Remember the Jesus Freaks of the late 60s and early 70s, they use to tell us of seeing Jesus along the side of roads and would appear and disappear.
Why I Shouldn't Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
How about this: Why shouldn't you believe that Muhammad is a prophet and messenger of God? If you reject Muhammad as such, why? What process did you use to refute such a claim? At least a billion people accept this.
It is up to each believer to accept the message of ANY prophet, be him from God or from anyone else.
The OT prophets were NOT accepted by all of the Hebrews and they probably gave more evidence than Muhammed.
Christ was NOT accepted by all that saw and hear him, even those that witnessed his many miracles, even Thomas wouldn't accept untill he saw AND touched.
So every believer has a different "yardstick".
So I can only speak for myself when I say this:
Having read the Koran I see it as a step BACKWARDS, not forwards, in God's revelatory "plan".
Muhammad seems to advocate intolerance, hate and violence and conversion via force and this is opposed to what we see in the REST of the way God is revealed to us in the universe we live.
That is why I reject Muhammad as a prophet of God but each believer or skeptic must you his/her own "yardstick".
Cyrus the Great abolished slavery in 539 BC and wrote the 1st Declaration of Human Rights, Jesus wants you to be a Slave.
you shouldn't believe in the resurrection of jesus if the evidence does not add up to you or if it is insufficient. extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. a resurrection is extraordinary.
i don't know of any extraordinary evidence regarding any resurrection. to me even the so called evidence that jesus ever existed is not sufficient (there is not a single contemporary hint he existed).
XJW4EVR & PSacramento: It seems that you both have put much thought and research into this. As PSacramento has said, we each must evaluate the evidence with our personal yardstick and then decide accordingly. I enjoy these conversations. I usually learn something new, and I hope the lurkers do, too.
All we can ever do is voice an opinion and stated on what grounds we have that opinion.
We may be right or we may be wrong but our opinions MUSt be based on something beyond just blind faith.
Faith is crucial and it is that faith that drives us (hopefully) to understanding how we fill and finding the reason and rational for it.
Of course we must always understand that evidence is NOT proof and that for some, what evidence we may have is not enough or not good enough and we have to respect that.
I would like to jump straight into this post; I know I may not have multiple posts next to my name and my avatar is a bit of a joke (don't know how to change) but I'd like to throw this out on the stoop and see if the cat licks it up.
As a Christian, it is extremely difficult to defend your faith in a way that is unique to your faith. All arguments put forth to defend the reasons why you believe can be advocated by members of other religions. As another poster has quite rightly asked, what is the difference in accepting Jesus resurrection compared with accepting Mohammed as a messenger of God? Both are taken on faith alone and both brought about an eventual following of millions of people.
XJW4EVR, I by no means seek to insult your beliefs or even question them, but your assertion that just because many started to believe in the years following the preaching of Christ and Paul is built on faulty logic because many believed Mohammed's claims, just as they do with the Governing Body or any other (insert false Messiah here). This in itself is not a reason to believe.
Can I ask you a question XJW...Why should I not believe that Mohammed is God's prophet?
(Just like to clear up I am not a Muslim, never have never will)
There is a difference Theycantdoatingman, when Christ died on the cross, it was OVER.
They apostles hid in terror for fear of persecution, for being labelled as sympathizers and also crucified.
THEN SOMETHING happened and they believed that Christ was alive and had been resurected and there was no reason to believe they expected it NOR were looking for it to happen.
Yet they began preaching Christ as the messiah and resurrected, the movement began after the very public and demeaning death of Christ.
Islam doesn't preach Mohammad resurrected or that Mohammad was nothing but a prophet and people choose to follow his teachings because they liked what they heard and agreed.
The apostles went forth and spread the gosples NOT because they believed what Christ taught, they went forth because they had seen the resurrected Christ.
The difference between why one accepts Christ and Mohammad is the resurrection.
actually if it wasn't for paul, there wouldn't be any christians, just maybe another little jewish sect.
when saul went to antioch he had a bit too much of the cheap liquor, to the extent he forgot his real name and he even went blind for a while. he had a really bad hangover and nightmares of his stonings haunted him. this is when the whole jesus idea entered his mind and he went out to tell everyone, promising never to touch that liquor ever again.
it's all there in the bible (between the lines of course).
That sounds nothing more than a 'Jesus came first' argument wrapped up in theo-speak!