I am beginning this topic to find out the beliefs of others, whether they are exclusivists, and how they defend their belief systems as correct.

I am a believer in absolute Truth, so I believe religions can be right or wrong, and I believe in logical thought as a guide to making decisions of spiritual matters. I trust everyone will be reasonable and open-minded in discussing this matter.

I will post my own beliefs later, but I would rather hear from others for now.

I'm, also a believer in absolute truth. This could be very interesting...
I'll probably post lateras well, gotta think...

Wow, well, I am sure everyone is going to say that their religion is right. Because if it wasn't right... then why would you believe in it? . But I could point out a lot of wrong veiws in other religions, but I am not sure if that's what you are asking or not.

Well, since I am really interested in this topic, I have deiced to go ahead and tell people about my religion (because Shild want's to know about other religions I assume). Now people might laugh, jest or taunt this but I am a Jedi. No, I don't praise George Lucas. But he didn't create the Jedi Religion. The force is also known as "The Chi." As more people became aware of The Chi, people started to realize misconceptions that some people who followed The Chi. Since then there has developed a "New Chi" and the "Old Chi." While the "New Chi" is called the force now. (To remind you, this is what I think, I am not sure. I only follow the force and never really bothered to look into the Chi)
If you are a follower of the "New Chi" you are a Jedi who follows the force. In my religion you do not discriminate from one another. Meaning that African American's, Irish, Spanish, or anyone could join. For the force does not discriminate. Whereas other religions say that it's wrong to be have a certain lifestyle and that it's wrong to do certain things.
Now there is a dark side of the force. These people use the force to their advantages. And there is a long description that I am sure people don't want to read, so I will offer you a link where you can learn more about the Jedi Religion.

http://us.geocities.com/jedijames22/page3.html

This place has a very good Jedi Library. (Though they call them self's "Gedi")

Mega Gigan.

I am an agnostic, therefore I believe that human knowledge of things are essentially experienced.

I will never have any animosity towards those who believe in something else, unless that something else dictates we should believe in it and forces that on us.

We are human being first and dead a long time.

Regards.......Alan

I'm an athiest, but I don't believe that there is only one true religion. Each religion is true for its own followers.

I don't understand.
It's a basic rule of logic that if there are two conflicting statements, at least one of them is wrong...

I assume you think the validity of all religions lie in the emotional affect on believers. Don't they also include statements of alleged fact?

Note: Posted to the wrong forum, oops.
I suppose the only thing I have to add is that this is what I meant by absolute truth.

I don't veiw different religions as necessarily being conflicting, because at the core, many of them teach similar ideals. Religion is very much about interpretation, and it evolves within each individual culture.

Religions also include specifics. These specifics can be conflicting. They can also be pivotal to a religion (ex. Seventh-Day Adventists and the Sabbath)

Please be more specific. I'm not familiar with Seventh-Day Adventism.

Seventh-Day Adventist believe in the Sabbath (the 4th commandment of the Bible), which states there is to be no work on the Seventh Day. This is a pivotal feature in the religion and it is hotly contested among christians.

All of the Judeo-Christian religions have a "day of rest." What day it falls on and what is done with it, is all about interpretation. For Chrisitians it falls on Sunday. Jews celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday, and Muslims celebrate on Friday. I don't see that there is a fundamental difference between these. At the core, the religions teach the same core beliefs. I don't think that there is a wrong interpretation. People attach themselves to religions that have the most meaning and functionality within their own lives. To me, that is completely appropriate, and I don't view any of them as being "wrong."

The problem is that the Bible only points out ONE day. This means those who claim to follow the ten commandments and do not rest on that particular day are proven false. A lot of the time people tend to ignore specifics but in subjects such as religion they are very important.

I don't think the specifics are that important. I'm not a scholar of the Bible, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the bible merely specify that the day of rest fall on the seventh day? In Muslim countries, I believe that the week begins on Saturday, so Friday is the seventh day for them. The calendar is a human invention.

Additonally many of the teachings in the Bible and other religious texts are period specific. The idea is that through god, man can have a better life, but as technology increases, some of the teachings are no longer relevant. Religion can't be static.

Do you know anything about the Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell? It's a fabulous series that discusses the archetypes that consistently reveal themselves throughout the ages in various myths and cultures. The symbols change, but the meanings remain the same.

The day of rest for Christians was always Sunday, but many churches now hold services on
Saturday evening.

