Proof of Jesus?

[eng35]

Hello,

I, like A2, am an atheist. I think I have been--in the very least I have been sceptical--my entire life. The question he has posed is a completely valid one, and I can't seem to find any relevant or convincing arguments here that answer it.

What I want to know is how you can have so much faith in a Bronze Age superstition. Why aren't you compelled by the Icelandic Sagas to believe in Odin or Thor? About as much writing exists about Zeus, Hera, Heracles as there does about Jesus and Yahweh. So why are you so willing to put your 'faith' in what you were told by humans about a book written by humans? It seems to me it isn't 'god' you have faith in, but other human beings. Why is it so unreasonable for people like A2 and I to demand more than that? To not make decisions based on the words of others with no substantiating proof? I trust verifiable, repeatable, and visible evidence before I trust anything. Historical sources are never deemed completely reliable, but they are always ALWAYS read with that bias in mind.

As to Alexander; yes, the earliest remaining sources describing him and his campaign are hundreds of years after his lifetime. There are many disagreements in the sources about particular events (Ie, if he cut the Gordian knot or if he pulled the holding pin) but there is no doubt in scholarship that he was a real man. That he lived, and that he really did lead a campaign across the Mediterranean. I accept these basic, verifiable facts because--while the sources are not as old as we would like--there are countless accounts. None of them first hand, but they don't have to be. To substantiate his existence we only need one or two sources--separated by great geographical distance--to make an educated assumption that the person in question was real. More importantly, Alexander left behind a legacy and material evidence of his existence--the Hellenistic world was not an illusion-- that is not difficult to verify, and Macedonia did keep a record of their Kings. But it is impossible to make any solid statement of fact about the specifics of his campaign because we simply cannot verify that the testimonies of Plutarch, Quintus, Diodorus, Pliny, Arrian, Cleitarchus, Justin, Valerius, or Aelian (to name only a few) are completely factually accurate. But we aren't making that claim, are we?

The fact that theists struggle to come up with even one such account - Josephus- whose validity is HIGHLY in question, when I can name nine such accounts of Alexander makes them not even in the same arena to be compared. We can prove Alexander existed, and even if you can prove conclusively that Jesus existed, you can't prove anything else about him because the records simply don't exist. We don't claim anything extraordinary or supernatural about Alexander, but you want to claim all kinds of things about Jesus when you can't even verify he was a real man to any satisfiable degree.

I'll try to answer your concerns to the best of my ability. I apologize if my writing is a bit scrambled, but hopefully it will be easy enough to follow. I think it is important to first address the issue of whether or not Jesus actually existed before moving on to the possibility of his divinity. Most scholars would suggest that Josephus' account about Jesus is not reliable but that it was added to at a late date. Many of those same scholars would also admit that it is likely that Josephus had mentioned Jesus, but the bit about miracles and what not was simply added. The reason that claim is made is because it is much more likely that if Christians were to create the entire account from scratch, that it would be much more elaborate rather than simply being a few sentences stuck in. Now, I realize that that probably doesn't sit well with most, but Josephus isn't the only non-Christian historian to give an account of Jesus. Tacitus also made mention of Jesus and his account is considered to be authentic by most all scholars. I've come across a few other non-Christian historians in the 1st century who have mentioned Jesus; however, I can't remember their names off the top of my head. I could find information on them if you like.

Now, it is really better to establish the probability of there being a God of any sort before making the jump to the Christian God, but since that is not what your post has brought up I'll simply address the reasons I find the belief in a supernatural Jesus more probable than any other deity. If you do wish to discus the logic of a God, just message me or start a new thread. What causes the accounts of Jesus to be more believable than accounts of other deities is that the accounts of Jesus' supernatural abilities, and specifically His resurrection, come from multiple sources rather than just one source. I'm going to specifically address the resurrection because if one can be resurrected from the dead, then the other claims should not seem hard to believe. Similarly, if Jesus did not raise from the dead then whether or not Jesus did perform miracles is irrelevant.

