How Would Jesus Prove Himself Today?

[flobadob]

If Jesus were to return to earth today, how would he prove he was actually Jesus and not just be seen as a magician? Would anyone believe him?

[Old_Geezer]

Surely whatever the goal was it's unlikely to be to prove (s)he was some kind of reincarnation of the Jesus of the Bible anyway. Would be a bit egotistical wouldn't it ?

[Khandro]

Just checked back and the OPer has not returned once after 80+ posts to this daft question, why?

[Clanad]

Sorry, chakka, but for one who usually displays a superior intelligence, your bias has drawn you into a corner in which you are surrounded by intellectual dishonesty. You choose to ignore at least two example provided of very important historical characters for which there is either no or very late (by 1,000 years) reference.

I'll keep it short… disregarding your continued failure to address the identification of scrolls or Paul's inclusion of references found in other Gospel writers content, I'd ask you to describe just one… only one… example of a teaching or point of theology preached by Paul that differs from any found in any of the other four Gospels. Paul says (my wording) " I preach nothing other than Christ and Him crucified…"

Naomi, help me out here (it must be the shortening of the days due to the onset of winter) but I'm unsure of what you are asking or stating or if you even expect a response. Thanx!

[naomi24]

Clanad, I wasn't asking - simply questioning Paul's claim that he was educated by Gamaliel, which given his eventual choice of career, would have served very well to reinforce his credentials - a bolstering of an early CV, you might say. This, for simplicity, copied from the internet.

//Helmut Koester, Professor of Divinity and of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard University, is doubtful that Paul studied under this famous rabbi, arguing that there is a marked contrast in the tolerance that Gamaliel is said to have expressed about Christianity with the "murderous rage" against Christians that Paul is described as having prior to his conversion.//

With regard to the absence of evidence for the existence of certain characters, you seem to be saying that this undoubtedly gives the equally elusive Jesus historical authenticity. How so?

[mrs_overall]

If Jesus came back in America, instead of Christians wearing crucifixes, they would all be wearing miniature electric chairs around their necks

[chakka35]

Clanad, another irrelevant response. I will ask you once more for a single item of evidence of Jesus's existence during his supposed lifetime and the two decades after his supposed death.

[Khandro]

It appears the first secular record was what historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilatus, .......

[Clanad]

Another shallow response which is really no response at all, chakka.

So, do I believe Hannibal or Vercingoterix existed? Sure... why? Simply because centuries long scholarship, involving changing values for words, language interpretation, recognition of "time and place" characteristics and a whole host of other academically sound approaches used by inquierers over the eons has shown the probablility of their existence to be superior to the improbability.

I then have to ask if the same types of evidence for the Christ (or, in this case Paul's references) is comparable. I find it to be far greater in abundance as well as quality... and I'm not a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

Your inability or unwillingness to respond to legitimate questions can only be interpreted as one who holds bias to the point that even tempered discussion becomes impossible. So be it...

Naomi's question is answered as well above. The evidence (Note: I didn't say 'proof') is more than sufficient to support the existence of Yeshua in "place and time"... in the opinion of well respected scholars.
Prof. Koester's specualtion doesn't take into account the well known tendency of believers in any cause to take the more extreme form in some cases. One only has to reference that fact in Islam of today, no?
Paul wrote and was known only a few short years after Christ... maybe as few as 20, but certainly when many powerful members of the Sanhedrin, both Saducees as well as Pharisees would still have been alive to contradict Paul on any number of points... but no such record exists, to my knowledge

Lastly, most of the nay-sayers in this forum often seem to believe that their questions (and accusations) are unique... something that they alone have come up with; when in fact their arguments have been the same ones used since day 1 as related to Yeshua. All asked and answered countless times previously. I think it was Solomon that said "There's nothing new under the sun"... yet after two thousand years Yeshua is still, arguably the most significant character of history, no? That fact alone is astounding, in my opinion.

Thanks for your time...

[grasscarp]

Well and succintly put Clanad.

[naomi24]

Clanad, //but no such record exists, to my knowledge //

That's the problem, isn't it? No records exist - anywhere. My input here doesn't result from bias. Despite the fact that you have failed to provide an answer to Chakka's request, I do believe that Jesus existed.

