Thanks for an interesting conversation.

> Interestingly, he also skipped over 4-9, which tells us that the Lord is one and just how important his instructions are.

Exactly. Jesus even quoted Dt. 6.4 in Mk. 12.29. he was obviously familiar with it, but perceived no contradiction in God being a singularity and a plurality at the same time. John 1.1 would express the same comfort with the concept. The Son was the heir of all things (Ps. 2.8) and co-creator (Prov. 8.22ff.).

> Deut. 28.

Yes, the Jewish people have suffered tremendously and have endured far more than their "fair share" of persecution. But my point still stands: They still exist as a nation and as a people.

> "C.S. Lewis" — You will have to summarize it for me...

Basically he is saying all religions fall into two general categories: those based in emotions (mysteries, ecstasies, orgies, spells, mindless meditation, etc.) and those based in the intellect (philosophical, ethical, theological). Then he continues that a true religion would actually be holistic, encompassing all of what a human is: emotional and intellectual. That a true religion speaks to a child in their own way, and to adult equally capably and fulfillingly. That a true religion engages the person and the culture, the individual and society, the intellectual and the commoner. He says Christianity fulfills the mark, engaging the mind and body, the intellect and the emotions, asking us all to think AND feel, to consider theology and mystery. Hope that helps.

> Only once, and the Jewish understanding is that God is speaking to the angels.

Gn. 1.26; 3.22; 11.7, to name a few.

> "Ps. 110.1" — So David, or whoever wrote this, believed in the Trinity?

No, I don't think so. I think David was speaking of himself as king, but at the same time acknowledging that the king of Israel sat on the throne of G-d, and was his visible representative. G-d, however, commands this person on the throne to take the highest place of honor at his right hand (cf. 1 Ki. 2.19). Jesus interprets the passage as being Davidic, but also prophetico-Messianic—that a king besides just David was in mind, and actually foresaw the messiah as the one who would sit on the throne of David forever (1 Sam. 7.11b-14a).

> Isaiah 9

I'm familiar with the various interpretations of Isa. 9. My point is that El Gibbor is used of Adonai in Isa. 10.21, equating the Son in Isa. 9.6 with G-d in Isa. 10.21. It's a legitimate interpretation.

> "Ps. 2.7" — God calls David his son in [2 Samuel 7:14]

Yes he does. Psalm 2 is considered messianic by MANY rabbis, including Rashi, Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, David Kimchi, and Maimonides. Not a list of slackers, for sure. Psalm 2 is the enthronement of the son as king of the universe.

> Dan. 7.13

The son of man is a different person than the ancient of days. While the Ancient of Days and the son of man are not interpreted for us, The Ancient of Days is generally accepted as G-d. The interpretations of the "son of man" are wide and varied. Rashi and Ibn Ezra interpreted him as the messiah, and v. 14 would seem to endorse that identification.

The point behind all of this is that you said "Nowhere in the OT is the Trinity even hinted at", and I'm giving evidence that it's hinted at.

> Also note that none of these actually say anything about the Trinity, aka 3 in one.

You're right, they don't.

> Why is "without flaw" a requirement?

The Law required the full, continual, and actual *doing* of all its demands, not one being excepted. It makes no exceptions for any clause or any person. Its requirements are never ending ("...who does not continue..."). It requires complete obedience ("all things"). It requires actual fulfillment ("to do them"). And failure brings a curse. My point is: who has successfully done this?

> And don't quote "the wages of sin are death." Something from the OT please.

2 Kings 21.8.

> The Torah knows that people will transgress, and it sets up a system of repentance for when it happens.

Exactly, but the system was only a temporary fix, and had to be repeated year after year. It didn't really solve the problem, but only provided for temporary atonement.

> what was the resurrection in 2 Kings 4 about?

I would say that G-d is not primarily in the business of healing, though on rare occasions he does so. G-d is in the business of raising the dead, and of giving life where there is none. This is one example of it, and also what the message of Jesus is all about.

> Isa. 53

I know there are many interpretations of Isa. 53 as well. Before Rashi, most rabbinic interpretations applied Isaiah 53 to the messiah. We could discuss and debate forever on this one, but we both know that the messianic interpretation is a legitimate one.

> And what is the similarity between all of these [covenants]?

This similarities between the covenants is G-d's program of revelation. G-d has a plan in history that he is sovereignly executing. The goal of that plan is for him to be in relationship with the people whom he has created. It would be difficult for people to enter into a relationship with a G-d whom they do not know. If his nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. In order to clear the way for this relationship, then, G-d has undertaken as a primary objective a program of self-revelation. He wants people to know him. The mechanism that drives this program is the covenant, and the instrument is Israel. The purpose of the covenant is to reveal G-d.

