christians. But regardless of all this, the disciples manage to spread their religion throughout the Roman Empire within a rapid period of time regardless of the widespread persecution against them. In addition, Christianity becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire by the time of Constantine and Jesus remains to this very day the most revered and well known person on the face of the planet. This all seems relatively impossible if Christianity was based upon a lie.

The speed of growth of Christianity pales in comparison to the speed of growth of Scientology. This all seems rather impossible if Scientology was based on a lie.

But aside from the analogies that I know you don't like, let's look at what you're saying.

There is a chain of statements that were made from Christianity's inception until it became the global phenomenon which it was, and kinda still is in its waning days. A half dozen people said they saw Jesus's corpse float into the sky, then some other people repeated that story, then others did, then it was written down, then more people believed it, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not saying that every person in this enormous chain of statements was a liar who knew the original statements made by the original half dozen folks were actually made up. That would be as crazy as stating that every soldier who fought in Iraq knew that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That would be crazy. Probably only Dick Cheney and a handful of others knew that. Everybody downstream of this initial false statement was sincere in their belief, so much so that they were willing to die for it. 3000 of them did. Similarly, there is no doubt that the early Christians who were willing to die for their beliefs truly believed in flying corpses, they were absolutely sincere in their belief in a lie.

The Conversion of Paul to Christianity
First, let's present the facts. It's a fact that Paul was a persecutor of Christians,

Its a fact? Why? Because Paul says so?

Once again, you are assuming that the claims within a story are true or likely true because they are internally consistent or because the author says so. If you read another testimony, do you simply accept the word of the author on mere assertion?

No, not unless I have good reason to. Here's the problem with atheists like you. It seems that you reject much of what the Bible says simply because the Bible says so. If it's within the Bible then it must obviously be fake, fabricated and inauthentic. This faulty reasoning is the exact equivalent of what fundamentalist Christians do. According to them, if the Bible says so then it must obviously be 100% true. You are no better.

I agree that such a prejudiced stance would be indefensible. For the record, there are many things in the Bible that I believe. I believe a person called Jesus lived and was crucified, and that he inspired the creation of a religion which he would probably abhor.

I don't determine what I believe in on the basis of whether it's written in a book I like or I don't like.

This is my general rule for believing something:

Is there overwhelming empirical evidence for it and little to no evidence against it? If yes then I believe it.

Is there little to no evidence for it, and overwhelming empirical evidence against it? If yes, then I don't believe it.

I don't care where the claim comes from, if it's in the Bible, in a Bin Laden video, in Mein Kampf, in the writings of the Heaven's Gate lunatic. If the claim is supported by overwhelming empirical evidence and countered by little or no evidence, then I believe it. If it's supported by little to no evidence, and countered by overwhelming empirical evidence, then I don't believe it.

Is that confusing to you?

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 2383 by Danmark]

Those of us who were raised in the church have been fed the line so often that there was no motive or any reason for the writers of the NT to make any of this up, that I guess it never occurred to me that this argument is a crock of goose grease.

Speaking of goose grease, what's happened to our fowl friend? He's darned hard headed, but at least he is willing to make an argument, which is more then most Christians seem to be able or willing to do.

Yeah, and what happened to sonofason? He was the only one who finally admitted he didn't have evidence for his supernatural beliefs (though he then recanted that admission subsequently).

Well, it's inevitable. When you realize you've lost an argument, why would you linger?

He was banned Nov. 23. The probation list frequently provides more humor than 'Daily Laugh.' All you have to do is read some of the posts "The Banned' wrote, even after their were on probation. When it comes to banning, I have to give a to the moderators for patience.

No way! Sonofason got banned? Why? He seemed nice!

[Danmark]

....
The fact that we don't have many reliable reports of dead people coming back to life means nothing. Christianity claims that one person rose from the dead, not many people.
....

That is incorrect. There are many Biblical claims of people being brought back to life.
Widow of Zarephath's son (I Ki 17:17-24) raised by Elijah

The Shunamite's son (II Ki 4:20-37) raised by Elisha

The man tossed into Elisha's tomb (II Ki 13:21)

Widow of Nain's son (Lk 7:11-16) raised by Jesus during a funeral procession as they were carrying the casket to the cemetery.

Synagogue ruler Jairus' 12-year-old daughter (Mk 5:35-43)

Lazarus, who had been dead for four days.

Tabitha also known as Dorcas (Acts 9:36-41) raised by Peter

Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12) raised by Paul after Paul literally bored him to death. OK, I just wanted to say "bored to death" Actually Eutychus may just have fallen asleep causing him to fall. Paul said 'there is still life in him.'

Then of course we have in (Mt 27:51-53) the talk of tombs opening and the bodies of the 'saints' rising from the dead.

Thus it is inaccurate to claim "The resurrection is the event that vindicated Jesus' claim to be the son of God."

Thomas Sheehan* makes a strong case that Jesus never claimed to be God or co-equal with God. As I recall Jesus most frequently referred to himself as the 'Son of Man.'

________________________
*
http://infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_sheehan/

[no evidence no belief]

....
The fact that we don't have many reliable reports of dead people coming back to life means nothing. Christianity claims that one person rose from the dead, not many people.
....

