"And Mr. Magician - who do you think that Jesus really is then?"

Most likely a legendary character built from one or more individuals.

"If He was just another crazy man or "good teacher" ... then the craze would have been over with shortly after He died."

Does that mean every other religion that has survived and not ended in a short time is true - including Mormonism?

What we're talking about is a sincerity of belief and trust in a supernatural being... Santa (supernatural gift giver), and God (supernatural gift giver). Just because you want to utilize special pleading to distinguish a difference in both of the gift givers, does not mean that there is a difference, or that my example is a straw man.

From the article you linked: "Since God is sovereign over all of creation, He is not restricted in what or who He can use to accomplish His holy purposes."

Like I said... Just like Nixon... "It's not illegal if the president does it." The same would apply to Jesus being God as well... it's okay for him to lie too, because "he is not restricted in what He can do to accomplish His Holy purposes." Of course, that means even if he wasn't sinless (i.e. lying), he's still sinless due to his "sovereignty." It still presents a problem for atonement, but like I said, it's still the best indefensible apologetic defense. ;)

"In the case of John 18, Jesus was referring to the specific questions from the high priests."

You state that Jesus was referring to specific questions, but seeing as we don't have those specific questions, you're stating something that is not explicit in the text. Perhaps they were just asking Jesus a general question over and over again expecting him to fill in the blanks. Either way, the questions do not matter. He answered dishonestly, but again, you could always claim "diplomatic sovereign immunity" for Jesus.

Paul Wright actually did a pretty good job addressing much of this, so I'll comment on this just to affirm my support of his thoughts:

"All of this proof you are trying to do, presupposes that the bible is true. You use the fact that fruit does come from confession and belief to argue against confession and belief being true. So to prove that you once were a Christian, and now are not a Christian, you admit that the bible is true. So your own apostasy actually points to the fact that God is real. "

Arguing from the Bible does not mean I hold it to be true. I know you hold it to be true, and therefore I'm arguing it from a theist perspective, which is a perspective I used to hold. When you argue against the positions of someone who differs politically from you, does your arguing using their platforms and positions mean that they are in fact true, and your use of them is their validation?

The idea is a rather well known one and not original to Dawkins, but attacking an idea based on a source you consider to be poor instead of the idea itself is an ad hominem, and like a straw man is a logical fallacy. Please elaborate on how my example is a straw man instead of just calling it one. If my example needs to be revised, I would be happy to reform it.

"Misuse of this verse. Paul writes further down that "If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness." ~2 Cor. 11:30 He explained in verse 18 that he was boasting as the world boasts...in there works. But, the Word says, "noone can be justified by the Law" Romans 3:19-20"

Not a misuse, just a usage you're uncomfortable with. Your defense of it is like trying to defend a person who says, "Now, I'm not a racist, but..." and then goes on some rant about what they dislike about a particular race they don't like. Simply saying, "Boasting in Christ is all that's allowed, but if I were to boast in myself..." is a cheap trick the author uses to put up a false humility.

As far what makes lying wrong for me... there are times when lying is acceptable and even noble (hiding Jews during the Holocaust, etc.), but in general honesty is the best policy, because I would like people to be honest with me.

Now, getting back to my original question...

Greek translations into English of "now" and "not yet" are within the surrounding passages of scripture. If the author had intended a not "now" or a not "yet" he would have included it. In addition, you can't look at just one work - look at the context: That Jesus went "in secret," coupled with his conversation with his brothers, indicates his desire was to deceive them of his intentions.

I can provide yet another example in John 18 where Jesus is testifying before the Sanhedrin... "I have spoken openly to the world; I ALWAYS taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I SPOKE NOTHING IN SECRET." --- Jesus however often spoke and taught his disciples in private, where he could explain the meaning to them, but hide it from the rest so "seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand." Just the statement that he ALWAYS taught in the synagogues and temple is false. Hillsides and shorelines seemed to make good teaching places too as far as the gospels are concerned, plus, he also taught in Samaria, where none of the Jews came together.

I think the best apologetic defense for this is that the lying doesn't count because Jesus was God. Yahweh certainly lied in the OT (1 Kings 22), and that isn't frowned upon, so why would Jesus be any different? Sort of like Nixon, "It's not illegal if the president does it." Still creates tremendous problems with the idea of the atonement, but I think it would be the most easily defended, indefensible position. Wouldn't you agree?

"To be a Christian is to believe the Bible is the ultimate authority. Because it is the very word of the Triune God of the universe."

Where in the Bible - your authority - do you find the phrase, or something similar - "Triune God of the universe"?

Like most children, I'm going to assume you believed in Santa Clause when you were a child (but if you didn't, I'm sure you know someone who did). Does the fact that you no longer believe in Santa mean that you never had a sincere belief in Santa in the first place?

"Because it is not you who defines what a Christian is, it is Christ."

Romans 9:9-10... "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

The Bible (Word of God/Christ) defined me as a Christian, so who are you to say I was not?