Ok. Granted God exists

You know it's true, our own faith shows it so.

Read "The Case for Christ"

What?

You have the 3 biggest Monotheistic (there is One God) religions in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam today. These religions have played an important role in the development of the world we live in today. Unless you're in a highly secular bubble, it still has a large influence in the world today.

The most important belief in which the three most dominant monotheistic religions differ is who Jesus Christ is. That is the biggest question we all answer to daily in one way or another. The question of who Jesus Christ is also will change how you see and understand Who the One True God is and how you are to live your life.

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.

John 8:58-59
Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Job 9:8-11 (Written thousands of years before Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word)

8 Who alone spreadeth out the heavens, and walketh upon the waves of the sea.

9 Who maketh Arcturus, and Orion, and Hyades, and the inner parts of the south.

10 Who doth things great and incomprehensible, and wonderful, of which there is no number.

11 If he come to me, I shall not see him: if he depart I shall not understand.

Matthew 14:22-36 (Jesus walks on water & see Greek Translation for Matthew 14:27, ego eimi)

The translations to English could be a LOT better there..

If you're looking to see which Church to follow, I'd consider reading Crossing the Tiber by Steve Ray to learn about what the Early Church (those closest to the Son of God) and Christians thought about Baptism and the Eucharist. It really helped narrow down which Church to pay attention to the two Apostolic Churches and oldest Churches.

I can explain it, and I understand your post which I've read the likes of many times, it is simply a fact that this will not give you the grace of faith, God might use it to be the occasion of it, but not a single word of mine no matter how rational or what angle I come from is faith. Therefore it is true that I can give no reason or proof for faith, which is a gift. No one can, no matter how we explain it, or what we understand and know about the mission of Jesus.

Because He is The Word/Logos

...

Numerous historical attestations that corroborate each other.

Beat me to it.

Attached: C7D877AD-041A-4C15-9F07-38AB7742DDCE.jpeg (1024x729, 149.54K)

Teleologically? I don't know how much teleology we would be able to apply to God and his own nature, I believe that's way beyond our capacity and I can't think about a revelation about it, what I can think about as answer is "I am who I am" (so basically no answer if you expect a more elaborated purpose, which I doubt you do).
But I can answer your question in another way and I hope I get corrected if wrong. Maybe the answer will be satisfying since, just as for your "God granted as existing", there'd be no teleological reason to convince you about the Son (or whatever philosophical Supreme God you accept as existing).

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.

So we can, at least, think that's the reason, the Reason, for our existence, for our faith, for the things being as they are. Love, Sanctity, the Creation, our existence and our salvation, all of it comes along together and is justified by Christ.

How do you get convinced Christianity is true? nailed it, and you, OP, must learn to deal with your faith. After all, you have faith in your historians and they have faith in their works and in historic witnesses. You probably have faith on men and their sciences, you probably have faith on people you love and even unknown people. I suppose the answer you asked for would be based on your faith on witnesses of miracles and witnesses of Jesus Christ himself. We would only be able to offer History to you, and your faith on it would do the job for you to believe in an biblical accurate "historic Jesus". But that's not enough and not what Jesus Christ called us to have.
Like said:

But human logic, historic records and even witnessing miracles yourself (as long as you care about witnessing them) will serve as pointers to the right path, it will point to Truth, although they can't explain or "prove" this Truth. But that's the same to Math, History, Geopolitics, Physics, Logic, Philosophy… All of them require faith if you wish to take things as "truths" – the incompleteness theorems, for example, take even Logic to this and show us the limitations of our tools, they bring us back to the ground about our own man-made tautologies resembling actual "Truth", it teaches us to be humble about reality.
So be more humble in the face of Faith and be humble to ask it for God, even though you don't have faith yet.
And humility is a very important lesson God brought us by the coming of the Son, his humiliation and his sacrifice. A being on top of hierarchy of Everything, with an infinite gap of difference for His creatures, the Supreme God, creator of the Universe and everything else, Who have not been created and has infinite power, the Holiest and the creator of all the holy things; He made himself as a man, walked alongside us, loved and loves us intimately and was put to the same troubles we face here and, by our own kind, He was wronged, humiliated and unfairly killed (yet He lived); an infinite act of humility; and so we should be humble as much as we can, as duty. Because if God (and that's not a regular being, but GOD) was infinitely humble, so we must try to be. In humility His love was shown and proven to us, in humility our redemption from our sins was justified, through humility His justice and love became unquestionable. His infinite grace and love was made unquestionable. Through Christ's sacrifice the promises were fulfilled, the faith "validated", our souls saved, the Logos and the plans of God for us were revealed to mankind.

So that's why you, OP, should try it and ask for faith. Be humble about reality and don't mind to humiliate yourself before the "invisible" God you can't see. Ask for faith, ask for being able to see the Truth, ask for forgiveness if that's the case, even if you think that's "to the wind" – but without any debauchery.
Ask humbly for proof, but knowing faith will be necessary for you to see it, and acknowledging the huge gap between you and God's "status" as different beings, but the still close, intimate, relationship he'd offer you.
Be humble and ask for faith with your heart on it, as if your life depends on it. Because it does.
For faith is a grace, is a gift. So deal with your situation as a child asking for a gift. A gift that child really needs or wants, a gift will be given, in a proper time, by her loving father with a smile as soon as she asks it in a minimally adequate way.

