Proof of Jesus?

[Grazer]

Good post Grazer, those videos sum up a lot. Anyone that has doubts of Jesus should watch those.

You're welcome, glad you find them useful

 

[AlexBC]

Ask you atheist friend if he can find proof of the existance of George Washington and if so, ask him to substantiate his proof.

Poor example. George Washington's life and work WERE recorded by MANY contemporary historians. We have first hand accounts of his life. We have his signature! We have dozens of paintings for which he posed.

Now, proving that he did in fact cut down that cherry tree...that's another story.

 

[AlexBC]

You will not find any writings from the time when Jesus was on earth but that doesn't mean there weren't any, nor does it mean that what the Scriptures say about Jesus aren't true.

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

That your friend is asking for proof of Jesus seems to suggest he is out of touch with much modern scholarship. There is hardly a biblical or historical scholar that doubts the existence of Jesus. There used to be much debate about his existence but since it is widely accepted that he did exist, the focus has shifted to just who he is and what he did. Extra-biblical evidence for Jesus from the time he existed is unnecessary.

The language you're using is really vague here. If you are referring to historians who believe in the word of the Bible then yes, there are historians who accept he existed. I'd also say they were extremely bad at their job since no legitimate historian is going to support the claim that there is no doubt Jesus did in fact exist based on so little evidence of his life and the lack of contemporary extra-biblical accounts.

And just why is extra-Biblical evidence unnecessary? Would you apply that to anything else?

I think the most you could honestly say was that there maybe existed in the 1st Century a Jewish Rabbi who attracted a number of followers, got nailed to a cross and was claimed to have come back to life.

But Jesus is in good company. Even Socrates (who contributed much more to the human race) is in the same boat. Historical evidence for his life is also lacking.

 

[farouk]

So much anti-Christian material and thought rejects Scripture (for reasons of their own), but then when it comes to versions of history or other religions there is so often a willingness to accept what is claimed.

In other words, the systematic doubt is applied to Biblical Christianity only, so often.

I've given up wasting words about faith matters with people who won't look at the Biblical record.

It's apples and oranges, and there is little scope for meaningful discussion on faith matters, without Scripture.

 

[AlexBC]

It's not just Christianity that gets picked. But Christianity has been used so often to justify a lot of evil so it does get picked on that bit extra.

And the rejection of scripture as an historical source is that the events should be verifiable without the bible. Even if you burned every copy of Washington's autobiography you'd still have dozens of other sourcrs to verify his existence.

 

[Free]

The language you're using is really vague here. If you are referring to historians who believe in the word of the Bible then yes, there are historians who accept he existed. I'd also say they were extremely bad at their job since no legitimate historian is going to support the claim that there is no doubt Jesus did in fact exist based on so little evidence of his life and the lack of contemporary extra-biblical accounts.

You've poisoned the well. The evidence is such that it puts the existence of Christ beyond reasonable doubt. There is much evidence. We have the four gospels, the writings of his followers, and theirs, extra-biblical writings, etc. That they are not contemporaneous is of little consequence.

And just why is extra-Biblical evidence unnecessary? Would you apply that to anything else?

I said that contemporary extra-biblical evidence is unnecessary as we don't even have contemporary biblical evidence. While such evidence would help, there is enough evidence that his existence is really beyond dispute at this point. There is no reason to believe he did not exist.

I think the most you could honestly say was that there maybe existed in the 1st Century a Jewish Rabbi who attracted a number of followers, got nailed to a cross and was claimed to have come back to life.

On the contrary, we can say a Jew by the name of Jesus existed in the first century, claimed to be the Messiah and attracted a number of followers, was nailed to a cross, died, and came back to life.

But Jesus is in good company. Even Socrates (who contributed much more to the human race) is in the same boat. Historical evidence for his life is also lacking.

If you think Socrates contributed more to the human race, you truly don't understand Jesus and what he contributed.

 

[Free]

Poor example. George Washington's life and work WERE recorded by MANY contemporary historians. We have first hand accounts of his life. We have his signature! We have dozens of paintings for which he posed.

Now, proving that he did in fact cut down that cherry tree...that's another story.

Not wanting to step on WIP's toes, there is really isn't much difference at all, and this is a good example.

Jesus' life and work were recorded with first hand accounts. There exists a signature and portraits of someone who claims they were "George Washington," but really it could have been a hoax and he may have never actually existed. The proof for both is essentially the same, yet many arbitrarily dismiss Jesus and believe George Washington existed.

 

[Grazer]

The language you're using is really vague here. If you are referring to historians who believe in the word of the Bible then yes, there are historians who accept he existed. I'd also say they were extremely bad at their job since no legitimate historian is going to support the claim that there is no doubt Jesus did in fact exist based on so little evidence of his life and the lack of contemporary extra-biblical accounts.

