can anyone please give me proof that Jesus Christ is real?

[firechyld]

It takes faith to accept anything a "historian" jots down as true.

When studying history, one is encouraged to question everything. That is the goal of the historian.

It's doubtful that any historian writes anything expecting it to be completely accepted by scholastic circles.

 

[PureX]

Re: Jesus is NO Myth

Re: Jesus is NO Myth

Originally posted by Aimiel "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

So ... we have to prove every work of fiction ever written is NOT true, or we must accept it as true until we do? That's ridiculous.

Also, as we have seen in our courst, some of the most unreliable evidence comes from eye-witnesses. The truth is that people understand what they see according to their ow expectations, and so when they tell what they saw, it inevitably ends up being biased by these expectations.

Originally posted by Aimiel "In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.

"According to this rule, we must allow that in copying manuscripts, the Christians did not corrupt the text, since they must be presumed to be conversant with their own affairs. Now that we have fragments of manuscripts from as early as A.D. 130, we have excellent evidence that such a presumption is indeed justified."

We know now days that this is simply wrong. This statement is itself the product of a bias that it's claiming does not exist.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

ask him if Julias Ceasar was a real person and why believes the way he does.

Caesar's existence is well documented and no one's ever really tried claiming he was a virgin born messiah.

Any extra-biblical references to Christ were either a) inserted by Christians or b) second-hand at best. This doesn't "prove" anything one way or another; but the litmus test for Caesar's existence and Jesus' are apples and oranges.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by granite1010

Caesar's existence is well documented and no one's ever really tried claiming he was a virgin born messiah.

Any extra-biblical references to Christ were either a) inserted by Christians or b) second-hand at best. This doesn't "prove" anything one way or another; but the litmus test for Caesar's existence and Jesus' are apples and oranges.

how is it well documented?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

how is it well documented?

I'm not gonna put you through a history lesson, GIT. Either do your own homework or stop stalling.

 

[jjjg]

It is actually no different. The Romans documented Ceaser well because they held Ceaser with high esteem. The Christians held Christ with high esteem so they documented him well.

Because of the standing of Ceaser as emperor records of people who knew him when he was alive was probably greater whereas Christianity gradually caught on but the apostles knew him first hand.

They also thought Ceaser was a God.

 

[Aimiel]

Re: Re: Jesus is NO Myth

Re: Re: Jesus is NO Myth

Originally posted by PureX

So ... we have to prove every work of fiction ever written is NOT true, or we must accept it as true until we do? That's ridiculous.

Of course it is, but we aren't talking about fiction. The Gospel is considered the 'cornerstone' of truth. When people say, "That's Gospel," it means that what was said can be 'taken to the bank' so-to-speak. It is true, verily, in other words. When history dis-proves a single one of the facts recorded in The Bible, you may have an argument, but, until then, you don't. None ever will, and that's 'Gospel.'

 

[PureX]

Re: Re: Re: Jesus is NO Myth

Re: Re: Re: Jesus is NO Myth

Originally posted by Aimiel Of course it is, but we aren't talking about fiction.

You were talking about how we decide if a story is fiction or not. Your quote claimed that we should take every story as historically accurate until it's proven otherwise. This is clearly ridiculous. But your quote overlooked this absurdity in an effort to claim that it's not the responsibility of the story-teller to prove his story, but is the responsibility of the listener to disprove it, or to automatically believe it. And this is of course equally absurd.

It's the responsibility of the claimant to prove the claim, not the responsibility of everyone else to disprove it. This is just plain common sense.

Originally posted by Aimiel The Gospel is considered the 'cornerstone' of truth. When people say, "That's Gospel," it means that what was said can be 'taken to the bank' so-to-speak. It is true, verily, in other words. When history dis-proves a single one of the facts recorded in The Bible, you may have an argument, but, until then, you don't. None ever will, and that's 'Gospel.'

What people believe is irrelevant to what actually is. The "gospel truth" that everyone agreed on not soong ago was that the world was flat, and that the universe revolved around the Earth, and that the Earth is 6000 years old. But in time these "gospel truths" have been shown to be untrue. And just as these "gospel truths" have changed over time, so will many others.

Just because we believe something to be true doesn't make it true. Just because we wrote down that we believed it, it still doesn't make it true. Just because we tell others that it's true, and they believe it, too, it still doesn't make it true. That's just the way it is. Faith doesn't dictate truth.

 

[Aimiel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus is NO Myth

Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus is NO Myth

Originally posted by PureX

You were talking about how we decide if a story is fiction or not.

No, I wasn't.

Your quote claimed that we should take every story as historically accurate until it's proven otherwise.

That was one of the premises of the attorney, in arguing his case. If you don't agree, perhaps you should take it up with him. I merely posted his words, which I believe are interesting. I don't propose to defend his position, merely agree that his findings, that Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead and that He is God, in The Flesh, are correct.

It's the responsibility of the claimant to prove the claim, not the responsibility of everyone else to disprove it. This is just plain common sense.

I believe that is why Jesus said that His Works speak for themselves. The lame walked, those who were blind from birth received sight, the dead were raised to life, etc., etc..