Different religions have different definitions of rest. Certain Orthodox Jews can't even
wind their watches on the Sabbath. I don't think I know anybody who really rests on
Sunday.

Discussion on which day should be a day of rest from our labors is fairly inconsequential (to us at least). But let's expand our discussion a little.

Some religions believe in the Trinity (each member of the Godhead is a form of the same being), others in three separate beings acting in perfect unity as one God. Others beleive that God is blue (Hari Krishna I believe). Others believe that there are several Gods, some with eight arms and some with elephant heads (Indian religions I believe). Only one of those can be true.

"But all religions basically teach the ten commandments." you say? Basically, but remember the first commandment is "to have no other gods before me". In order to obey that one, you pretty much have to know which God it is that is talking.

Back to the original post in this thread:



I'd like to challenge that statement. In the past I've been very emotional about "proving" my religion correct through the Bible (being Christian, that's usually accepted as truth). But eventually I've decided this isn't possible.

Basically, the fact that there are many religions out there, each with their own interpretation of the same words, is the proof that logic just doesn't cut it. A great many people who are much smarter than you or I have spent their life studying the Bible and yet none of them have been able to find an interpretation that is able to answer the objections of all others.

The thing that gets us is that the fact that the Bible speaks figuratively sometimes. To take one example, do we believe it literally when it says "God is one" or when Stephen says he saw Christ standing on the right hand of God (making them separate). How are we to decide logically which one is literal and which is figurative?

If you view religion in a literal manner, only one can be true, but if you view it figuratively, they all can be true...merely incarnations of one powerful being or perhaps several powerful beings. The existence of god has not been proven. It's all a matter of faith, so how can anyone refute the existence of another religion's god? Also, why would one culture wish to follow a god that is based on another culture? People need to be able to identify with thier gods. The idea that there is only one religion alienates a large amount of the population. Isn't it possible that Krishna, Shiva, and Ganesh can be viewed as divine aspects of the same powerful force?



If you follow a Judeo-Christian religion, than you believe in a Judeo-Christian version of god, but if you look at other religions, they still have many of the same archetypes as the Christian religion. Not every aspect can be the same, but at the core, they all teach the same basic humanist principles. It's a guide for living life amongst other humans. Again, the symbols should not be as important as the message that is portrayed by the symbols.

As an athiest, I don't believe in any god, but I still believe that there are basic principles of wrong and right. I think, as humans, these ideals are pre-programmed, if you will. In my mind, religion takes these ideals and projects them into a god figure and a set of rituals that are appropriate to the followers of any given religion.

Christians believe there is one God who is almighty.We believe in the Trinity, three persons in one God. We believe that Jesus is the son of God, both devine and human, being born of the virgin Mary.He suffered at the hands of Roman Governo Pontius Pilate, died and was buried, but on the third day God raised Him out of death.His suffering and death broke the chains of sin for all who had died before his coming, making God-Love (the Father) available to them. He rose from the dead, making life with God now and forever our blessed hope.He sent the Holy Spirit (3rd Person) to be our constant guide in faith, hope and love. He will return to bring time to end, to judge the living and the dead,and to complete creation with the inauguration of the eternal kingdom of, with and in God-Love. The Lord Jesus taught that all sin in life could be overcome and rooted out of hman experience by the avoidance of negative behavior and the substitution of a corresponding virtue, which are active gifts of the Holy Spirit to the believer. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,faithfullness, self-conrol are the spiritual means to a Christian life.
Fully blalanced Christianity has four components--Scripture, the Oral Tradition, Reason and Experience as the basis of religious knowledge.
Orthodox are known for their emphasis on Tradition & Experience:Catholics on Tradition and Reason: the Protestants on Scripture and Reason: and Pentecostals on Scripture and Experience. CHRISTIANITY: ORIGINS AND BELIEFS By Thomas A Baima. Copyright 1993

Christians differ in their relation to non-Christians. These relations are characterized by three positions:
1) The "exclusive position" holds that a saving relationship with Lord Jesus is the only way to salvation. In this perspective, those who lack this will suffer forever, excluded from God-Love.

2) The "pluralist position" sees Christianity as merely one path to God among other religions which also offer the possiblilty of salvation. This view sees salvation as universal and knowledge of God as relative culture and tradition.

3) Between them is the "inclusive position" While holding to the belief that the fullness of revelation came in the person of Jesus and that He is the ordinary way to right relationship with God, here it is believed that God-Love can work beyond this. Hence a Christian may esteem truth where he/she sees it, and we will know it is the truth when it agrees with Jesus and the teaching and example received from him. The revelation of God-Love is fully disclosed in Jesus.

