chvynva916

I have two objections to your offer of "proof" for Christianity.

First, this "proof" is of the most tenuous variety. Many, if not most, would say the sign of the beast is 666, not 616. And given all the numbers in religious texts, it is quite easy to find ostensibly spooky coincidences here and there connecting texts or portions thereof. This is particularly true if you're looking in the Koran for disparagement of other religions, of which there is much (although only slightly more than in the Bible).

Second, there is a more fundamental problem in your search for evidence of Christianity. You're approach is to take Christianity as a premise and then tout any evidence, no matter how tenuous, you find in favor of this premise. The problem is that if you really want to look at whether Christianity is supported by evidence, as you seem to do, you must look at the evidence against its existence as well. For example, event dates in the Bible are both internally inconsistent and also in disagreement with a wealth of evidence from the world as we observe it. The point is, I can justify almost any proposition (for example that the world is flat) by relying only on evidence for that proposition and ignoring evidence against it. Looking objectively at Christianity, weighing evidence for AND against it, presents a huge obstacle to the claim that its tenants and stories accurately represent reality.

Eosphoros

Look! I'm a devout christian myself, but I personally denounce ANY "proof of christianity". This is because there is none. Why? Because God didn't go around leaving clues for us. This is not a game. You either believe in God or not.

If you want to play with proof you night as well be an atheist since they have MUCH MORE scientifically sound evidence for the NON-existence of a God.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that you have to be pretty insecure in your faith in order to be going around looking for proof.