> David is promised kingship, there is no covenant.

The narrative of 2 Sam. 7.5-16 doesn't use the term covenant, but it contains the elements of a 2nd millennial BC international treaty/covenant. Later references (2 Chr. 21.7) indicate that it was indeed a covenant. It didn't replace the Mosaic covenant, but is a special arrangement under the Mosaic covenant to establish the Davidic dynasty, an important element in the eventual installation of the Davidic king who will reign forever.

> How can a contract with no expiration be completed? Or changed?

Obviously the covenant keeps getting added to as it progresses through history, as we have noted with Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Jer. 31.31-33 makes this lucidly clear.

> He was quoting and affirming Deut. 6.13-14, prohibiting the worship of any God but Hashem Elokim.

Interestingly, he also skipped over 4-9, which tells us that the Lord is one and just how important his instructions are.

> I don't know what text in Deut. you're referring to here.

See Deuteronomy 28. I know that there is another more explicit one but I can't find it right now.

> His figures , in reality, have a modicum of credibility, but don't begin to tell the whole story.

I can't argue this anymore, since I haven't studied Christian early history in depth.

> Now this is just ludicrous.

I'm speaking of the general population, not its great minds. What percentage of the Christian population outside the clergy know their texts in the original language? Has read through all of scripture every year? Studies commentaries from the past 2000 years on their texts instead of reading it by itself? I'm pretty sure it's a miniscule amount, far below Judaism and Islam. Christianity emphasizes faith in Jesus, Islam emphasizes submission to God, and Judaism emphasizes the covenant with God (it shows in all the names). This is not an insult, just a description.

> C.S. Lewis

You will have to summarize it for me, since I don't think I understand his viewpoint enough to get this text.

> Plural pronoun "us" used several times in Genesis, as well as Isa. 6.8
Elohim is plural used with a singular verb.
Ps. 110.1
Isa. 9.6
Ps. 2.7
Dan. 7.13-14
Only once, and the Jewish understanding is that God is speaking to the angels.

1. So? It's to distinguish it from El, to show that god is not like pagan gods, to be confined to a singular place.
2. So David, or whoever wrote this, believed in the Trinity?
3. Good Jewish response on Isaiah 9
4. God calls David his son in [2 Samuel 7:14]
5. ...I see nothing here about multiple parts of God.

Also note that none of these actually say anything about the Trinity, aka 3 in one.

> Adherents became so afraid of transgression that they piled on more requirements to avoid getting close to infraction that they created a system of impossible conformity.

Not true, I don't see Orthodox Jewry today as a system of impossible conformity. It seems to work pretty well.

> It turns out to have been impossible. No one was able to keep the whole law all the time without flaw.

Why is "without flaw" a requirement? And don't quote "the wages of sin are death." Something from the OT please. And if God knew it would be an impossibility, why was it assigned?

Counterarguments to without flaw as a requirement and keeping it becomes an impossibility.

1. The Torah knows that people will transgress, and it sets up a system of repentance for when it happens.
2. Rabbinic ordinances are never punished on the same levels as commandments from the Torah, if they are punished at all.
resurrection

Since resurrections are so important, what was the resurrection in 2 Kings 4 about? Was there a sacrifice for something? I think you already know my rejoinder for Isaiah 7:14, and my refutation of Isaiah 53 as messianic can be found in this thread.

> The covenant expressed to Noah built on the one given to Adam, to Abraham built on the one given to Noah, to Moses built on that one,

And what is the similarity between all of these? Commandments are added, not taken away. David is promised kingship, there is no covenant. And I don't see anyone accept anything with Jesus, which is what a covenant (contract) requires.

> It's the nature of the covenant to be be filled up until all is complete.

What does this mean? What is filled up? Where is this nature described? What is "all" of a covenant? How can a contract with no expiration be completed? Or changed?

Thanks for your reply. You give various examples, but they are all from different arenas and forums. Christianity has all of them (and more), which I think add up to where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Of course there are other people groups that have survived intact through history, but the examples you gave also were never deprived of a homeland, especially for 2600 years while maintaining their group identity. Also, remember that when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 BC, those people are lost to history, so we know a people group like the Jews can get lost in the world. But the smaller group, Judah, conquered by Babylon in 586 BC—that they still exist is nothing short of remarkable, and that's an understatement. The Egyptians, Native Americans—sure, but they always had their land. Disperse them to the winds and it's a different historical picture: Gone!

> Even Jewish people who don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah have changed the way they practiced their Judaism.