This isn't true, there is no reference in the new testament to replacing Saturday Worship with Sunday Worship.

Ok, I stand corrected. I don't think it really matters, because most people don't rest anyway.

True, but that leds to another question. It comes down to whether or not the Ten Commandments still apply today. That is certainly not inconsequential to the Christian religion(we have to start somewhere). And of course if we abandon logic in this forum, we really have nothing to argue about.
Thoughts?

I don't think believing in a non-literal matter is really believing. If I can choose whether or not God looks like Christ or Krisha then basically I can choose everything else. You quickly end up with an "a-la-carte" religions where you can pick and choose which morals you think you want to obey.

Thankfully, people are basically good and usually choose morals which are in line with each other. But there are places where religions differ and those differences MATTER.

For example, some religions believe that abortion is perfectly acceptable. It would be nice to know the truth of what happens to the spirit of that individual (if they have one) and what God thinks of terminating it's existance.

Another example, some religions believe that polygamy is acceptable, or gay marriage is acceptable. Other religions believe one or both of these are sins. If you accept that there is life after death and that our state there will be determined by our actions here (which again, not all religions do), some are right and some are wrong.



I agree completely with this statement, but not where it looks like you are going with it. Just because I can't prove that God exists does nothing to alter the fact that he does (or doesn't). In Russian Roulette, it's no defence to say "I didn't know if the bullet was in the chamber".

Personally, I think that the unprovability of the existence of God is that way by design; that the purpose of this existance is to see how we act in the absence of perfect knowledge. Maybe that's just justification to myself, but to argue that since we can't prove any one religion true means that any theory on the matter will do, is not quite logical.

You know, Sunday in place of Saturday as the Sabbath was explained to me in grade school religion class, but I have forgotton the explanation. We call Sat. & Sun. the weekend, so one could say that Sun. is the 7th day. On the 7th day He rested.

The thrid (it is the third, right?) commandment says, "Keep holy the Sabbath day", it doesn't really say to rest. It's all up to interpretation I guess.

The Ten Commandments very definitely apply today.

Mapk X.
The revelation of God-Love (that is God the Father) is fully disclosed in Jesus. Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day. For me, that is proof of the existence of God. Simplistic, I know.

A-la-carte religions...I like that. I'll have the Christianity platter with a side of Taosim, please, and a piece of Hinduism with some Jainism on top.

In our society, religion is a-la-carte. You get to choose which one feels right, but you have no way of proving that your religion is right and another religion is wrong. It's only faith that tells you that you are right, and faith is certainly not based on logic. It's based on a feeling that is developed over time.

Had you been born into a Hindu family in India, than you would more than likely be Hindu. If you were born in Iran, you would have little to no choice. You would be a Shiite Muslim, because that is what you would have been exposed to. Circumstances certainly affect the religions that people follow.



Again, there is no way to prove which of these beliefs is correct. Faith and circumstance determines these things. Also, religions tend to develop around societal need. It is important to look at the reasons why you believe that something is wrong or right, and then look at the reasons why another culture with a different set of circumstances might feel differently about it.



It's equally illogical to say that only one religion is true based purely on your own faith and circumstances.

A very widespread and erroneous assumption is that factual evidence cannot support religious faith. In the case of Christianity at least, this is not true.
The cornerstone, pillar, and capstone of Christianity is Christ, so any evidence should pertain directly to Him and His claim to diety. The best evidence possible for Jesus' claim to diety is His Ressurrection; it is impossible for any human to rise from the dead, so if Christ could raise Himself, he can only be God. Therefore, evidence for Christ's Ressurrection is evidence for Christianity.

So, What evidence could there be? If we know the New Testament is accurate in general, we can have logical faith in its claims about Christ. One way to judge the accuracy of an ancient document is by looking at the number of extant manuscript copies of the original and how early those copies were made. For example, if you have one hundred agreeing extant copies of a document written 2000 years ago, and the copies were written 1900 years ago, you can infer the copies are accurate to the original document.
In the case of Homer's Illiad, there are 643 extant copies, the earliest from 400 years after the Illiad was written. The only document or collection of documents with more supporting manuscripts than the Illiad is the New Testament, with a whopping 24970 (!) extant complete books, the earliest from only about 100 years after the writing (actually, incomplete manuscripts of New Testament books exist from 50 years earlier than that). All in all, the New Testament has more bibliographical support than any ten (ten) classical works. Therefore, we can infer reasonably that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etcetera, wrote pretty much exactly what we read today.
In terms of evidence for Christ and Christianity, however, this is merely the peak of the iceberg.

