Proof of Jesus?

[Free]

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.

There is consistency, just a little confusion. As I stated previously: We have the four gospels, the writings of his followers, and theirs, extra-biblical writings, etc. The gospels are not contemporary in that they were likely written after his death and resurrection, but they were written by his followers and other eyewitnesses, with many more eyewitnesses still alive.

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

A common refrain from atheists and popular media but untrue. For some people, or maybe anyone in a specific situation, that may be true, but faith, as it applies in Christianity, is based on evidence, not the absence of it.

 

[AlexBC]

Well, the nature of that evidence would have to be so highly subjective as to be unverifiable.

 

[farouk]

Well, the nature of that evidence would have to be so highly subjective as to be unverifiable.

...but if a person takes the attitude, despite clear Scriptural evidence: 'Why should I believe in God?'

What if, eventually, despite His grace, long-suffering and patience, the Creator were to say to His creature, 'Why should I wait any longer for you?'

Then what?

 

[Atothetheist]

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

Umm... Maybe his signiture? Maybe OTHER OUTSIDE SOURCES Like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams?

There were MANY people that wrote about George Washington.

 

[AlexBC]

Umm... Maybe his signiture? Maybe OTHER OUTSIDE SOURCES Like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams?

There were MANY people that wrote about George Washington.

Believe me, I already gave them examples of why the George Washington argument makes no sense. Amazingly, and unsurprisingly, it was shot down.

The basic answer was " you can't believe anything you read or see so it just depends on what you believe"

 

[AlexBC]

...but if a person takes the attitude, despite clear Scriptural evidence: 'Why should I believe in God?'

What if, eventually, despite His grace, long-suffering and patience, the Creator were to say to His creature, 'Why should I wait any longer for you?'

Then what?

You do realise I don't beleive a God exists?

That is irrelevant.

 

[Atothetheist]

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.

Nope, you are wrong. You can't "PROVE" they were first hand accounts. They were written at LEAST fourty years after Christ was even on earth. I highly doubt that the followers of SUCH AN IMPORTANT person would wait that long to write about him. Do you have Jesus's signiture? Was Jesus recorded by the British as being ONE of their soliders? Nope. Their proof is not the same.

Did Jesus own property? Lead a country of people that could testfy to his authenticity? Or what about leave a will, or own slaves which could testify.

Please, don't kid yourself. There are MANY MANY MANY more RELIABLE accounts of George than for Jesus.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100209022418AA1CrnY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington

The problem is, ALL of the documents that mentions George, or at least was written by him are historically accurate, and contemporary to his life. The Bible is a series of writings about A deity.

Even if there was proof of Jesus historically, it does not at all prove any of the things ascribed to him( virgin Birth, Etc.)

Take Mohhamod for instance, We KNOW he existed, but does that prove islam? Nope, not in the slightest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Heck, we even know HOW muhhamod died! Jesus has nothing on this guy!

( to all those who say Wiki isn't reliable, check the sources at the bottom yourself. These are the writings, and the refferances that the Wiki article uses.)

 

[AlexBC]

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

I'm really amazed that people keep citing sources like Josephus and Tacitus as being acceptable sources as they were written within 100 years of Jesus' life.


And there may be "thousands of archeological confirmations of specific events mentioned in the New Testament" but all that means is that the writers of the Bible were aware of some things going on at that time. I still have yet to see any extra-biblical evidence for the life of Christ in the archeological record. Some toenail clippings? His beard? A restaurant receipt?

And i'd like an example of belief structures we make today on "much less evidence".

 

[Atothetheist]

I'm really amazed that people keep citing sources like Josephus and Tacitus as being acceptable sources as they were written within 100 years of Jesus' life.


And there may be "thousands of archeological confirmations of specific events mentioned in the New Testament" but all that means is that the writers of the Bible were aware of some things going on at that time. I still have yet to see any extra-biblical evidence for the life of Christ in the archeological record. Some toenail clippings? His beard? A restaurant receipt?

And i'd like an example of belief structures we make today on "much less evidence".