There seem to be 3 explanations to these multiple sources of Jesus' resurrection, at least that I'm aware of. 1) The authors knowingly made them up with the intent to deceive others. 2) The authors all believed that Jesus truly did resurrect due to hallucinations, dreams, etc... and wrote their accounts based on their experiences. 3) The authors wrote what they actually observed. I will go on to list the reasons why I think option 3 is the probable option. First, I'll address number 2 simply because it can be addressed with the fewest amount of words. While it is common for people to have hallucinations after the death of a loved one, the probability of multiple people having the same hallucination is close to 0. Also, the descriptions of the visions of the resurrected Jesus vary greatly in detail type when compared to the hallucinations that people typically have. I can go into more detail if you wish but will stop for now simply to save space. Option 1, mentioned above, seems to be the most logical reason for the accounts of the gospel, if they are not true but there are a few reasons that option 1 is not a probable conclusion. One reason is simply that the gospels mention women being the first witnesses of Jesus' resurrection. At that time, a woman's account was not considered reliable and many wouldn't believe a woman's account of a situation for that reason alone. As a result, it wouldn't make sense for disciples to mention women being the first witnesses of Jesus unless it actually happened. Although that idea by itself may not lend an abundance of support for the resurrection of Jesus, I do think that the eventual martyrdom of many of the disciples does provide ample support. I find it hard to believe that the disciples would knowingly spread false information about Jesus' resurrection simply because they were persecuted and eventually killed because of that information. Charles Colson mentions how when everything happened with Watergate, a small group of people couldn't keep a secret when simply faced with jail time. How likely is it then that a group of people would knowingly keep a secret when faced with death? Especially when that secret had no benefit to them.

I expect you'll have numerous objections to the statements I've made thus far so I'll stop and let you respond if you wish to dialogue with me. You could also simply message me if you find that more appealing.

 

[Alfie]

Hello,

I, like A2, am an atheist. I think I have been--in the very least I have been sceptical--my entire life. The question he has posed is a completely valid one, and I can't seem to find any relevant or convincing arguments here that answer it.

I think you are probably right. The two "histories" are not comparable with regards to bodies of evidence.

I also think looking "here" indicates you might be looking in the wrong place.

 

[Alfie]

...
There seem to be 3 explanations to these multiple sources of Jesus' resurrection, at least that I'm aware of.
1) The authors knowingly made them up with the intent to deceive others.
2) The authors all believed that Jesus truly did resurrect due to hallucinations, dreams, etc... and wrote their accounts based on their experiences.
3) The authors wrote what they actually observed...

No offence intended but I think there is another more likely option:
4) Evolution of the tales / Chinese whispers (with perhaps a little wishful-thinking added for good measure). Stories became myth, myth becomes legend. These were then written down long after the events. This explains the varying and contradictory versions.

Actually, this is my personal reasoning that one or more Jesus-like apocalyptic preachers probably did exist. It also makes the resurrection and the other laughable parts like the exorcism-pigs less likely. Many good myths have a resurrection or two. The gospels have many.

 

[Grazer]

No offence intended but I think there is another more likely option:
4) Evolution of the tales / Chinese whispers (with perhaps a little wishful-thinking added for good measure). Stories became myth, myth becomes legend. These were then written down long after the events. This explains the varying and contradictory versions.

Actually, this is my personal reasoning that one or more Jesus-like apocalyptic preachers probably did exist. It also makes the resurrection and the other laughable parts like the exorcism-pigs less likely. Many good myths have a resurrection or two. The gospels have many.

If the resurrection accounts are as a result of evolution, then they evolved faster than any story in history as the disciples were preaching the resurrection almost immediately after it allegedly occurred and there was a core of Christianity being spread within a year of the events

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Alfie]

If the resurrection accounts are as a result of evolution, then they evolved faster than any story in history as the disciples were preaching the resurrection almost immediately after it allegedly occurred and there was a core of Christianity being spread within a year of the events

Hehehe. Nice one.

I think Dan Brown's agent might argue with you there.

;)

 

[Sparkey]

If the resurrection accounts are as a result of evolution, then they evolved faster than any story in history as the disciples were preaching the resurrection almost immediately after it allegedly occurred and there was a core of Christianity being spread within a year of the events

I like your thinking here except that it was Jesus who initially taught about His Resurrection. That leaves us with an either / or scenario - either the eye witness accounts were contrived and the Apostles were liars one and all - or they told the truth.

Those who are unwilling to believe the most documented fact can not be convinced of the later.

"They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
- Luke 16:29-31 KJV

 

[Alfie]

I like your thinking here except that it was Jesus who initially taught about His Resurrection. That leaves us with an either / or scenario - either the eye witness accounts were contrived and the Apostles were liars one and all - or they told the truth.