More to come...

Number of extant copies can prove that the text has not been altered significantly over the ages, but it doesn't prove that the original document is true.

Exactly right, cyan. This argument goes no farther than establishing that the extant New Testament was not embellished over time. However, the knowledge that the books were copied within 50 years of Christ's death shows that they were originally composed very close to Christ's lifetime, close enough to have been written during or just after his lifetime, by the people who knew him: his Apostles.

How many Apostles were there? 13. One, Judas, hung himself. One lived out his life. Eleven were martyrs. Those eleven were tortured and brutally murdered for their beliefs in Christ, but they professed to the last breath that Christ was raised from the dead. They believed it that much. Remember, these were not men who had been raised and taught about Christ their entire lives. They knew him, spoke with him, watched him suffer and die. They definitely believed that what they wrote was fact. My challenge to the readers is this: what convinced them, if it was not Jesus rise from the dead?

More to come...

So if Jesus DID rise from the dead this would make one religion right and all others wrong? Is that what is being said here?

Maybe Jesus just understood the flow of energy and possesed a greater awareness of existence.

The sum of all things, every beilief, and every truth was within ONE man?
Why a man? We are but a quark in the composition of all that is. To believe that we can explain or understand everything in the universe is truely arrogant.

Believe in yourself and "listen to "God" when it speaks.

Yes, that is exactly what is being said here.



I am afraid I do not understand. How could these attributes give a person the ability to rise from the dead? Besides which, if he was only a human who possessed higher understanding, why would he Diefy himself?



Jesus was not merely a man, He was infinitely more. A simple human could never have the understanding of which you speak. Also, I never said any human could explain or understand everything in the universe.



Good advice.

Mass hysteria? Obviously, they felt strongly about their beliefs, but it doesn't mean that those beliefs were true. Here are several examples related to religion that illustrate the effects of mass hysteria.

1. Salem witch trials - Hundreds were arrested and twenty were killed.
2. Jone's Town - 913 people committed suicide in the name of religion.
3. Heaven's Gate - 39 people committed suicide in the name of religion
4. Solar Temple Cult - 69 people committed suicide in the name of religion.

These people were utterly convinced that their religious beliefs were true...convinced enough to die for their beliefs (The Salem witch trial is a bit of a different scenario). Throughout history there have been holy warriors that have died for their beliefs and people who endured horrible tortures for them. It doesn't automatically prove that those beliefs are true, and it doesn't prove that they aren't. It merely proves the conviction of the followers.

cyan, the examples you give are unlike the Apostles' situation. The victims of the Salem Witch Trials did not profess that they were witches until they had been forced to (most were probably lying after that). The Apostles did not gather and commit suicide in the name of religion. They were killed by others in independant situations who would have shown them some mercy if they had renounced their belief in Christ and stopped preaching His word. They had not been taught Christianity right up until their martyrdoms either. They had been separated for years before they were killed.

The Apostles did not die for religion. They died for their belief in the Savior they had known and the events they had witnessed. Did they actually make up the story of Christ's Ressurrection, leave to separate countries, then independantly go crazy and endure torture and death while still claiming their belief to be true?

You're right this is a different scenario, but I included it because the people who forced the "witches" to confess were experiencing a form of public hysteria, and they used religion as a motivating force. They were so convinced that they were right that they were willing to kill for their beliefs.



Almost every religion has had followers that have died for their faith, and many of them were tortured and brutally murdered. Faith in god, regardless of what god it is, can be incredibly strong. I have no doubt in my mind that the apostles believed that Christ was resurrected from the dead. My point is that the resurrection of Christ can't be proven or disproven. You have to go on faith alone, and if you find that the Bible is evidence enough for you than that's great. I personally believe that the Bible has as much validity as the Vedas or the Koran or the Talmud, etc.



Christ was the spiritual leader of the apostles, connecting them to a higher power. They followed a belief system that was defined by Christ and the God that he represented. That is the definition of religion.

As far as whether or not they made up the resurrection of Christ, I can't say, but it is mere speculation no matter what side of the fence that you stand on.

Suppose we are in a court of law. An event might have happened and twelve witnesses independantly claim it happened. There are not many courts which, going on this evidence alone, would say the event did not take place, or that they could only agree with the event through "faith alone." Can it be proven that the event happened? No, but the court can say, beyond reasonable doubt, that the event happened.

