Q about arguments for God's existence.

[ThomM]

"Signs of God" are not that astonishing to a discerning mind. Mental hospitals are filled with them. So is every single religious text and the multitudes of followers they have inspired throughout history. The early Christians were already believers in supernatural deities, whether they were Palestinian or Roman. All it took was a new formula that spoke to the people's needs, and after the siege of Jerusalem, Christianity was in a good position to fill that role for the common folk.

By truncating the phrase, you've changed its meaning noticeably. The full phrase is “astonishing signs of God returning to Israel as He had promised”. These were not random occurrences done for effect, but occur within a specific context. The point is not 'Jesus can do great things', but 'The Kingdom of God looks like this, and its time is now'. The acts are not really there to create faith, but to signpost the fulfilment of God's promise.





Contrast for example the C2 infancy gospel of Thomas, where Jesus makes clay birds fly. A random 'miracle'.

This is all part of a coherent and indivisible message, accepted and lived to death by all the 'Twelve' (the NT pulls no punches where divisions are concerned; none of them breaks ranks post resurrection). The early church was Jewish primarily, and any C1 Jew would have taken some persuading that C1 Judaism was heading in the wrong direction in terms of what their ultimate goal meant- the Kingdom of God.

Now there are common features with other religious movements, but rather than hand wave with 'They're all the same', I would argue strongly it's worth looking at individual arguments because one may be real. Think Russian Roulette.

On the final point. After the fall of Jerusalem, rabbinic Judaism took over, with Christianity gaining no extra traction in Israel because of the war. The Pharisees morphed into what we know today as rabbis.

And yet - if the ASTONISHING signs of a god returning to Israel - were so astonishing - then WHY are there no referenced to them BY any contemporary to time. The NT did not exist until long after the supposed time of the mythical christ. Yet he is supposed to be well known to leaders of the government - and preached and met with multitudes - and yet not a single piece of evidence that can be dated to that time even mentions his name - when we actually have that for OTHER messiahs. And there are clear and obvious errors to Physical situations in the NT - that simply cannot be true - or could not be true at the time it supposedly was wriiten.

Sorry - the christ is no more real than Isis or Osiris - or Hercules
If you could prove otherwise - you would -

The bible is not a first hand account of anything - because you cannot even prove who wrote most of it. So - what you are doing is simply what ALL other religious mythologies do - request special exemption.

SORRY - the MYTHICAL christ - based on YOUR evidence - a MYTH and nothing more
Without using the bible - prove me wrong.
You cannot