Originally posted by: DurocShark
You're right. I am.
Even according to the Bible, Jesus was just a man. His "proof" was his preaching, being able to read minds, turning water into wine, and making food appear. His resurrection was "seen" by how many?
The resurrection itself, none. People who saw him *after* he was resurrected, quite a few, thousands actually.
He didn't do these things often enough to prove his divine status to the general populace. Otherwise the Romans would have added him to their list of gods. The Jews would have never doubted his status as messiah.
Often enough? How often does he have to do them? The Jews (as a whole) where unwilling to accept Christ as the promised Messiah because they were looking for a great General to triumph over their enemies and free them from bondage. What they didn't understand was that that was his role during the second coming, not his initial life here on Earth. That's why they didn't accept him, not because of lack of miracles, but lack of understanding on their parts.
As for the Romans, his teachings, at that time, where not for the Romans, so he did not spend much time with them. Romans did not grow up with that same understanding of Christ that Jews did, so to expect them to understand his purpose or his calling would be very demanding. However, even given that, some did come to understand.
In fact, there is serious scholarly debate as to whether he ever really claimed to be the son of God in any way other than as all men are the sons of God.
Oh yes, he did claim very certainly to be the only Begotten Son of God. Not the *only* son, but the *only begotten* son of God. However, his mission was not to go around and scream out to the rooftops that he was the Son of God. Such would not be appropriate. Rather, as always, he had people exercise faith in him as the Son of God, and then confirmed their faith.
So, yeah. I want concrete proof. I like reason. Religion requires faith without reason.
I understand your desire, but your saying "If the Bible is true, and Christ is who it says he is, I want some kind of sign or evidence." However, Christ himself states "..., An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a asign; and there shall no sign be given to it..." (Matt. 16:4). Do you see the contradiction? You're requiring Christ to show you a sign in order for you to believe, and Christ requires you to believe before he will show you a sign. What you want can't happen in the way you want it to.
Signs simply aren't proof, nor do they produce faith. Think of Pharoah during the plagues of Egypt, the Children of Israel during the Exodus, or the Jewish leaders during the life of Christ. All saw and experienced more "miracles" and witnessed more "proof" of the existence of God than anyone, and yet they still doubted, or just flat out didn't believe.
So I just wonder, how do you think seeing a sign from God will alter your beliefs? If you find justifications for the "proofs" already testified of by others, why will you not do the same for any proofs presented to you?