That's the best advice we can give you to acknowledge Jesus Christ and the plans for our salvation. That's how you will come from simply acknowledging "directions" to a common truth (from the evidences we can ourselves provide) to acknowledging the Truth itself.

Because an infinite sacrifice (God himself) was needed to appease the near-infinite sins of man. And Jesus is the only historically realistic candidate for having done so.

Fix'd. Forgive me for the poor English and silly mistakes.

Biographies of ancient romans and greeks that were not written for hundreds of years are considered accurate and trust worthy, yet people doubt the bible because it was written potentially up to 90 years after Christ.

Some of the attempts to assign years to the gospels assume that the gospels are false to begin with. For example, when Jesus predicts the destruction of the second temple, which occurred in 70AD, many scholars use that as evidence that the gospels weren't written until after 70AD! While believers should interpret the verse as a prophecy. This leads to some people rejecting the bible due to obvious circular logic.

Ie "I don't believe the bible because it isn't accurate" and "the bible isn't accurate because I don't believe the bible"

So to begin to answer OP's question, Jesus was widely believed to have risen from the dead, some might say that this story was made up as a legend many years after his death, but the narrative appears in every gospel, which were written very far apart from each other, both geographically and chronologically. If the narrative was made up, you would see everyone with their own version of the story from day one. You dont see new stuff being made up about Jesus until the apocryphal "gospels" which are denounced by the church. They try to fill in details with stories about Jesus as a teenager and stuff of that nature.

Now, if Jesus' followers believe He rose, back in the first century, and that the gospels provide an accurate account of what occured in his passion. Then this gives christianity a lot more validity. His apostles certainly suffered immensely under rome, when they easily could have abandoned christ after his death, which they would have done if they sincerely believed He was a hoax, as the Pharisees accused them of.

From what I remember Flavius Josephus actually stated that Christ returned, highly intriguing given he was a Jewish historian making this account.
Also, this link from New Advent makes a pretty convincing case against opposing theories like saying he never died.
newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

The testimony of Flavius is a forgery added later. He gives no indication that He is a Chrstian anywhere, and scholarship has been done on the passage. But He does mention the "tribe of Christians" and likely believed Jesus worked miracles, one of the greatest and earliest memories about Him.

The problem it's "God exist so therefore Jesus also must" it's a non sequitur. The existence of the Biblical Jesus (I mean, the One who came back in flesh from the dead and all that) must be accepted on faith EVEN IF it's accepted that a God does exist. I'd also like to note that Jesus does indeed follow from the Lord's desire to sacrifice himself onto himself - whether that is rationally believable is up to the believer. I myself do not believe such thing is rationally believable - and go so far as not believing the existence of God is believable - but it ought to be recognized that no negative proof can ever be given, so it's indeed a matter of belief rather than knowledge

Is there actually any evidence for this? I've always heard it was a forgery but never saw any proof.

The general phrasing of the passage suggests that it was written by a Christian rather than a Jew. It is generally taken to be an edit by a later author who changed the passage to refer to Jesus as the Christ (since a Jew would not believe that Jesus was the Messiah). However most scholars agree that the passage originally referred to Jesus and some parts of it were later added by a Christian. There are also other passages in Josephus which mention John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus.

This is the passage which mentions Jesus.

So the passage is condemned as an forgery because Josephus speaks like a christian but never showed signs of being a christian in other writings? Couldn't he have converted? Is there any other reason why that is said to be a forgery other than the reason i stated?

Dear GOD/GODS and/or anyone else who can HELP ME (e.g. MEMBERS OF SUPER-INTELLIGENT ALIEN CIVILIZATIONS):

The next time I wake up, please change my physical form to that of FINN MCMILLAN of SOUTH NEW BRIGHTON at 8 YEARS OLD (see attached pictures) and keep it that way FOREVER.

I am so sick of this chubby Asian man body!

Thank you!

-CHAUL JHIN KIM (a.k.a. A DESPERATE SOUL)

Attached: finn2.jpg (360x360 60.9 KB, 26.83K)

Please elaborate. I'm not skeptical about it being a forgery, but I want better reasons.
With no further explanation, and don't get me wrong as if I don't trust you, but it seems like kikeish logic and subversion at play here, and that's a common thing Jews do, specially against Christianity. The Jews from the time of Jesus massively converted to Christianity (current "Jews" force the narrative they were all expelled from Palestine and that's just it, as if they were the "true heirs" of Judaism and Christianity was some alien thing). If ethnic Jews today can be Christians, so they could be (and obviously were) in the time of Jesus. The narrative "Jews didn't believe he was the Christ" is only valid for Jews already contemporary and antagonistic to Christians (like our current men still following Judaism, heirs of the ones who rejected Jesus as the Christ/their king). Christianity and the Church were growing at that time, so Jews, contemporary to Christ, wouldn't have Christian manners yet (these would be restrict to more loyal and dedicated Christian circles, like the ones of the Church Fathers), but they would keep their own manners and beliefs, still adapting to the reality of the (previously rejected) Christ.

Afaik he refers to another person as Messiah after calling Jesus such, so he didn't convert. In either case it's an interesting read, and it seems that the best option is that it is partially fake and partially true. An example of a scholarly reconstruction of what he actually said is this:

To teach you the way to God. Our brother was sent as a guide by the Father, for the way of man has moved them away from God.

To know he exists is not enough, the believe in God is not enough. Only those who do the will of the Father, those who produce good fruits, those will find their way to the narrow gate.