What people believe is irrelevant to what actually is.

That's true. What you have swallowed, though you believe it, has no effect upon Truth.

The "gospel truth" that everyone agreed on not soong ago was that the world was flat, and that the universe revolved around the Earth, and that the Earth is 6000 years old. But in time these "gospel truths" have been shown to be untrue. And just as these "gospel truths" have changed over time, so will many others.

I don't believe that the 'young earth' theory has been disproven, yet. I also don't believe that any scientific or historic fact in The Word of God has ever been disproved.

Just because we believe something to be true doesn't make it true.

You're being redundant, but still correct.

Just because we wrote down that we believed it, it still doesn't make it true.

This is not what was written down in The Word, when people recorded events. They recorded what they saw, and things said by The One that they saw and also touched with their hands.

Just because we tell others that it's true, and they believe it, too, it still doesn't make it true.

Just because you deny it doesn't make it any less true, either. Truth is true, whether anyone on earth believes or not, and that's the truth.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by granite1010

I'm not gonna put you through a history lesson, GIT. Either do your own homework or stop stalling.

it's not homework

my point was really, why do people believe what was written about Julias Ceaser and not about Jesus?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

it's not homework

my point was really, why do people believe what was written about Julias Ceaser and not about Jesus?

For one thing, Caesar's existence is documented by contemporary historians and archeology. Neither can be said for Christ. Josephus' comment was inserted by an overzealous Christian. The "Chrestus" reference does not indicate Jesus, either.

Without contemporary history or archeology on the side of Christianity, it means Christians are the ones with a very long row to hoe.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

it's not homework

my point was really, why do people believe what was written about Julias Ceaser and not about Jesus?

Many of the things that were written about the Roman ceasers were written and depicted by artists and scribes who witnessed the events they wrote about. These events were also corroberated by the documented events of many other people who also had direct interaction with these ceasers. The real difference is that there are lots of different sources of documentation that was produced by people who had direct interaction with the subject.

In the case of Jesus, however, the documents that we have were not written by anyone who had direct interaction with Jesus. All we have are copies of copies of documents that no longer exist that were supposed to have been written by people who had direct interaction, but even this supposition is unlikely given the contents of the texts. Three of the four gospels are obviously copies made from a similar or even the same original. Yet they each are purported to have been written by different apostles. This in itself is an obvious deceit and even if their source text was an eye-witness account, it represents only one single supposed witness and since this witness has already been misrepresented it tend to detract from even it's supposed credibility. So really all we have are a couple of copies of some missing documents that are dubiously claimed to have been written by eye-witnesses. And there is nothing else. All the other supposed corroberating evidence documentation only documents that some people believed what these first documents were used to claim. But that corroberates nothing.

I'm not arguing against the existence of Jesus, I'm just pointing out that there really is almost no evidence at all that he did actually exist, whereas there is lots of corroberating evidence that Julius Ceaser did actually exist.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

it's not homework

my point was really, why do people believe what was written about Julias Ceaser and not about Jesus?

And another reason is that I've never heard anyone say, "and now we'll take up the offering" after discussing the life of Julius Caesar.

:chuckle:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by granite1010

For one thing, Caesar's existence is documented by contemporary historians and archeology. Neither can be said for Christ. Josephus' comment was inserted by an overzealous Christian. The "Chrestus" reference does not indicate Jesus, either.

Without contemporary history or archeology on the side of Christianity, it means Christians are the ones with a very long row to hoe.

how are you defining "contemporary"?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by PureX

Many of the things that were written about the Roman ceasers were written and depicted by artists and scribes who witnessed the events they wrote about.

how do you know that? why do you believe they were witnesses?

These events were also corroberated by the documented events of many other people who also had direct interaction with these ceasers.

again, why do you believe that this is so?

The real difference is that there are lots of different sources of documentation that was produced by people who had direct interaction with the subject.

according to who? what makes this true?

In the case of Jesus, however, the documents that we have were not written by anyone who had direct interaction with Jesus.

John and Paul weren't eyewitnesses?

All we have are copies of copies of documents that no longer exist that were supposed to have been written by people who had direct interaction, but even this supposition is unlikely given the contents of the texts

there are many things that are unlikely in this world, but that doesn't mean they are any less true.

Three of the four gospels are obviously copies made from a similar or even the same original. Yet they each are purported to have been written by different apostles.

they aren't word for word so obviously someone else filled in some details to which they can make claim for.

This in itself is an obvious deceit

not necessarily. perhaps one liked the way the other was written and wanted to include that part in his own account if it was going to be distributed in a different region than the first. it does not necessitate deceit.

and even if their source text was an eye-witness account, it represents only one single supposed witness and since this witness has already been misrepresented it tend to detract from even it's supposed credibility.

Paul says there were over 500 direct eye witnesses at one time. surely they could have spoke up if the accounts were misleading or incorrect.

I'm not arguing against the existence of Jesus, I'm just pointing out that there really is almost no evidence at all that he did actually exist, whereas there is lots of corroberating evidence that Julius Ceaser did actually exist.

why do you believe the stuff written about Julias Ceaser?