And just why is extra-Biblical evidence unnecessary? Would you apply that to anything else?

I think the most you could honestly say was that there maybe existed in the 1st Century a Jewish Rabbi who attracted a number of followers, got nailed to a cross and was claimed to have come back to life.

But Jesus is in good company. Even Socrates (who contributed much more to the human race) is in the same boat. Historical evidence for his life is also lacking.

They don't say maybe, they say he did exist and attracted followers and died and then his followers claimed he was raised from the dead. They don't say its proven as you don't get proof in history, especially going that far back. The classicist Professor Graeme Clark (who is not a Christian) has gone on record saying:

Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming.

Even Bart Ehrman has said:

I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.

Apparently, he also said:

There is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land in a bona fide department of biology

It just isn't in scholarly dispute.

 

[AlexBC]

Ehrman's work has been met with its fair shate of criticism for the methodology he has employed in recent years.

And saying Socratic method and teachings pale in comparison to the teachings of Jesus is ridiculous. The teachings of Jesus work either work to keep one in line within tne faith or are things which can and have been acheived by purely secular means.

 

[WIP]

Poor example. George Washington's life and work WERE recorded by MANY contemporary historians. We have first hand accounts of his life. We have his signature! We have dozens of paintings for which he posed.

Now, proving that he did in fact cut down that cherry tree...that's another story.

his·to·ri·an
/hɪˈstɔriən, -ˈstoʊr-/ [hi-stawr-ee-uhn, -stohr-]
noun
1. an expert in history; authority on history.
2. a writer of history; chronicler.

A historian writes about events and characters from the past. A contemporary historian is one who is still alive today.

Do you believe everything people tell you? Do you believe everything you hear on the radio? Do you believe everything you see on television or the internet? There are emails floating around all the time depicting events and people of contemporary times that have no basis in truth. We have websites devoted to doing nothing but trying to expose these hoaxes but how do we know they are even telling the truth? Because someone puts something in writing does not necessarily mean it is true or accurate. It comes down to what one is willing to accept and believe.

You believe George Washington existed because those who are alive today write about him even though the oldest known living person on earth today wasn’t even born until nearly 100 years after George presumably died. A first-hand account of his life isn’t possible today since nobody alive today could provide eye witness account. Everything we know about Mr. Washington is based on how much faith we have in the recorded writings and verbal information passed down from generation to generation over the past 200 years.

We can take it a bit further back (about 520 years) and consider what we know about Christopher Columbus. Did he really exist? Did he really cross the Atlantic? Nobody knows for sure but we all believe he did. How about Genghis Khan (1162-1227)? How about Aristotle (384-322BC)?

Just like George, Jesus' life and work WERE recorded by MANY historians who were not only contemporary at the time but many were in fact first-hand eye witnesses. We do have many contemporary scholars and scientists researching and uncovering historical evidence that support many of the places and events recorded in those writings and new evidence continues to be uncovered.

I don’t think it is a poor example at all.

 

[farouk]

It's not just Christianity that gets picked. But Christianity has been used so often to justify a lot of evil so it does get picked on that bit extra.

And the rejection of scripture as an historical source is that the events should be verifiable without the bible. Even if you burned every copy of Washington's autobiography you'd still have dozens of other sourcrs to verify his existence.

...well, no one will get to heaven by trusting the consensus of secular historians who can't agree among themselves anyway.

 

[AlexBC]

First I hear that contemporary extra-biblical evidence is unnecessary as we don't have contemporary biblical evidence and then I hear there were many contemporary historians writing about Jesus. There's no consistency here.

And I do not have FAITH in Washington existing. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Can we say there's the possibility he never existed? Sure. But the overwhelming, physical evidence allows me to be pretty certain that he did exist. I gave the example of Socrates to demonstrate that im not just picking on Jesus. I'd apply the same skepticism to any such figure whose existence was not supported by strong contemporary or physical evidence.

 

[AlexBC]

...well, no one will get to heaven by trusting the consensus of secular historians who can't agree among themselves anyway.

I'm..i'm sorry, how many different denominations of Christianity are there again?

 

[farouk]

I'm..i'm sorry, how many different denominations of Christianity are there again?

Alex: this is irrelevant, and personally, I don't care.

This may surprise you.

But if Scripture is the yardstick, and not the opinions of denominational committees, this is what matters. 'What think ye of Christ? whose son is He?' (Matthew 22.42)

 

[AlexBC]

Alex: this is irrelevant, and personally, I don't care.

This may surprise you.

But if Scripture is the yardstick, and not the opinions of denominational committees, this is what matters. 'What think ye of Christ? whose son is He?' (Matthew 22.42)

Ok. Whose son is he according to Matthew 22:42?

David would be the answer. What does that prove?