The micro-changes of Judaism through the eras is vastly different than the radical change brought about in a few short years in the hotbed of Judaistic ritualism and conformity: Jerusalem. I'm quite convinced that we're talking bout a qualitative distinction that makes the two unequatable.

> Christianity suffers from selection bias.

Hm. This sounds like a biased statement to me. The fact is that people who turn to Christianity find their lives radically changed in ways they did not anticipate, which is not a function of selection bias.

> If you take the gospel account of Jesus's death and resurrection at face value, you're not being skeptical.

There are hypothetical reasons for why the resurrection might not have happened, and that's what we must deal with. We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do). We have some alleged eye-witness testimony that we have to evaluate, and some material evidence.

First, what do we have to know?

1. Was he alive at point "A"? Virtually every scholar believes that Jesus was a live human early in the 1st century.
2. Was he dead at point "B"? For Jesus' death we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible corroborating the historicity of his death. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the best-attested historical events of the ancient world. The weight of the historical and medical evidence is that Jesus was dead even before the wound to his side was delivered. Jesus’ death is practically indisputable.
3. Was he alive again at point "C"? There are several strands of evidence:

- His tomb was empty. The site of his tomb was known to friends and enemies. If the tomb wasn't empty, it would have been an impossible story to maintain in the city where the death and burial occurred.
- Women were the first to witness and report the resurrection. This is the last thing a fiction writer would want to claim in their culture. It would just ruin the credibility of their story.
- Enemy attestation. The opponents of Jesus and his followers admitted the body was gone.
- The disciples were absolutely and passionately committed to the conviction that Jesus had risen, and were willing to suffer for their story

But now we're left to try to explain it. Were they wrong? Lying? Delusional? Fooled? Influenced? Distorted? Or accurate?

Maybe they were wrong, and Jesus never died. Jesus had been beaten and scourged, too weak to carry his own cross. Then crucified. The soldiers didn't bother to break his legs, but they spear his side, bringing blood and water. he had circulatory shock, where the result is either pericardial effusion or pleural effusion—a sure sign of death. Joseph and Nicodemus wrap the body, working with it to prepare it for burial. With all this time they would have seen the mortis triad: algor mortis, rigor mortis, and lividity mortis. Is it reasonable to assume Jesus is not dead? No.

Maybe they were lying, and it was a vast conspiracy. A successful conspiracy needs factors of a low # of co-conspirators, only a short time to hold the conspiracy together, excellent communication between conspirators, strong relationships, and little or no pressure to confess. But in this case there were 11+, holding the conspiracy for 60 years, with little communication between them, unrelated to each other, with huge pressure to confess. A conspiracy is not reasonable.

Maybe they were delusional, and were subject to hallucinations or mass hysteria, as you suggest. Well maybe Mary Magdalene and Peter really really wanted a resurrection to happen, but what of James, Jesus' brother? What about Saul/Paul—did he want to see Jesus? Were the two on the road to Emmaus expecting to? The 10 disciples? The 500? It's not reasonable to assume mass hysteria or group hallucinations.

Maybe they were fooled, a look-alike walking around pretending it was Jesus, pulling off a grand fraud.If you're playing a character, you need to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con, and fool the people who know him best. And you still have to be able to do miracles, like ascend into heaven. Would that play well in Jerusalem? Not reasonably so.

Maybe they were swayed. Mary and Peter got caught up in their hallucinations, and influenced the others. Are you kidding? Was Mary that influential in the group? Not likely. And Peter was NEVER alone in his sightings. Paul? Paul influences the 12? They didn't even TRUST Paul.

Maybe they were distorted. Maybe it's a legend that grew over time, or making it all up. That doesn't make sense given that it's historically verifiable that these stories were widely circulating within just a few years, and we have a chain of custody about the story.

Well, maybe it's just accurate, and the truth. Granted, this theory has a HUGE liability. IT requires that supernatural things are reasonable. So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.

The resurrection hypothesis is significantly stronger than competing hypotheses. Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation. The story of Jesus' bodily resurrection was circulating very quickly after the alleged event, and it can be virtually confirmed that it was a consistent narrative within a very short period of time.

> Even if I grant that the Bible is "sensible," I don't see why that is a reason to believe that it was divinely inspired. Many books and collections of books are filled with wisdom and life guidance, etc.

True that many books are filled with wisdom and life guidance. The Bible is unique of historical religious and wisdom books (well, all books for that matter). 66 separate writings, over 40 separate authors, spanning at least 1600 years, writing from 3 continents, three languages, authors from all walks of life. The entire OT contains over 2600 claims to inspiration—that the writers did not originate their messages, but were given them by God. It is the only book of ancient history whose narrative reveals a purpose in history. It is the only religious book containing detailed prophecies of events to come. It is a book, by the testimony of millions, that has the power to convict people of sin and lead them to a life they would describe as "freedom." It reveals God in a way that makes sense and conforms to reality as we experience it.