The Apostles are like the witnesses in the above metaphor. They are direct witnesses to the events they described and, as you admit, they believed it. Theirs is a different situation than the Crusaders, for example, who died for their religious beliefs and had been taught about this mystical figure of antiquity their whole lives. The Crusaders dying for their beliefs proves nothing accept their devotion.

Unless that event happened to be someone rising from the dead. If twelve witnesses claimed that they saw Mr. John Doe resurrected from the dead, do you think that the court would except that without any further explanation?

The court would not accept without further explanation. Therefore, I ask you a question: what would convince you personally, beyond reasonable doubt, that a person had risen from the dead?

Besides that, I would like to point out that my original challenge, "What convinced the Apostles?" has not been satisfactorily answered.

On a separate note, I would like to establish the uniqueness of the Bible: The Bible has been repeatedly confirmed by history and archeology and contains records of miracles and predictive prophecy.

Now for the uniqueness of Jesus: Jesus taught for a mere three years, then was shamefully executed by Roman and Jewish authorities in Jerusalem. Honestly, his life amounts to nothing more than little mistake which should have dissappeared into obscure antiquity. However, the number of Christians in the world continues to grow, even as I type.

Now, would someone please attempt to disprove my assertions?

Some form of scientific evidence would help as opposed to conjecture. In order to prove that Christ was resurrected from the dead, one has to believe in the existence of God. You believe this on faith, and therefore it's fathomable to you that Christ could have been resurrected. I don't believe in God, and therefore I can deduce that there is some other explanation for the story. You could be right or I could be right. The point is that we can't prove or disprove each other.



I already stated what my thoughts on this subject are, and it was satisfactory to me. If anyone else has additional thoughts, they are certainly welcome to add them.



Yes, I agree. The Bible does contain large amounts of truth. It is a valuable historical document, but I believe that about all historical religious texts. They give us a glimpse of life during the time that they were written. There are certainly truths within each one, specifically related to humans. It's not unique to the Bible.



Your assertions can neither be proven or disproven. That's my entire point. People spend vast amounts of time trying to prove that their religious beliefs are the only true path, and rather than getting anywhere constructive, they end up alienating a large amount of the population. How many wars have been fought in the name of religion? In my opinion, each religion has something valuable to offer, and the world has the potential to be enriched by all of them, but this can only happen if people will accept, without the intent to convert, that there are others in the world who don't believe as they do.

I have not given "conjecture." I have given a logical conclusion from the evidence I provided. By "scientific evidence," I assume you mean a demonstration of some natural phenomenon which could raise a human from the dead; this is missing the point. If it could be demonstrated that, through purely natural means (rather than supernatural) a person could raise from the dead, then the significance of Jesus' Ressurrection would be eliminated. I have provided some of the historical evidence for the Ressurrection, not scientific because a miracle is outside the realm of known scientific causes. Rejecting the supernatural in itself is mere conjecture.

Furthermore, your assertion that the Ressurrection can niether be proven nor disproven comes with the assumption that the difference is insignificant. It is extremely significant; if the Ressurrection did not happen, then all Christians in the history of the world have been wrong. If the Ressurrection did happen, then all religions other than Christianity are false. Only someone completely uninterested in truth would write the story off one way or another without full investigation.



Forgive me, but could you please restate your thoughts? I do not recall reading an alternate theory.



The Bible is a demonstrably unique work. Name some of the other texts of which you speak and I will attempt to explain the differences and the significance thereof.

Shild, I am a very strong believer in shades of gray. That doesn't mean that I'm uninterested in truth, but it does mean that I'm skeptical about anything that is presented as absolute truth without absolute proof to back it up. You have provided examples from a book which you have accepted as absolute truth, but I am not convinced. For all I know, the entire resurrection story could have been fabricated by the disciples, because they believed that the teachings of Christ were valuable, and proving his predictions would assist in propagating these teachings. It was a chaotic time in history, and perhaps they realized that the only way to implement change was through Christian propaganda. I really don’t know.