Josephus one has been known to be editted.

Here is what Tacitus says about Jesus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

 

[BornAgain]

Nope, you are wrong. You can't "PROVE" they were first hand accounts. They were written at LEAST fourty years after Christ was even on earth. I highly doubt that the followers of SUCH AN IMPORTANT person would wait that long to write about him. Do you have Jesus's signiture? Was Jesus recorded by the British as being ONE of their soliders? Nope. Their proof is not the same.

Did Jesus own property? Lead a country of people that could testfy to his authenticity? Or what about leave a will, or own slaves which could testify.

Please, don't kid yourself. There are MANY MANY MANY more RELIABLE accounts of George than for Jesus.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100209022418AA1CrnY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington

The problem is, ALL of the documents that mentions George, or at least was written by him are historically accurate, and contemporary to his life. The Bible is a series of writings about A deity.

Even if there was proof of Jesus historically, it does not at all prove any of the things ascribed to him( virgin Birth, Etc.)

Take Mohhamod for instance, We KNOW he existed, but does that prove islam? Nope, not in the slightest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Heck, we even know HOW muhhamod died! Jesus has nothing on this guy!

( to all those who say Wiki isn't reliable, check the sources at the bottom yourself. These are the writings, and the refferances that the Wiki article uses.)

Good Morning,

To reply to your statement did Jesus have a will, he most certainly did, it is called The New Testament: Here is scripture in Hebrews Chapter 9 vs 16-17

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth Heb 9:16-17 (KJV)



To translate:
16 For where a testament is, etc.—That is, before a testament can have any legal force, the death of the testator must be known and publicly acknowledged as a fact. The reference which our author makes to "the eternal inheritance" at the close of the preceding verse, suggested to his mind the case of a testament, and this thought he now takes up, not for the purpose of proving, but simply of illustrating the necessity of Christ's death.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead:—This is a well known law of all civilized nations. So long as the testator lives, it is his privilege to change his will as he pleases, and nothing but his death can therefore immutably fix and ratify its various stipulations. Previous to this indeed, his intended heirs may be allowed to enjoy to any extent the benefits of his estate. But not until the will is ratified by his death, can they claim a legal right to the inheritance as their own. And so it was with respect to the eternal inheritance. "After Abraham had patiently endured, he obtained the promise." (6:15.) That is, immediately after his death he was received into the enjoyment of the promised rest, as one of God's elect, and henceforth he was allowed to partake of the benefits of the inheritance so far as he was capable of enjoying them. (11:10, 16.) And he also doubtless looked forward to the time when he and his children would be constituted the rightful owners of all things (Rom. 4:13; 1 Cor. 3:21-23), not excepting the redeemed and renovated earth. See notes on 2:5-9. But it was not until the New Covenant was inaugurated by the death of Christ and ratified by his blood, that any one could claim, as we now claim, an absolute right to the eternal inheritance.
I see no reason for the protracted controversy that critics have kept up with respect to the meaning of the word diatheke in the sixteenth and seventeenth verses. It is quite evident that the diathemenos of these verses is the maker of the diatheke, and that his death must of necessity take place before the diatheke can have any legal force. This is not true in the case of a covenant, but only in the case of a will or testament. And hence, beyond all doubt, the word diatheke in these verses means a will or testament. But on the other hand, it is equally obvious that this word cannot in this sense be literally applied to any of God's arrangements with men, nor does our author so intend to apply it. He refers to the well-known law of a will as an analogous case, merely for the purpose of illustrating his point, and of so impressing more deeply on the mind of his readers the necessity of Christ's death, before God could consistently bestow on the heirs of the promise a right in fee-simple to the eternal inheritance. The word diathemenos means both a covenanter and a testator, and the word diatheke means in like manner both a covenant and a testament. And hence it was perfectly natural and legitimate that our author should, in this instance, pass from the first meaning of diatheke to the second, without however intending to apply the word to any of God's arrangements in a sense which would be altogether inapposite.
—Gospel Advocate Commentaries

 

[John O]

So often we try to answer the wrong question. God does not ask us to prove that He exists He says creation declares His existence. Atheists don't really exist. When in time of despair they either cry out to God or curse Him.