Those who are unwilling to believe the most documented fact can not be convinced of the later.

Oooh! That's exciting news. Did I miss something?
What are "the eye witness accounts" to which you refer?

 

[Grazer]

Hehehe. Nice one.

I think Dan Brown's agent might argue with you there.

;)

Dan Brown - haha, love it!

I'll cite Craig Blomberg on this - http://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible

 

[heymikey80]

I need your help friends. I am a Christian and have been for many, many years.

After a recent debate with a fellow atheist, he posed a question to me that I have been trying to answer. I am not having much luck to say the least.

Since the fella is an atheist, I cannot use the Bible at all. His asked me to prove Jesus' existance without using the Bible and only writings not biblically related. He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33.

I have to say, even with today's internet and google, I have yet to find a writer that wrote of Jesus during the time he actually was on earth.

Surely there is something? Surely someone, somewhere, wrote about him, or mentioned him?

MODS: please move if not posted in the correct forum.

OK.

There are about a dozen references to Jesus Christ or His followers from the First Century. These come from Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, those are the ones I remember offhand from memory.

I don't know what you mean by "not Biblically related", either. If you're looking for supporting resources from within the Christian community at the time, there are certainly extrabiblical, first century documents from the community. The Letter of Barnabas and the Didache (Apostolic Teaching) are two from the community traced to the First Century.

There is also a reference from Tertullian to two Roman annals describing the historicity of Jesus' death. The first annal documents Jesus' crucifixion as a government action in Jerusalem. The second annal documents the fact that in Rome, adjusted for time variants, Rome experienced a darkness coincident with Jesus' crucifixion.

This amount of evidence is extremely consistent with the tiny population of Christians that existed during the First Century. In point of fact we have only scant documents of other religious movements of comparable or even larger size from this century. In point of fact, only Josephus even mentions the Pharisees in contemporary literature: their own documents are completely unknown. The fact that we have writings from the Essenes is a remarkable effect of desert preservation, and not much more. And the Gnostic Christian movement, considered to exceed the catholic Christian movement in size, is documented by similar desert records recovered through archaeology.

Plus -- for the record -- the John Rylands fragment, a portion of two pages from John's Gospel, is from around 100 AD. Would you like more information on Paleography?

Alexandrian text-type in dating and comparison with other types.

 

[Sparkey]

Oooh! That's exciting news. Did I miss something?
What are "the eye witness accounts" to which you refer?

You have to be familiar with them in order to dispute them. I'm not trying to convince the unwilling.

See Post #60

 

[heymikey80]

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

There were MANY people that wrote about George Washington.

Um, let's omit everyone who was his friend (Jefferson & Adams come to mind), and everything about his Presidency and military work (b/c 1, Jesus never held a public office, and 2, Jesus never fought a military battle).

I think though that it's pretty shallow at this juncture to try to assert that an itinerant preacher called Y'shua never existed. The volume of response from the second century on is too persuasive that something significant happened in a little backwater of the Roman Empire around 30 AD. The growth of such a movement is realistic; to think nothing caused this movement would be a more remarkable conclusion than to conclude that a person initiated it.

It's like expecting the "Teacher of Righteousness" of the Essenes to have not initiated that movement. And we don't even have a name for that guy.

 

[elijah23]

I need your help friends. I am a Christian and have been for many, many years.

After a recent debate with a fellow atheist, he posed a question to me that I have been trying to answer. I am not having much luck to say the least.

Since the fella is an atheist, I cannot use the Bible at all. His asked me to prove Jesus' existance without using the Bible and only writings not biblically related. He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33.

I have to say, even with today's internet and google, I have yet to find a writer that wrote of Jesus during the time he actually was on earth.

Surely there is something? Surely someone, somewhere, wrote about him, or mentioned him?

MODS: please move if not posted in the correct forum.

Jesus has solved every problem I've ever had. That proves to me that he exists. I don't care if your friend accepts that as proof or not, nor should you.

 

[Alfie]

You have to be familiar with them in order to dispute them. I'm not trying to convince the unwilling.

See Post #60

Fair enough. I feel the same way, that trying to convince the unwilling is a waste of breath.

I agree completely with what you wrote in post #60, I merely point out that the use of the term "eye witness accounts" is a tad disingenuous.
No offense intended.