 

[OMEGA]

If JESUS did not exist then We have no HOPE and

might as well eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

(1 Cor 15:30 KJV) And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

(1 Cor 15:31 KJV) I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

(1 Cor 15:32 KJV) If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth how do you know that? why do you believe they were witnesses?

I don't know it. Our grasp of history isn't and can never be absolute. All we can do is assess the evidence and how it's corroberated, and decide what's the most probable scenario. The claim that Jusius Ceaser is God, born of a virgin, and ascended into heaven is a very unlikely claim, and so will require a huge pile of evidence to be accepted by a reasonable person as probable. The claim that Julius Ceaser was emporer of the Romam empire at a certain period of time is not an unlikely claim, and so does not require such a vast amount of supporting evidence to become acceptable. And we do have a fair amount of evidence that suggests that he was an emperor of the Roman Empire for a period of time. Remember that we are not after absolute knowledge, because that's not possible for us, we're only deciding what is a probable historical assertion.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth John and Paul weren't eyewitnesses?

We don't know who wrote the document called "the Gospel of John" or when they wrote it. And Paul was not an eye-witness as he lived many years after Jesus supposed death.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth there are many things that are unlikely in this world, but that doesn't mean they are any less true.

The word unlikely does, however, still mean unlikely. Certainly, the improbable does happen, but most of the time it does not happen - which is why it's considered improbable. And we aren't just talking unlikely, here, we're talking about phenomena that has never been seen to happen by anyone ever! We're talking about claims that a man was a god, born of a virgin, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. These are claims that defy all known limitations of physics, and of life and of probability as any of us has ever experienced them. To accept such a claim as probable would require massive evidence from a reasonable person to accept as a probable historical event. And we have almost no evidence whatever. All we have are a whole lot of people have chosen to believe these things happened without any evidence. Which do you think is really more likely: that people tend to believe things without evidence simply because they want them to be true, or that a man-god born of a virgin died and returned from the dead and ascended into heaven?

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth they aren't word for word so obviously someone else filled in some details to which they can make claim for.

They aren't word for word because different people copied them at different times, and "interpreted" or embellished the stories as they did so.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth not necessarily. perhaps one liked the way the other was written and wanted to include that part in his own account if it was going to be distributed in a different region than the first. it does not necessitate deceit.

That's called copying someone else's supposed "witness". And you should spend some time studying this stuff, because you don't seem to understand that "Matthew", "Mark" and "Luke" were not written by the people for whom they're named. And "John" probably isn't, either. Arguing with me is foolish until you go and find out what the people who really study this stuff think. And I don't mean some web site for Christian apologetics, I mean find out from real textual scholars and archeologists what is the general concensus about who may have written these documents and when.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth Paul says there were over 500 direct eye witnesses at one time. surely they could have spoke up if the accounts were misleading or incorrect.

If these supposed eye-witnesses did not exist, then they certainly could not have come forward to deny Paul's claim, now could they. You are trying to argue from a negative: that we have to prove a claim untrue, when in fact this is irrational. The claimant has the responsibility for proving his assertion, not the other way round - especially when the claim being made is so improbable (like claims of events that defy the laws of reason and physics).

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth why do you believe the stuff written about Julias Ceaser?

Because the claim that Julius Ceaser was an emporer of Rome is not physically impossible, is not unreasonable, and has a lot of corroberating documentation. It's probable that this documentation is more or less accurate. I do not believe, however, that Julius Ceaser was born of a virgin, performed miracles, or was a god-man as was sometimes claimed (and believed and written of) by people of his time. For me to believe that probable would require a whole lot more corroberation because it's so much more an unlikely claim.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

how are you defining "contemporary"?

GIT, you can either keep playing dumb or try to have a real discussion.

Caesar's biographers lived during his life time. His existence (and that of Augustus, Napoleon, etc.) was documented while he lived. The same cannot be said of Christ. Jesus' works, miracles, the resurrection of dead saints at his crucifixion, the eclipse of the sun accompanying his death--all of this and more does not have a scrap of proof from Jewish and Roman historians of his own time. History is simply silent on the subject of Jesus' existence.

That said, the burden of proof is on Christians to point to any bit of history as "evidence" that this messiah actually lived.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by granite1010

GIT, you can either keep playing dumb or try to have a real discussion.

I may be mistaken, but I think GIT was asking whether you meant Caesar's comtemporaries or ours. But you already clarified.

Caesar's biographers lived during his life time. His existence (and that of Augustus, Napoleon, etc.) was documented while he lived. The same cannot be said of Christ. Jesus' works, miracles, the resurrection of dead saints at his crucifixion, the eclipse of the sun accompanying his death--all of this and more does not have a scrap of proof from Jewish and Roman historians of his own time. History is simply silent on the subject of Jesus' existence.

What about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Turbo

I may be mistaken, but I think GIT was asking whether you meant Caesar's comtemporaries or ours. But you already clarified.

What about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

What about them? Even Christian scholars acknowledge it's very doubtful that the gospels were written by these four. In any event the gospels were hardly "contemporary"; they were more like memoirs written long after the fact.

Aside from the gospels there is nothing outside of scripture backing the historical case for Christ.