Now, Muslims also assert that the Qur'an came from God. The distinctions are remarkable, though. Muhammad himself first believed that message he got from an angel choking him was a demon. Muslim biographer M.H. Haykal wrote vividly of Muhammad’s plaguing fear that he was demon-possessed. And although Muhammad recognized that prophets before him were confirmed by miracles of nature, he himself refused to perform any miracles to confirm his claims to be a prophet (Sura 3.181-84). Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has no specific, multiple, and long-term predictions that came to pass without fail. The best supposed example of a predictive prophecy is about the Romans avenging a defeat (Sure 30.2-4), but this is vague, indefinite, and humanly predictable.

The Bible, in contrast, was confirmed by signs and wonders. Ex. 4.5; Num. 16; 1 Ki. 18; Jn. 3.2; Lk.7.22; Acts 2.22; Heb. 2.4; 2 Cor. 12.12. No other book in the world has authors who were confirmed in this miraculous manner.

One of the most important evidences of the Bible's supernatural nature is its ability to make clear, repeated predictions about the distant future. The OT has nearly 200 predictions about the coming of Christ that were made hundreds of years in advance.

> The persisting existence of the Jewish people as a people and as a nation.

I could say the same thing about the Koreans, whom the Japanese tried to exterminate, and the Native Americans, whom Europeans tried to exterminate. The Persians also still exist.

> The radical change of Jewish stalwarts of the 1st c.

Even Jewish people who don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah have changed the way they practiced their Judaism.

> The way the lives of people who become Christians are changed is radically different from converts to other religions. Other religious recruits don new duds and take on some new habits to conform to their new faith, but people who turn to Christ speak of "loads of life being lifted," of entirely new demeanors and personalities overcoming them, of miraculous changes in life (give up alcohol, are done with drugs, etc.), of radical life-change in attitude and behavior. Other religious converts speak of changes, but the testimonies of Christians seem in a whole different league to me.

Google "Allah changed my life." With regards to addiction, there are stories about that, but remember that Christianity suffers from selection bias. Most Muslim countries don't even allow alcohol, and have incredibly severe penalties for drugs, so they are working with a smaller pool to begin with, and the stigma of coming out as an addict makes success stories harder to come by.

> What I see happen in my own life. My faith causes thoughts and behaviors that I would clearly say are not mine.

Care to give an example?

> The historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Several years ago I went through a severe life crisis and was very close to walking away from Christianity. But I just couldn't get around the resurrection. The evidence is convincing: empty tomb (couldn't have been graverobbed or mistaken), lives changed on claims of having seen Jesus (couldn't have been hallucinations), church born in a very unlikely place (Jewish Palestine), and others.

If you take the gospel account of Jesus's death and resurrection at face value, you're not being skeptical.

Regarding accounts of "lives changed," we have only one, Paul's, and it reads exactly like a hallucination. Remember that hallucinations or religious "experiences" are often brought on by fasting, which Jews did regularly.

It's possible that the other people who claimed to see Jesus simply convinced themselves that they saw him because they wanted it to be true. People have claimed to see the Emperor of Ethiopia (central figure of Rastafar) after he died. Some Hasidic Jews think that Rabbi Schneerson is the Messiah, and they claimed that he was still alive just 3 short days after his apparent death. 7% of Americans are convinced Elvis is still alive.

> The sensibleness of the Bible. It's a literary treasure of God revealing himself, amply filled with wisdom, life guidance, harmony of theme and thought, speaking to real life, and addressing the human condition with honesty and hope. I believe it's inspired by God. My deep study of it turns up gem after gem.

Even if I grant that the Bible is "sensible," I don't see why that is a reason to believe that it was divinely inspired. Many books and collections of books are filled with wisdom and life guidance, etc.

> Admittedly, it's amazing that the Jewish people are still around as a culture...

And really, that's my only point. It's downright remarkable, certainly unique (since they were deprived of a homeland, as distinct from the Egyptians or the Indians). And it's only evidence, not proof. It's remarkable to point where some would even use the word miraculous, but that's just delving into subjective terminology and perspective.

> Could the same be said for Christians who converted to Mormonism?

Possibly. Mormonism has certainly grown as an offshoot of Christianity, as Christianity grew off of Judaism. Though taking all the facts together, I don't think the two equate. For instance, there is absolutely NO archaeological or historical evidence for ANYTHING the Mormons claim happened here in America. Nada.