That is incorrect. There are many Biblical claims of people being brought back to life.
Widow of Zarephath's son (I Ki 17:17-24) raised by Elijah

The Shunamite's son (II Ki 4:20-37) raised by Elisha

The man tossed into Elisha's tomb (II Ki 13:21)

Widow of Nain's son (Lk 7:11-16) raised by Jesus during a funeral procession as they were carrying the casket to the cemetery.

Synagogue ruler Jairus' 12-year-old daughter (Mk 5:35-43)

Lazarus, who had been dead for four days.

Tabitha also known as Dorcas (Acts 9:36-41) raised by Peter

Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12) raised by Paul after Paul literally bored him to death. OK, I just wanted to say "bored to death" Actually Eutychus may just have fallen asleep causing him to fall. Paul said 'there is still life in him.'

Then of course we have in (Mt 27:51-53) the talk of tombs opening and the bodies of the 'saints' rising from the dead.

Thus it is inaccurate to claim "The resurrection is the event that vindicated Jesus' claim to be the son of God."

Thomas Sheehan* makes a strong case that Jesus never claimed to be God or co-equal with God. As I recall Jesus most frequently referred to himself as the 'Son of Man.'

I'm getting old.

I don't know how I could have missed this ultimate low hanging fruit of Winepusher counterfactual statements.

Maybe it's just that the volume of statements he utters that are the exact geometrical opposite of the truth is so staggeringly high that it's impossible to keep up.

Of course it's absurd to say that the Bible claims a single corpse rose from the dead. That is the perfect opposite of the truth. The Gospel of Matthew claims an entire zombie invasion took place on that same day, let alone the multiple other cases of resurrections on different occasions!

There are so many resurrections in the Bible that, in the words of the late great Christopher Hitchens, raising from the dead back then was somewhat of a banality!

To believe in Biblical resurrections is not to believe in a single instance of suspension of the laws of nature that govern the inability of a corpse to come back to life.

It is to believe in the hilariously naive notion that these laws of nature were routinely suspended back in the day, whereas they seem to never be suspended recently.

It is to believe that it's just a coincidence that reports of resurrections seem to be commonplace in times and place where the general population doesn't know enough about the laws of nature to realize that a resurrection would violate them, whereas resurrections stop completely anywhere and anytime there are trained doctors present.

It's kind of how reports of ships falling off the edge of the earth stopped abruptly when we realized the earth was a globe, how conjecture about the location of the island of Atlantis stopped being made with the invention of scuba diving, and how children notice that the Santa at the mall bears a striking resemblance with the mall janitor, after parents tell them Santa isn't real.

[instantc]

a) The infrequency of miracle claims does nothing to increase or decrease the probability of the resurrection.

It's not the frequency of miracle claims that is the problem.

Actually, the frequency is very relevant. We know from experience that people tend to make up miracle stories, which lowers the plausibility of any witness account of such event. If it wasn't for the frequency of miracle claims throughout the history, I would find the resurrection accounts much more interesting.

[no evidence no belief]

a) The infrequency of miracle claims does nothing to increase or decrease the probability of the resurrection.

It's not the frequency of miracle claims that is the problem.

Actually, the frequency is very relevant. We know from experience that people tend to make up miracle stories, which lowers the plausibility of any witness account of such event. If it wasn't for the frequency of miracle claims throughout the history, I would find the resurrection accounts much more interesting.

And certainly much more entertaining.

Reading demigod myths is like watching 80s' cop show reruns. You already know what's gonna happen. The demigod is going to be born of a virgin, perform miracles, get killed and raise from the dead. yaaaaaawn....

[WinePusher]

....
The fact that we don't have many reliable reports of dead people coming back to life means nothing. Christianity claims that one person rose from the dead, not many people.
....

That is incorrect. There are many Biblical claims of people being brought back to life.
Widow of Zarephath's son (I Ki 17:17-24) raised by Elijah

The Shunamite's son (II Ki 4:20-37) raised by Elisha

The man tossed into Elisha's tomb (II Ki 13:21)

Widow of Nain's son (Lk 7:11-16) raised by Jesus during a funeral procession as they were carrying the casket to the cemetery.

Synagogue ruler Jairus' 12-year-old daughter (Mk 5:35-43)

Lazarus, who had been dead for four days.

Tabitha also known as Dorcas (Acts 9:36-41) raised by Peter

Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12) raised by Paul after Paul literally bored him to death. OK, I just wanted to say "bored to death" Actually Eutychus may just have fallen asleep causing him to fall. Paul said 'there is still life in him.'

Then of course we have in (Mt 27:51-53) the talk of tombs opening and the bodies of the 'saints' rising from the dead.

Thus it is inaccurate to claim "The resurrection is the event that vindicated Jesus' claim to be the son of God."

Thomas Sheehan* makes a strong case that Jesus never claimed to be God or co-equal with God. As I recall Jesus most frequently referred to himself as the 'Son of Man.'

________________________
*
http://infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_sheehan/

This is becoming much more theologically oriented, but I would say that you have to differentiate between all these resusitation stories and the resurrection. Look at all these biblical stories of resusitation, you have a person being revived back to life by another human being. On the otherhand, the claim being made about Jesus is that he was raised back to life by God himself. None of these people mentioned here were explicitly raised by God. Unlike all these other biblical stories you mention, God himself raised Jesus from the dead. As for your idea that Jesus never claimed to be God:

Mark 14:61-62
But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One? I am, said Jesus. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

[Boosh]

Winepusher, would you care to address no evidence no belief's points in post 2397? There are some serious objections there that I think really undermine your position.