John O

 

[Mike]

Those of you who are pushing atheism have gradually become more bold in your statements and are clearly over the line with the ToS.

2.2: No active promotion of other Faiths is allowed:
You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussing these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This includes Universal Reconciliation, Universal Salvation, Serpent seed, Dual Seed or Two-Seedline doctrine which are only allowed in the 1 on 1 Debate Forum. This is a Christian Forum as the name suggests.
Non-Christians will not create threads inviting members to ask them about their belief systems such as "Ask the Atheist" or "Ask the Agnostic". Such threads are seen as a means to promote other faiths.

You joined this board stating that you read and understood the ToS. You may consider this fair warning that stating our beliefs are invalid, as opposed to saying you are personally led to believe they are invalid, is not in keeping with the rules you agreed to abide with. In this and other threads, you must keep this in mind going forward.

Thank you.

 

[AlexBC]

Those of you who are pushing atheism have gradually become more bold in your statements and are clearly over the line with the ToS.



You joined this board stating that you read and understood the ToS. You may consider this fair warning that stating our beliefs are invalid, as opposed to saying you are personally led to believe they are invalid, is not in keeping with the rules you agreed to abide with. In this and other threads, you must keep this in mind going forward.

Thank you.

Well, Atheism is not a faith or religion. And Atheism hasn't really entered into this discussion. We've been discussing the existence of the historical Jesus. I don't think I or anyone else has been outright arguing the existence of God.
We've been questioning the validity and veracity of historical sources and what constitutes a reliable source.

I was even told that a healthy amount of skepticism was a good thing. The questions that have been raised should be questions that the average Christians ask themselves if they are to state with any conviction that they truly believe.

 

[WIP]

Nope, you are wrong. You can't "PROVE" they were first hand accounts. They were written at LEAST fourty years after Christ was even on earth. The same can be said of any and all accounts of George. If you don't believe me, show unrefutable proof to the contrary.

I highly doubt that the followers of SUCH AN IMPORTANT person would wait that long to write about him. Do you have Jesus's signiture? Was Jesus recorded by the British as being ONE of their soliders? Nope. Their proof is not the same. What would his signature prove and how would you verify that it was in fact his signature? Can you prove the alleged signatures of George Washington are valid? If so, please do. There were no such things as British when Jesus walked the earth.

Did Jesus own property? Lead a country of people that could testfy to his authenticity? Or what about leave a will, or own slaves which could testify. What does owning property have to do with anything? Did he lead people that could testify to his authenticity. Yes and yes!!! Did he have a will? Yes. Did he own slaves? No and what does that prove? Did George? If so, prove it.

Please, don't kid yourself. There are MANY MANY MANY more RELIABLE accounts of George than for Jesus. There are accounts of Jesus dating thousands of years both before and after his death. Since the number of accounts of your life or mine don't compare, does this mean we do not exist?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100209022418AA1CrnY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington

Oh yes, Yahoo and Wikipedia are certainly undisputable sources. (sarcasm intended)

The problem is, ALL of the documents that mentions George, or at least was written by him are historically accurate, and contemporary to his life. The Bible is a series of writings about A deity. What proof do you have of this and how can you substantiate your proof?

Even if there was proof of Jesus historically, it does not at all prove any of the things ascribed to him( virgin Birth, Etc.)

Take Mohhamod for instance, We KNOW he existed, but does that prove islam? Nope, not in the slightest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

How do we know Mohammad existed? What proof do you have? Oh, yes I forgot about Wikipedia.

Heck, we even know HOW muhhamod died! Jesus has nothing on this guy! We know how Christ died too. So what does that prove?

( to all those who say Wiki isn't reliable, check the sources at the bottom yourself. These are the writings, and the refferances that the Wiki article uses.)What does that prove? That they can recite other writings from what could be unreliable sources too? I can do that. It proves nothing. Just a quick search returned this dated April 19, 2012

A new study from Penn State University claims that 60% of Wikipedia entries might include errors.