> The resurrection of Jesus

There are hypothetical reasons for why the resurrection might not have happened, and that's what we must deal with. We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do). We have some alleged eye-witness testimony that we have to evaluate, and some material evidence.

First, what do we have to know?

1. Was he alive at point "A"? Virtually every scholar believes that Jesus was a live human early in the 1st century.
2. Was he dead at point "B"? For Jesus' death we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible corroborating the historicity of his death. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the best-attested historical events of the ancient world. The weight of the historical and medical evidence is that Jesus was dead even before the wound to his side was delivered. Jesus’ death is practically indisputable.
3. Was he alive again at point "C"? There are several strands of evidence:

- His tomb was empty. The site of his tomb was known to friends and enemies. If the tomb wasn't empty, it would have been an impossible story to maintain in the city where the death and burial occurred.
- Women were the first to witness and report the resurrection. This is the last thing a fiction writer would want to claim in their culture. It would just ruin the credibility of their story.
- Enemy attestation. The opponents of Jesus and his followers admitted the body was gone.
- The disciples were absolutely and passionately committed to the conviction that Jesus had risen, and were willing to suffer for their story

But now we're left to try to explain it. Were they wrong? Lying? Delusional? Fooled? Influenced? Distorted? Or accurate?

Maybe they were wrong, and Jesus never died. Jesus had been beaten and scourged, too weak to carry his own cross. Then crucified. The soldiers didn't bother to break his legs, but they spear his side, bringing blood and water. he had circulatory shock, where the result is either pericardial effusion or pleural effusion—a sure sign of death. Joseph and Nicodemus wrap the body, working with it to prepare it for burial. With all this time they would have seen the mortis triad: algor mortis, rigor mortis, and lividity mortis. Is it reasonable to assume Jesus is not dead? No.

Maybe they were lying, and it was a vast conspiracy. A successful conspiracy needs factors of a low # of co-conspirators, only a short time to hold the conspiracy together, excellent communication between conspirators, strong relationships, and little or no pressure to confess. But in this case there were 11+, holding the conspiracy for 60 years, with little communication between them, unrelated to each other, with huge pressure to confess. A conspiracy is not reasonable.

Maybe they were delusional, and were subject to hallucinations or mass hysteria, as you suggest. Well maybe Mary Magdalene and Peter really really wanted a resurrection to happen, but what of James, Jesus' brother? What about Saul/Paul—did he want to see Jesus? Were the two on the road to Emmaus expecting to? The 10 disciples? The 500? It's not reasonable to assume mass hysteria or group hallucinations.

Maybe they were fooled, a look-alike walking around pretending it was Jesus, pulling off a grand fraud.If you're playing a character, you need to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con, and fool the people who know him best. And you still have to be able to do miracles, like ascend into heaven. Would that play well in Jerusalem? Not reasonably so.

Maybe they were swayed. Mary and Peter got caught up in their hallucinations, and influenced the others. Are you kidding? Was Mary that influential in the group? Not likely. And Peter was NEVER alone in his sightings. Paul? Paul influences the 12? They didn't even TRUST Paul.

Maybe they were distorted. Maybe it's a legend that grew over time, or making it all up. That doesn't make sense given that it's historically verifiable that these stories were widely circulating within just a few years, and we have a chain of custody about the story.

Well, maybe it's just accurate, and the truth. Granted, this theory has a HUGE liability. IT requires that supernatural things are reasonable. So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.

The resurrection hypothesis is significantly stronger than competing hypotheses. Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation. The story of Jesus' bodily resurrection was circulating very quickly after the alleged event, and it can be virtually confirmed that it was a consistent narrative within a very short period of time.

> Six-day creation

I subscribe to a perspective that has come to the surface in recent years that Gn. 1 is about function, not structure. (http://www.christianbook.com/world-genesis-ancient-cosmology-origins-debate/john-walton/9780830837045/pd/837045?product_redirect=1&Ntt=837045&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP). It's a fascinating interpretation that makes a world of sense. What it says is that Gn. 1 is about God giving creation its role and functionality, not about its material construction. Though the Bible is clear that God made the world, it doesn't tell us how or the duration of its material creation, only that God is the one who ordered it and assigned roles. Very provocative and sensible.

> World-wide flood

I don't believe in a world-wide flood. The Genesis account could easily be speaking of a humonstrous continental-sized deluge that destroyed the population God was judging.

> Geo-centric world view

Its old-world science that the Bible accommodates but doesn't authorize. Even we have a geo-centric view. We look at our universe from here. But the Bible doesn't teach that the world is the center of the universe. Their science believed the world WAS the universe, but the Bible doesn't authorize that perspective.