 

[Kaliani]

I merely point out that the use of the term "eye witness accounts" is a tad disingenuous.

Sorry?

 

[Sparkey]

Fair enough. I feel the same way, that trying to convince the unwilling is a waste of breath.

I agree completely with what you wrote in post #60, I merely point out that the use of the term "eye witness accounts" is a tad disingenuous.
No offense intended.

My bad.

I didn't mean the guys listed in Post 60 were eye witnesses to the resurrection, but now that I read what I wrote, it doesn't express my thought. The OP has a "friend" who hates the bible so much that even the mention of it in any written document disqualifies that document. The request was that we use "only writings not biblically related". My reference to the "eye witness accounts" means the thousands and thousands of documents written before the bible was compiled.

The restrictive nature of the OP request, that we were to make sure that the "writings" were actually in (from?) Jesus time - 1 AD to 33 AD clearly means the "friend" is not willing to listen to reason. This is not typical behavior for an atheist so I doubt that the "friend" exists.

 

[Kaliani]

Well, no one mind me. I understand.

 

[Alfie]

My bad.

I didn't mean the guys listed in Post 60 were eye witnesses to the resurrection, but now that I read what I wrote, it doesn't express my thought. The OP has a "friend" who hates the bible so much that even the mention of it in any written document disqualifies that document. The request was that we use "only writings not biblically related". My reference to the "eye witness accounts" means the thousands and thousands of documents written before the bible was compiled.

The restrictive nature of the OP request, that we were to make sure that the "writings" were actually in (from?) Jesus time - 1 AD to 33 AD clearly means the "friend" is not willing to listen to reason. This is not typical behavior for an atheist so I doubt that the "friend" exists.

Ah, ok. I see what you mean.

On a side note, just an observation... I don't know any atheists who actively "hate" the bible. "Hate" is a very strong word.
Some get very upset by the "people" who use it to control others and many, of course, get frustrated by the use of it to prove itself (the circular reasoning thing) and the morality (i.e. immorality by today's standards) therein is equally as disturbing to theists and to non-theists, but I think that all agree that as a work of literature it, and the Quran and many other scripture are invaluable to the understanding of human development. I'd go so far as to call it poetry ... and I'm a published poet, so I will allow myself to say that

Actually, the Quran, when read aloud as written, can be deeply moving.

I think my favourite lines have got to be the ".. through a glass darkly" and the "...when I became a man, I put away childish things" passages.
I have made no attempt to do either of those things in my life but I sure feel the warmth of the poetry.

I just felt like I wanted to mention that, sorry for the derail.

 

[joep222]

I have tried my friend, but he wants legitimate proof as do many.

I am curious on this as well. It is hard for me to believe there are no writings outside the Bible about Jesus.

Well, the Bible is legitimate proof, regardless if he accepts or not. The Bible is far more verified than any historical document:

Written over 1500 year period by more than 40 authors with complete consistency throughout.
Most of the bible was written in less than 200 years from the events depicted.
More than 24,000 manuscripts with less than 2% copying errors.
Referenced by peer historical authors (Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, et. al.)
More than 66 prophecies fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
No other historical work comes even close to this validation and those works are not challenged as authentic (The Iliad and the Odyssey, Julius Caesar, Socrates, Plato et. al.)

---------
He will never accept the truth of the Bible until he humbles himself before God.

 

[WIP]

I think you make a good point, joep222. We often forget that the Bible is not just one account but many compiled together into what we have today as one booklet.
If my information is correct I believe that Jesus fulfilled many more than just 66 prophecies. The number that comes to mind is somewhere closer to 400 but I may be wrong.

 

[wayseer]

Well, the Bible is legitimate proof, regardless if he accepts or not.

Legitimate for whom?

Despite your suspected cut 'n paste on the stats, I would suggest there are any number of textual and historical inconsistencies contained in the record.

I am not conversant with the argument concerning the texts of the OT but with respect to the NT we have to acknowledge that we have no extant 'originals' - all we have is copies of copies of copies - none of them the identical.

But the same can be said for any other texts produced under the quill of a scribe often by the light of a candle.

However, given these constrictions we can do some textual archaeology and dig down through the layers and arrive at a set of documents which will shed historical light on the events to which they purport to uphold.

But none of this will matter to those who have already made up their minds.