Is Jesus the Only Way?

Have you ever been infuriated by someone who insisted their favorite sports team was better than yours? For the most part, these things are a matter of preference, so any argument that one franchise is historically and exclusively better than all the others is just someone's opinion.

But is the same true in religion?  Is religion a matter of preference, or is it a matter of what is really and actually true?  If it is simply a matter of preference, then the common claim that Christians are arrogant because they claim Jesus is "the only way" may hold some water.

Cosmos 2: Why even talk about Bruno?

When was the last time you watched a movie sequel that was as good as the original?  Some are fantastic, such as the Dark Knight, the Empire Strikes Back, and Terminator 2, but others are simply horrendous and don't even make it to the big screen.  Fact is, sequels are almost never as good as the original.  I have a sense that the reboot of Cosmos (or "Cosmos 2") might be one of those that fall horribly short.

Is Jesus just a retelling of other myths?

One of the myths that's been going around the internet these days is that Jesus was himself a myth.  These folks like to claim that Jesus didn't actually exist!  This is quite a radical claim; indeed it is far more radical than the claim that Jesus simply was not who Christians say he was.  This is the claim that Jesus was completely made up by first century crazy people.

Well, it turns out that such a claim has no actual historical data on its side.  In fact, in regard to the credentials of those who hold this "mythicist" view, Bart Ehrman makes this point (quoted from his HuPo article here):

The Cumulative Case for Christianity

Have you ever seen a TV show in which a criminal is being brought to trial, and the cops or prosecutors are lamenting over the fact that their case is entirely "circumstantial"?  Or maybe the defense attorney is confident in a victory because of that fact?  These (fictional) scenarios portray "circumstantial" evidence in a very negative light.  However, the fact of the matter is, if you have enough circumstantial evidence, then your case becomes nearly air-tight. 

The evidential case for Christianity is a very strong case because it is based a panoply of circumstantial evidence.  Each piece adds more weight to the Cumulative Case for Christianity.  Denial of any one piece of evidence is like trying to remove a single stone from a mighty fortress: you may think you have done something until you realize the fortress is built on a massive foundation.  Yet to deny enough of the evidence to try to shake the foundation requires such extreme (and unfounded) skepticism that such a position does not hold up well to criticism.