> Misogyny

Not true. God created the man and woman as equals in every way (Gn. 1.26ff.). While they later were in a patriarchal culture, the Bible gives women tremendous respect and unheard-of rights and protections. You're just wrong about this one.

> Owning people is endorsed.

It's allowed, but the Bible doesn't promote slavery. In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a "perfect" society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed. In the NT, Paul and Peter didn’t call for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn’t want the Christian faith to be perceived as opposed to social order and harmony. Hence, Christian slaves were told to do what was right, even if they were mistreated (1 Pet. 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9). Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.

> Genocide

The Bible teaches no such thing. What seems to be complete obliteration is a misunderstanding. Archaeologist have uncovered many such warfare tirades, and they are just typical warfare bravado of the day. They don't mean to wipe out the population, and that's not what was done. In the case of 1 Sam. 15, for example, the "command" was to wipe out the Amalekites, but the Amalekites remain (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). There is no intention of killing them all, no understanding that that was the command, and certainly no follow through on that account. The moral of the story is not to stop at a surface reading of these terms and assume God’s immorality.

> Infanticide commanded?

Now you're really reaching. Nowhere is infanticide commanded.

There is no such list unless you only want to read the Bible superficially and not with intelligent meaning.

> The persisting existence of the Jewish people as a people and as a nation.

Does the persisting existence of Indians as a people and a nation argue that Hinduism is correct? Admittedly, it's amazing that the Jewish people are still around as a culture, but I don't think God is necessary to explain that, nor is there any evidence that there has been any supernatural involvement.

> The radical change of Jewish stalwarts of the 1st c. to a dedicated group of Christians who no longer follow the law, do sacrifices, or recognize the temple.

Could the same be said for Christians who converted to Mormonism? Is the simple fact that there are, and were Christians turning to Mormonism evidence that Joseph Smith actually possessed the gold tablets, and was in direct revelation with God? If not, why is it different for First Century Christianity?

> The way the lives of people who become Christians are changed is radically different from converts to other religions.

I don't know that that's true. I've certainly heard testimonies that are of the same caliber from different religions—maybe this is just in your opinion and experience, but mine is different I suppose.

In any case, the devotion, and subjective experience of a follower of a religion cannot be used as evidence for the truth claims of that religion.

> The historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Several years ago I went through a severe life crisis and was very close to walking away from Christianity. But I just couldn't get around the resurrection. The evidence is convincing: empty tomb (couldn't have been graverobbed or mistaken), lives changed on claims of having seen Jesus (couldn't have been hallucinations), church born in a very unlikely place (Jewish Palestine), and others.

I disagree with this. I think that, only if you're willing to grant 100% historical reliability of the gospel writers, and already possess belief in the supernatural that the resurrection seems like the most likely event. My explanation is that stories evolve. It was decades after the death of Jesus until the resurrection story was written down—we have evidence that the stories were, in fact, changing and evolving. I've never understood why believing that people were mistaken, and that the cult followers of a new cult would perhaps exaggerate or change the story is viewed as Christians as such an unlikely proposition.

> The sensibleness of the Bible. It's a literary treasure of God revealing himself, amply filled with wisdom, life guidance, harmony of theme and thought, speaking to real life, and addressing the human condition with honesty and hope. I believe it's inspired by God. My deep study of it turns up gem after gem.

I find that the Bible contains claims that happen to be both factually untrue, and morally reprehensible. Some examples would be 6 day creation, world wide flood, geocentric world view. Misogyny is rampant, owning people is endorsed, genocide is portrayed, infanticide is commanded, etc. The list goes on and on.

> I disagree that we worship the same God

That's interesting. I assume from your replies that you're Jewish. Jesus himself said, "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" (Matt. 4.10). He was quoting and affirming Deut. 6.13-14, prohibiting the worship of any God but Adonai Elohim.

> the state of the Jewish people as it is today is warned very explicitly in Deuteronomy

I don't know what text in Deut. you're referring to here.

2. Fascinating link. Thank you for that article. I read the pertinent pages. The source doesn't disagree with me. He's working off of assumptions combined with historical and archaeological references, and while he has some hard facts to go by, he admits that they have "few facts to go by" and "only provide a framework." He admits that "population growth was not uniform" and that the records are only from the Greco-Roman world, though there is evidence that Christianity had spread east, south, and northwest as well, for which there is no data, as well as no data for "rural Christians." His figures , in reality, have a modicum of credibility, but don't begin to tell the whole story.

