No it's not. According to dictionary.com, but that's not a very reliable source.
It's not just dictionary.com as pointed out in other posts here. But I'm curious what is your definition of faith?
To an atheist it is faith without proof because you choose to ignore the proof of the bible in the first place. But to a Christian it isn't.
The claims in the Bible are unsupported, leaving us with just the Bibles word that it's real.
You have no proof for that. If you can't argue don't try.
As we follow each of the gospels in the order they were written they become more and more fanciful and magical.
We start with Paul who only vaguely mentions Jesus. Odd considering these writings are only about 20 years after his supposed death.
The story of Jesus doesn't become more elaborated on until almost 40 years after this death. about 15 years after that we have Matthew and Luke who copy stories from Mark but add many new miracles and adds the part of Jesus's virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension. Finally there is John who after being written over 60-80 years after the fact. This tells of an even more fanciful tail adding even more miracles and supernatural events.
Plus, it's quite obvious nowadays that Catholics don't really follow the original bible and Christians do, so your point was worthless anyway.
Neither of you do, the Bible (old testament) as it is today is not how it originally was. We really don't have an original copy but the oldest copy we do have is far different from the typical version you will find in the average Christian or Catholics home.
Not all of them. You're forgetting about all the disciples and some of the apostles, who were all witness to Jesus' miracles and who later wrote books and letters about them. And there is obvious proof that they existed (like St. Peter's Basilica).
Again outside of the Bible the miracles go unaccounted for. Many of the letters are unclear who actually wrote them.
I think a review is in order at this point.
Thousands of people witness these miracles but there is no mention of it for 20 years. No one out side of Jesus's circle of friends even mentions these amazing events they saw?
After 20 years we only get vague mentions of Jesus.
40 years after we finally get a detailed story of Jesus.
55 years years after we get an even more magical story with previously unmentioned miracles and supernatural events occurring.
Finally 60-80 years after Jesus supposedly lived and likely no first hand accounts could be had, we get a story that includes even more previously unmentioned miracles and supernatural events.
I explained this already, so I won't repeat myself. However, in the end it doesn't matter anyway. Who branched off of who wasn't my point, and the fact that it's the only thing you can argue about with that statement amusing.
I find it interesting how you said Catholicism came first then Christianity and now you try and make it sound as if you knew it was the other way all along and trivialize the whole thing. Really your arguing here some how comes across as seeming dishonest.
You can't justly blame God or the Bible if people start making stuff up or disagree over various topics.
Need to go do homework now.
Considering many of these denominations from from different interpretations of the Bible then yes I can blame the Bible for being poorly written. If it was written clearly there would be no need for interpretation and many of these denominations would not exist.
