I might have never read an original of anything in there, but what do you want in terms of scientifically verifiable evidence? Want evidence for Eden events or nephilim or the flood or Sodom or the Exodus crossing or David or Yahushua or? Even if you've convinced yourself there's not evidence for something, can you honestly claim there's no evidence for something without having seen everything there is to see?
Nobody can learn all the information in the world. However, you do not need to count all the stars in the sky to know there are lots of them.
However, if evidence was presented to me of something, that conflicts my earlier conception of it, I would be willing to change my mind if the evidence was convincing enough.
I might not really need evidence for anything, but who should believe something simply out of a desire to do so even if it can seem cool for someone to say they have faith without a need for evidence? And consider a version of 1 Peter 3:15?
Faith, by definition, does not require evidence. Knowledge on the other hand does. If you want to believe something to be true without being able to prove it so, you are doing do out of faith, not out of knowledge.
Religion is based on faith. If one day it would be proven that god exists, faith - and therefore religion - would become meaningless.
If you cannot accept things to be true without evidence, if you cannot have blind faith in something, then religion is not for you.
Is there anyone who lived over a thousand years ago who has an existance that can be verified in your opinion and if there's no solid evidence for a two thousand plus year old event, then what are we to believe?
Yes, there are historical figures who have almost certainly lived. However, the further back in time you go, the less is known of the events, simply because information of those times has not been preserved very well. If we take ancient romans for example, or egyptians, we know quite accurately how large their empires were at what year, we know approximately the years of birth and death of political leaders, and when they ruled, and what they did. We do not know the names of every egyptian slave from the year 1528 BCE, nor do we know what Julius Caesar had for breakfast 3 weeks before his 15th birthday.
What are we to believe you ask? That's up to each individual to decide for himself. There's no shortcut to these things. You need to think for yourself and make your own conclusions, and not accept something to be true just because lots of people think so.
Lots of organized religions and churches
don't want you to think for yourself. They want you to accept what they spoon-feed you - and it works for lots of people, because thinking about these things on their own is quite a chore, and lots of people feel more comfortable when they have a ready-made package of beliefs they can just accept because they know lots of other people believe the same way, and hey, if they're wrong, at least they're not wrong alone. Result:
Fast food religion.
What would it take for you to believe that He walked on earth and healed people and rose from the dead?
Evidence. I don't think it can ever be proven though, unless a time machine or similar is invented.
For the record, I myself believe that a person known as Jesus has once lived, but I don't believe he was "the son of god", not in the biblical sense anyway. (
IF there is a god, who has created everything, then aren't we all sons and daughters of this god, and if so, why would Jesus be any more special than the rest of us?)
How cool would it be to time travel back in a dream state and interact with stuff without changing anything permanently?
I must admit it would be pretty cool.
I asked one or more question concerning Greek self-perceived intellectual superiority that was meant to hint at the unlikelihood of some evangelistic first century Jews convincing first century Greeks to drop polytheistic religion in order to worship a Jew instead without something miraculous being involved maybe, but it might be that I'm not sure what I meant now or what a Greek has perceived and it might be that this is a run-on sentence that stuff is said wrong in. I don't know how many folks were convinced by travelling Jews to become Christians in the first century or even if the first century existed in reality maybe, but what does evidence suggest if it's claimed that Nero blamed the fire on followers of Him?
How do you know the christians
didn't set those fires? If I recall correctly, it has been theorized that this may be the case. However there's no real evidence either way.
A very fine last section by you that I really appreciate? We might have a number of things in common. What do we really know when it comes down to it?
Well, if we want to tread in the realm of philosophy... then we don't know anything. However I'd say we can reasonably assume some things, that have been observed by ourselves or other people that we can reasonably assume to be telling the truth. However, common sense must be applied, and if there is something we can't know the answer for, it is up to us to decide what we believe the answer to be, but also we must remember that such a belief is not certain and can prove to be false in the long run. We must also remember that a belief is only that and not present it as fact to other people.