> Christianity is the least cerebral of the Abrahamic faiths, so it makes sense

Now this is just ludicrous. Christianity has engaged many of the best minds of history and culture through the ages. Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis in which you may be interested: "For my own part, I have sometimes told my audience that the only two things really worth considering are Christianity and Hinduism. (Islam is only the greatest of the Christian heresies, Buddhism only the greatest of the Hindu heresies. Real Paganism is dead. All that was best in Judaism and Platonism survives in Christianity.) There isn't really, for an adult mind, this infinite variety of religions to consider. We may salva reverentia (without outraging reverence) divide religions, as we do soups, into `thick' and `clear'. By Thick I mean those which have orgies and ecstasies and mysteries and local attachments: Africa is full of Thick religions. By Clear I mean those which are philosophical, ethical and universalizing: Stoicism, Buddhism, and the Ethical Church are Clear religions. Now if there is a true religion it must be both Thick and Clear: for the true God must have made both the child and the man, both the savage and the citizen, both the head and the belly. And the only two religions that fulfil this condition are Hinduism and Christianity. But Hinduism fulfils it imperfectly. The Clear religion of the Brahmin hermit in the jungle and the Thick religion of the neighboring temple go on side by side. The Brahmin hermit doesn't bother about the temple prostitution nor the worshiper in the temple about the hermit's meta-physics. But Christianity really breaks down the middle wall of the partition. It takes a convert from central Africa and tells him to obey an enlightened universalist ethic: it takes a twentieth-century academic prig like me and tells me to go fasting to a Mystery, to drink the blood of the Lord. The savage convert has to be Clear: I have to be Thick. That is how one knows one has come to the real religion."

> The Torah specifically warns us not to trust prophets by their miracles

Text?

> And what exactly did Jesus accomplish by dying?

He obtained eternal redemption. The blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled sanctified people with an outward cleanliness, but the blood of Christ cleanses our consciences. It's impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. They were offered year after year, and therefore were not a permanent solution to sin. Christ's sacrifice was once for all, and by his sacrifice made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

> Trinity hinted at in Tanakh?

- Plural pronoun "us" used several times in Genesis, as well as Isa. 6.8
- Elohim is plural used with a singular verb.
- Ps. 110.1
- Isa. 9.6
- Ps. 2.7
- Dan. 7.13-14

> The law a burden to be relieved?

The Law was meant to be a joy and a blessing, but it carried with it a strong negative potential. Adherents became so afraid of transgression that they piled on more requirements to avoid getting close to infraction that they created a system of impossible conformity. It turns out to have been impossible. No one was able to keep the whole law all the time without flaw.

> a resurrection isn't proof of anything

The resurrection is a sign of dying and rising, of victory over death and sin. It verifies the sacrifice of the lamb was accepted and sin can be forgiven for those who accept and follow. It's a sign of hearing and heeding, that the truth has been revealed and those who refuse to see it will be held accountable. It's a sign of incarnation and crucifixion, of God with us (Isa. 7.14), and of the atonement (Isa. 53).

> the covenant was always described as eternal and personal

I agree. The covenant will never pass away, and yet we know that the covenant is progressive. The covenant expressed to Noah built on the one given to Adam, to Abraham built on the one given to Noah, to Moses built on that one, to David built on that one, and I believe that the covenant given through the person of Jesus built on the Davidic covenant. It's the nature of the covenant to be be filled up until all is complete.

1. I disagree that we worship the same God, but ok. Also, the state of the Jewish people as it is today is warned very explicitly in Deuteronomy.

2. I meant extremely early Christianity, first 50 years or so. From my understanding, they mostly stayed as a sect in Judaism until they started letting Gentiles in, and that's when their membership started exploding. As for the numbers, this scholarly source disagrees with you.

3. Well after searching around a bit, I can't find any stories of Islam. On the other hand, Christianity is the least cerebral of the Abrahamic faiths, so it makes sense.

4. And I'm saying that is a very personal relationship that others also feel in other religions. So not proof of Jesus, just how loving relationships makes you feel.

5. No, the resurrection, if it happened perfectly as described, is not proof of anything. The Torah specifically warns us not to trust prophets by their miracles, since God could be testing us, and to listen to their words instead. Since Jesus/his disciples tell people to worship God very differently... And what exactly did Jesus accomplish by dying? As for the second part, anecdotes, anecdotes, anecdotes. None of that is proof.

5. I would say there is neither consistency nor progression. Nowhere in the OT is the Trinity even hinted at (and there are specific parts which easily deem it heretical), the Law is not thought of as a burden to be relieved, a resurrection isn't shown to be proof of anything, the covenant was always described as eternal and personal, etc. etc.