[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but you have not shown anything more valid about George than about Christ. It ultimately depends on what you are willing to accept and believe. You believe everything you know about George without any real proof at all. I do too but I also believe Christ without any proof at all as I believe this from John 20:29. “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

[Tri Unity]

There are several other letters concurrent with Jesus and the Apostles. They are not accepted as authentic by all; but then Jesus Himself is not accepted as authentic. Examples are:

• The Letters of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
• The Letter of King Abgar to Jesus
• The Epistle of Thaddeus

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0810.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01042c.htm

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/addai_2_text.htm

There are other letter as well, such as Seneca's, but I am sure even these ones will be denied as authentic. Once a person is trying deliberately to find fault in an argument it is almost impossible to turn them around.

Tri

 

[WIP]

For those who do not believe. It is not possible for any of us to prove or convince you to believe. There is nothing we can say or do to prove beyond all doubt the existence and deity of Christ. We don’t even believe by our own ability but by the power of the Holy Spirit.

All I can tell you with certainty is that for a time in my life I was like you and did not believe and now I do. For me there was no life-changing event that took place, no flash of light, no, “aha!†moment. My change has been gradual and continues to this day and will probably continue for as long as I live on this earth. I call myself WIP because I am a “Work In Progress.†I don’t know all there is to know about God and I don’t have to. All I need to know I am given when I need to know it.

I would like to offer a suggestion that you relax and allow yourself to be open to the possibility. Stop seeking proof that can’t be found in tangible things. Don’t completely close the door to God but be willing to at least listen to Him. I would really love to hear someday that you too have discovered the peace and contentment that comes only from a loving relationship with Jesus Christ. I won’t lie to you. It will require a little sacrifice because you will have to give up some pride to let this happen and this will be a real challenge. It certainly was for me but has been worth it.

With Christ’s love.

 

[Nick]

Well, Atheism is not a faith or religion. And Atheism hasn't really entered into this discussion. We've been discussing the existence of the historical Jesus. I don't think I or anyone else has been outright arguing the existence of God.
We've been questioning the validity and veracity of historical sources and what constitutes a reliable source.

I was even told that a healthy amount of skepticism was a good thing. The questions that have been raised should be questions that the average Christians ask themselves if they are to state with any conviction that they truly believe.

Atheism is considered a religion for the purposes of the ToS.

 

[farouk]

You do realise I don't beleive a God exists?

That is irrelevant.

...if this is the case, and you've come here to spread atheism, then why did you even come?

Let me point you back to the Bible, in any case:

'He that comes to God, must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarded of them that diligently seek Him' (Hebrews 11.4).

 

[Arkitech]

It isn't going to come with your rational arguments outside of the Bible. He needs to come round to be prepared to read it and see that the Bible is where you get all your reasons from.

Can you elaborate on what you're saying in this statement of yours please?
I have an idea of what you're saying, but I may be mistaken.

 

[Sparkey]

The rule that you've tried to impose that no "biblical" sources can be considered sounds very arbitrary to me. Sort of like asking a potential boxing opponent to tie one hand behind his back. Similar to saying, "Try to prove that Socrates existed historically, but you can not use anybody who personally knew him or studied under him or their students as your source." Try to prove he existed, but you can't use anything that was written in Greek and you must only use writings that were contemporary to his lifetime. If you're looking for arguments based on lack of evidence and arbitrary restrictions - try to prove that there are more than 4,000 stars in the universe but restrict your "proof" to that which can be discovered by an observer on earth and the unaided eye.

The request could be restated as, "If the writings were considered to be so valid that believers throughout history thought them to be inspired by God - they have to be thrown out so that we pretend they don't exist."

Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient world have few manuscripts to which we can refer. This is specially true when we consider the secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies of Herodotus's historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today (McDowell 1972:42). These are indeed very few.

When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57).
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm