And we have 24,000 written manuscripts, the first Christian’s who witnessed the miracles and resurrected Christ as described in those texts worshipping Jesus as God, the Babylonian Talmud which recorded Jesus was put to death for sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy which confirm those texts and non-Christian historians that recorded the first Christians worshipped Jesus as God.
Do you know what evidence you don’t have? You don’t have any accounts which refute the miracles performed by Christ. You don’t have any accounts which refute Christ wasn’t resurrected. You don’t have any evidence the first Christians didn’t worship Jesus as God. And you don’t have evidence that refutes the Babylonian Talmud’s claim that Jesus was put to death for sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy.
When one has belief its called a hypothesis. That leads to research which collects evidence and will prove or fail to prove it as fact.
So?
Then you must believe things for no good reason at all. I don’t do that. Faith is having complete trust in someone or something. I never put complete trust in someone or something without good reason.
Manuscripts sounds really fancy but all you have are writings by UNKNOWN people decades and even more than a century later with the only exception being the fraud wannabe apostle Paul and scholars say half of those are not his.
So that’s what evidence looks like.
Coupled with the evidence of the first Christians worshipping Jesus as God, those texts explain why the first Christians worshipped Jesus as God.
How could anyone have accounts to refute "miracles" that weren't written about until decades later, and then third hand. What would there be to refute? Someone is supposed to refute something they know nothing about?
You have faith because you like the story and want it to be true.
Because the evidence shows the first Christians worshipped Jesus as God. That’s how.
In what regard? Certainly, writings by unknown decades and centuries after that time doesn't qualify as evidence.
That actually is not true. It wasn't until 325 years later that HUMANS proclaimed that Jesus was not "just" a son by a piece of Wrigley's chewing gum....three flavors in one.
In the regard that 24,000 written manuscripts detailed why the first Christians worshipped Jesus as God as recorded by non-Christian historians and collaborated by the Babylonian Talmud.
Even if they did, that means nothing. But they didn't. They were cajoled and convinced he was divine by cagey people, like Paul. Many people have been worshiped throughout history, including Mohammed and many emperors and kings. To assert that he was "god" because people in hyper religious times believed that is juvenile.
It is irrelevant. Based on your reasoning that makes Islam true.
Every piece of evidence I have presented is 100% true.
Incorrect. You are using flawed logic to dismiss the evidence.
It isnt reason its emotion that determines your beliefs. Emotions determine what you think you know. Reason in this psychological context is emotion its not rational thought.
And yet my belief that Jesus is God Incarnate is based upon evidence and my belief that God can be known by studying his creation is based upon reason.