 

[Mike]

First I hear that contemporary extra-biblical evidence is unnecessary as we don't have contemporary biblical evidence and then I hear there were many contemporary historians writing about Jesus. There's no consistency here.

And I do not have FAITH in Washington existing. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Can we say there's the possibility he never existed? Sure. But the overwhelming, physical evidence allows me to be pretty certain that he did exist. I gave the example of Socrates to demonstrate that im not just picking on Jesus. I'd apply the same skepticism to any such figure whose existence was not supported by strong contemporary or physical evidence.

Alex, you registered with this site stating that you were a Christian. Is it that in two months you've come to the firm position that even the existence of Jesus is unbelievable? To go from claiming a faith to making such weighty statements is simply hard to imagine. I really have to wonder if you know what you are doing.

If you know the Word and knew Christ, you should know that this is a matter of the heart; not a matter of historical documentation. If someone, in two months, has fixed his heart against Christ, I have to doubt any true faith ever having existed.

What I'm saying is if you did believe so recently, I would fight against the urge to blaspheme the Lord. If this is a phase, you will have grave remorse.

 

[Doc]

First I hear that contemporary extra-biblical evidence is unnecessary as we don't have contemporary biblical evidence and then I hear there were many contemporary historians writing about Jesus. There's no consistency here.

And I do not have FAITH in Washington existing. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Can we say there's the possibility he never existed? Sure. But the overwhelming, physical evidence allows me to be pretty certain that he did exist. I gave the example of Socrates to demonstrate that im not just picking on Jesus. I'd apply the same skepticism to any such figure whose existence was not supported by strong contemporary or physical evidence.

Alex, hope you do not mind if I interject here. First I would like to explain that there are many denominations because as men we allow the non-essential doctorines (religion) to separate us, when the Basic doctorines of Christ found in Hebrews ^ should be the only standard to separate out someone who does not trust scripture as the inerrant word of God.
Now as to the proof of Jesus actually living I would submit both Christian (biblical) and His contemporary historical evidences;
The quanity and quality of Biblical manuscripts are massive and in comparission to todays bible, they are 95% exact and 98% of the differences are gramatical in nature and do not change the context of the verse at all. now that along with 25,000 new testament era documents that authenticate the reality of Jesus as well as the writtings from Jewish historian Josephus, Greek historian Pleny and Roman historian Tacitus all have writting of Jesus life well within 100 years of His death. Also there are literally thousands of archeological confirmations of specific events mentioned in the New Testament are overwhelmingly consistant of not just His life but the acuracy of what is claimed about it. Now you finish all of that with the fact that these things were all written and documented between 40 and 100 AD, and for scripture to be accurate Jesus crusifixtion would have take place in 29 AD with a birth between BC 4 and BC 5 based on the documentation we have of the massacure of 2yr olds and younger males that took place. That means that there was 20 to 60 years between His death and these documents & historians writtings when there would have been plenty of living people that could have boisterously said any of this was inaccurate and the fact remains there has never been anything found that says He didnt live, die, and resurrect from the dead would seem to authenticat it as well. Now you and I were not there we did not witness any of this so naturally there has to be a level of faith that goes with belief in Christ but as men we make much more difficult belief structures to live by with much less evidence. I admire your willingness to ask the questions and pray that these words may be of help in understanding.

God Bless - Doc

 

[farouk]

Ok. Whose son is he according to Matthew 22:42?

David would be the answer. What does that prove?

If you read the rest of the chapter, the Lord Jesus is making it clear that in Psalm 110 David is calling Him Lord.

The point being, that the Lord Jesus Christ is far more than the son of David.

And it says that his questioners dared not ask him more.

 

[AlexBC]

Alex, you registered with this site stating that you were a Christian. Is it that in two months you've come to the firm position that even the existence of Jesus is unbelievable? To go from claiming a faith to making such weighty statements is simply hard to imagine. I really have to wonder if you know what you are doing.

If you know the Word and knew Christ, you should know that this is a matter of the heart; not a matter of historical documentation. If someone, in two months, has fixed his heart against Christ, I have to doubt any true faith ever having existed.

What I'm saying is if you did believe so recently, I would fight against the urge to blaspheme the Lord. If this is a phase, you will have grave remorse.

It's pretty obvious that I was just going along with the faith just for the sake of continuity. I came to this site on the cusp of that realisation.

Anyway, even if I was "confused" a loving god would allow me a little crisis of faith and welcome me back with open arms.

 

[farouk]

It's pretty obvious that I was just going along with the faith just for the sake of continuity. I came to this site on the cusp of that realisation.

Anyway, even if I was "confused" a loving god would allow me a little crisis of faith and welcome me back with open arms.

...on your own merits? still in your sins?

Why, then, did the Savior come?

'The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost' (Luke 19.10).

I pray you will know the joy of finding Him.