> But mass hysteria does exist.

Indeed it does, but that's a different phenomenon. If 11 people were standing in a room, and all 11 say they saw Jesus, that can't be a group hallucination, because there is no such thing, and it's not mass hysteria, because they're not hyped up. If you're just going to treat the whole account in the gospels as lies, and make up whatever "facts" you want to set a scene the way you want it set, then we're not having a very reasonable discussion.

> An understandably difficult proposition 2,000 years after the fact.

Correct, but not very difficult at all just a few days later, when the stories started to circulate.

You're right, there are hypothetical reasons for why this might not have happened, and that's what we must deal with. We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do). We have some alleged eye-witness testimony that we have to evaluate, and some material evidence.

First, what do we have to know?
1. Was he alive at point "A"? Virtually every scholar believes that Jesus was a live human early in the 1st century.
2. Was he dead at point "B"? For Jesus' death we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible corroborating the historicity of his death. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the best-attested historical events of the ancient world. The weight of the historical and medical evidence is that Jesus was dead even before the wound to his side was delivered. Jesus’ death is practically indisputable.
3. Was he alive again at point "C"? There are several strands of evidence:

- His tomb was empty. The site of his tomb was known to friends and enemies. If the tomb wasn't empty, it would have been an impossible story to maintain in the city where the death and burial occurred.
- Women were the first to witness and report the resurrection. This is the last thing a fiction writer would want to claim in their culture. It would just ruin the credibility of their story.
- Enemy attestation. The opponents of Jesus and his followers admitted the body was gone.
- The disciples were absolutely and passionately committed to the conviction that Jesus had risen, and were willing to suffer for their story

But now we're left to try to explain it. Were they wrong? Lying? Delusional? Fooled? Influenced? Distorted? Or accurate?

Maybe they were wrong, and Jesus never died. Jesus had been beaten and scourged, too weak to carry his own cross. Then crucified. The soldiers didn't bother to break his legs, but they spear his side, bringing blood and water. he had circulatory shock, where the result is either pericardial effusion or pleural effusion—a sure sign of death. Joseph and Nicodemus wrap the body, working with it to prepare it for burial. With all this time they would have seen the mortis triad: algor mortis, rigor mortis, and lividity mortis. Is it reasonable to assume Jesus is not dead? No.

Maybe they were lying, and it was a vast conspiracy. A successful conspiracy needs factors of a low # of co-conspirators, only a short time to hold the conspiracy together, excellent communication between conspirators, strong relationships, and little or no pressure to confess. But in this case there were 11+, holding the conspiracy for 60 years, with little communication between them, unrelated to each other, with huge pressure to confess. A conspiracy is not reasonable.

Maybe they were delusional, and were subject to hallucinations or mass hysteria, as you suggest. Well maybe Mary Magdalene and Peter really really wanted a resurrection to happen, but what of James, Jesus' brother? What about Saul/Paul—did he want to see Jesus? Were the two on the road to Emmaus expecting to? The 10 disciples? The 500? It's not reasonable to assume mass hysteria or group hallucinations.

Maybe they were fooled, a look-alike walking around pretending it was Jesus, pulling off a grand fraud.If you're playing a character, you need to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con, and fool the people who know him best. And you still have to be able to do miracles, like ascend into heaven. Would that play well in Jerusalem? Not reasonably so.

Maybe they were swayed. Mary and Peter got caught up in their hallucinations, and influenced the others. Are you kidding? Was Mary that influential in the group? Not likely. And Peter was NEVER alone in his sightings. Paul? Paul influences the 12? They didn't even TRUST Paul.

Maybe they were distorted. Maybe it's a legend that grew over time, or making it all up. That doesn't make sense given that it's historically verifiable that these stories were widely circulating within just a few years, and we have a chain of custody about the story.

Well, maybe it's just accurate, and the truth. Granted, this theory has a HUGE liability. IT requires that supernatural things are reasonable. So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.

The resurrection hypothesis is significantly stronger than competing hypotheses. Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation.

> There are no such things as group hallucinations. Hallucinations are an individual phenomenon.

But mass hysteria does exist. As during the Salem Witch trials: one person claims they see a demon in the room and, hyped up on fear, emotion, and adrenaline, pretty soon everyone in the room sees it.

> but if there's a "group memory" of a resurrection of Jesus, all somebody has to do to debunk it is produce the body.

An understandably difficult proposition 2,000 years after the fact.

But there are hypothetical reasons for why this might not have happened back when the claims were first made: perhaps Jesus was never actually buried, perhaps the body was stolen by graverobbers, or perhaps the body was even stolen by the people who were claiming that he had resurrected.