Yes, cyan, there is a possibility that the Apostles fabricated the story. However, it is illogical to assume this when examining history. There are a few basic truths about the Resurrection scene which it is important to establish:
1) The empty tomb. If the Jewish or Roman authorities had Jesus' body, they could easily debunk the Resurrection. If the people of Jerusalem had simply walked over to the tomb and looked inside to find a body, they would know that Christianity was a fraud. This, however, did not happen.
2) The witnesses. I believe I gave the false impression that the Apostles were the only witnesses to the events described in the Gospells. The Apostles claim, not only to have seen Jesus after the Resurrection, but that some 500 people witnessed Him. Remember, the number of Christians grew in Jerusalem and Israel after Jesus' death. Such a fantastic claim as five hundred witnesses living in one city would not be believed if it were not already true. Later on, in 56 AD, Paul wrote that many of the five hundred were still alive in his time. Once again, a claim to fantastic to allow Christianity to grow, if it were not true.

Now, as for the accuracy of the New Testament. Evidence for the historicity of Jesus exists in the writings of Tacitus, Seutonius, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Lucian, and Mara Bar-Serapion. Further evidence is found in the Talmud, the Gospel of Truth, and references to the presently non-existent Acts of Pontius Pilate. I will provide quotes if anyone wants. Archeology further continues to attest to the records of the New Testament writers. In terms of historical accuracy, detail, and completeness, the Bible is unprecedented among ancient texts (the previous post relating the number of extant copies of New Testament writings is enough by itself to establish that). In all this accuracy, the probability of the authors writing falsehoods is drastically decreased.

It should be added to my previous post that the idea of the Apostle's fabricating the story of the Ressurrection makes no sense, as they were all martyrs. I explained this more fully in past posts.

I know I am a little late adding in on this topic, but there isn't a religion that is completely right, and there never will be. The reason I say this is whether you are reading the Bible, Koran, or any other religious book, they are open to interpretation. Human interpretation that is. Humans make mistakes. So no matter who wrote the spiritual books, humans read them, and differnt interpretations are brought forth with error no doubt. I say this because I am a Christian, but I disagree with other Christians over the argument of whether Jesus is God or not. It never says so in the Bible, so why should we interpret it that way. The truth about religion lies in your faith. Who is right or wrong, no one knows that.

Confusion reigns here! I was taught that there were 12 original apostles. They were Simon Peter, Andrew James the brother of John, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas Mathew, James the younger, or the less, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariat, and Mathias.
More were to come, but these were the original 12 that attended the Last Supper.
I believe the one thing that is most important when discussing religion is faith. We must have faith to believe in the things we are taught. My religion has taught me that mine is the true religion because it is Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. These facts are hard to ague against. However, I was also taught that if a person belongs to another religion and truly believes in it he/she belongs to "the mystical body" of the church, and therefore we are all one. I am able to live quite comfortably with this.
As for the Sabbath, day of rest discussion,Third Commandment:
Take care to keep holy the sabbath day (Deuteronomy 5:12).
The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. That is why the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath (Mark 2:27-28).
The word sabbath comes from the Hebrew word for rest. They rested on Saturday, the last day of the week. From early times the Church has celebrated the Eucharist every Sunday, the Lord’s Day. Christianity moved the sabbath observance to Sunday because this was the day Jesus rose from the dead.
As a true believer of the risen Christ it is obvious that I believe he did, in fact, arise from the dead. There were enough witnesses that saw his empty tomb and also his appearance to Thomas and others.
One wonderful thing about religion is that we all can choose our own. That is all except for those of us who live in certain countries. The middle eastern country of Saudi Arabia, for instance, allows NO worship of any kind except Islam even though they are free to have Mosques everywhere in the world. Somehow have a problem with that.

1. The Sabbath Commandment is the fourth commandment.

2. There is no evidence in the Bible of the Sabbath day changing to Sunday. Early Christian (and Jesus) went to worship on satuday as specified by the fourth commandment. If there is no biblical precident I can't see how this change can be justified. Yes the Sabbath was made for man, but that doesn't mean man can change it.

You are correct, harrymasters, about the number of Apostles. I, in that post, was quoting a number that included Paul, who is often considered an Apostle because he saw Jesus in a vision. He was not a witness, as in my illustrations. His testimony can still be taken as strong evidence, though, because he wrote during the lifetimes of witnesses.

As for faith: I believe faith is objective, not subjective, based on several verses, including John 14:6, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'"



John 10:25-33 is clear on that: "Jesus said,... 'I and My Father are one.' Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, 'Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?' The Jews answered Him, saying, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.'"

there is no religion that is absolutely right or wrong. different people have different faiths. believing in one religion and what it says is a matter of choice. I belive in my religion, but I will never say that anyone else's religion is wrong.

Basic rule of logic. If you have two contradictory statements at least one of them is wrong... Everyone is equally right , bah PC, uselesss...