Grasscarp, succinctly put, perhaps - but still no verifiable evidence.

[Clanad]

Before one could agree or disagree with your comments, Naomi, one would have to ask, what do you mean by "verifiable evidence"... so I do...

As to your "no records" comment, I would again ask, do you believe Hannibal or Vercingotrix existed? If so, on what do you base your belief?

[naomi24]

Clanad, I expected that response. Verifiable evidence is just that - evidence that is verifiable. Had the Roman authorities - or the Jewish authorities - recorded details of that first 'Easter', we could have considered that verifiable evidence - but they didn't. Nothing. Outside the highly questionable gospels - and they are highly questionable - there is nothing to confirm that Jesus ever existed. However, in my opinion, truth occasionally lurks beneath the mists of myth - and as evidence I cite the relatively recent discovery of Troy - long assumed to be mythological. Having said that, there is an enormous chasm between the legends surrounding Hannibal and Vercingetorix, and those surrounding Jesus. If the former two were found to be false, it would change nothing, whereas if the latter were proven to be false the impact upon society would be rather more significant, so despite your efforts, your comparison is fundamentally flawed.

Although I do think Jesus probably existed, I do not believe he was anything other than a human being born of two human parents - his alleged supernatural beginning and his alleged supernatural powers - myth - a lie deliberately constructed and embroidered by the early church, and in my opinion again, the greatest lie ever perpetuated. (I actually think it's quite possible that his claim to fame was as the rightful King of the Jews - hence, to the politics of the day, a very dangerous man - hence his condemnation by both the sycophantic and comfortably off Jews - and the ruling Romans. I'm convinced that there is far more to this story than meets the religious eye).

[Clanad]

I'm concerned about hijacking flobadob's thread, but, Naomi, on what do you base your judgement that Jewish or Roman references are anymore 'verifiable' than those the Gospel writers?

[naomi24]

Clanad, Flobadob doesn’t seem bothered – he’s not been back since he posted the question. On what do I base my judgement that Jewish or Roman references are anymore 'verifiable' than those the Gospel writers?

Official records would have been helpful. The Gospel writers are unknown.

[Clanad]

Ummm... forgive my denseness, but I was hoping you would simply describe why or how the Jewish/Roman records are more verifiable... by what means are the J/R records verified?

I'm not sure, once again, what you mean by "Official records" unless you believe that "Official Records" of anything exist from the 1st Century...

Additionally, could you explain a little further on what you base your statement "the Gospel writers are unknown"?

Thanks in advance...

[flobadob]

Hey guys, I don't like to intrude :-)

[naomi24]

Hello Flob. :o)

Clanad, I detect a hint of irritable bristle in your tone, so since we have been here many times before to no avail, in an effort to appease you suffice to say that had Jesus’ companions, who knew God on a personal level, really been the authors of the Gospels, one would have thought it incumbent upon them to accurately record his every word and deed as it happened …. but they didn’t… and when, many years later, they decided to put pen to paper, their combined efforts resulted in confusion… which in itself is confusing …. no?

Wanting it to be so doesn't make it so.

[Clanad]

Nary a sign of "irritated bristle" here, Naomi, sorry if you thought so... "but I was hoping you would simply describe why or how the Jewish/Roman records are more verifiable... by what means are the J/R records verified?" Thanks in advance!

[flobadob]

The gospels were apparently written afew hundred years after Jesus died so I doubt there could be many specifics in them.

I was also just wondering that if Scotland win the world cup in 8 years and deep fried chocolate becomes a delicacy will people actually believe Jesus has returned. Extremely humorous answers altogether but well the posters stand by their statements.

Naomi, do you believe that Jesus still has a lineage here on earth ala that fion The Da Vinci Code?

[naomi24]

Clanad, Ah right, so you’re not bristly. Good. I didn’t say the records are more verifiable – I said that if official records existed (if only) they would be more reliable than a collection of conflicting stories written by unknown authors years after the event.

Flob, well, my opinion isn't influenced by Dan Brown, but it was customary for Jewish men to marry - still is - so I think it’s very likely that, at his age, he was married. I’ve no idea whether or not he had children – but if he did, then of course it’s possible that his descendants survive today.