Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
How would you prove that Jesus existed?
31 Answers
I was going to join naomi's thread about proving the existence of God, but the fact that there have been (at the time of writing) 124 answers, I'm sure that the obvious one � it's impossible � must be in there somewhere. So I'd like to ask a related question, the answering of which many Christians � and, indeed, others � will think is a doddle. (Tee, hee!)
How would you go about proving that Jesus once existed?
By 'Jesus' I mean, of course, the New Testament Jesus, not just anyone by that name, a very common one. And to save a lot of later clearing-up, you would be wise not to assume that the gospels of "Matthew" and "John" were written by the disciples of that name. Also, I don't mean any sort of deep philosophical 'proof': the sort of everyday proof that we accept for the existence of Caesar, Alexander the Great and Galileo will do.
Now for the fun�
How would you go about proving that Jesus once existed?
By 'Jesus' I mean, of course, the New Testament Jesus, not just anyone by that name, a very common one. And to save a lot of later clearing-up, you would be wise not to assume that the gospels of "Matthew" and "John" were written by the disciples of that name. Also, I don't mean any sort of deep philosophical 'proof': the sort of everyday proof that we accept for the existence of Caesar, Alexander the Great and Galileo will do.
Now for the fun�
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Tiresome as they might be, wizard, they are, in fact well respected by serious, sceptical scholars who spend their lives in study of this specific question. For example (in futile hope of absit iniuria verbis) Rudolf Karl Bultmann, author of many scholarly tomes, including his set-piece, New Testament and Mythology and Other Writings states "... By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived." Michael Grant, an unquestioned expert on ancient documents states "... if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." (Source: Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1977), He further states critics "...have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (ibid.).
Even author G. A. Wells, in a pointedly critical book titles Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Evidence for Jesus. has this to say "... the view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity . . . is today almost universally rejected."
I could provide many more examples, not of pro-Christian (although thousands exist) writers, but of peer reviewed, sceptical, but well researched authors, many of which are on my desk.
Point, is, as I stated earlier on another thread, ones bias will often lead one only to supportive sources.
There remains a series of questions, though, that ought to be central to the discussion... I'll only adress two, due to space limitations:
Contd.
Even author G. A. Wells, in a pointedly critical book titles Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Evidence for Jesus. has this to say "... the view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity . . . is today almost universally rejected."
I could provide many more examples, not of pro-Christian (although thousands exist) writers, but of peer reviewed, sceptical, but well researched authors, many of which are on my desk.
Point, is, as I stated earlier on another thread, ones bias will often lead one only to supportive sources.
There remains a series of questions, though, that ought to be central to the discussion... I'll only adress two, due to space limitations:
Contd.
Contd.
1. Why, within a very few years (many sources suggest less than 5 to 10) of the event described in Acts, Chapter II and known, among Christians as Pentecost where Judaeo-Christian primitive churches established in far flung areas of the Roman Empire and Asia? The church (actually a home based body of believers) at Edessa has many avenues of support to indicate establishment by AD 35. (Source: Samuel Hugh Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, Harper, San Francisco, 1992) Moffett further, states: "... Three earliest centres of Christianity in the East were Osrhoene with its capital Edessa; Adiabene with its capital Arbela, and India. Whether Christianity came to these places independent of one another and which one of them was the first evangelised are difficult questions for the Asian church historians to decide."
There's little doubt that these early, primitive churches were very early indeed. How could these and others, with no communication system, no hierarchy of government all come into existence in a highly hostile invironment and teach the same message... Yeshua ha Massiach and Him raised form the dead?
2. Why do the premier record keepers of the day, the Jewish scribes under the command of the Chief Priest and the Phariseees, reference Yeshua in their Mishna, written after the fall of Jerusalem but before the end of the first centruy?
In fact, in the 14th century that we find Toledoth Yeshu, a totally derogatory account of Jesus. But even that is reveaing. It focuses on Jesus' illegitimate birth and being fathered by a Roman soldier named Pantera. Why would such a writing focus on his birth unless there were something significant to refute about his birth?
Well, the promised attempt at brevity has evaporated, for which I apologize...
1. Why, within a very few years (many sources suggest less than 5 to 10) of the event described in Acts, Chapter II and known, among Christians as Pentecost where Judaeo-Christian primitive churches established in far flung areas of the Roman Empire and Asia? The church (actually a home based body of believers) at Edessa has many avenues of support to indicate establishment by AD 35. (Source: Samuel Hugh Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, Harper, San Francisco, 1992) Moffett further, states: "... Three earliest centres of Christianity in the East were Osrhoene with its capital Edessa; Adiabene with its capital Arbela, and India. Whether Christianity came to these places independent of one another and which one of them was the first evangelised are difficult questions for the Asian church historians to decide."
There's little doubt that these early, primitive churches were very early indeed. How could these and others, with no communication system, no hierarchy of government all come into existence in a highly hostile invironment and teach the same message... Yeshua ha Massiach and Him raised form the dead?
2. Why do the premier record keepers of the day, the Jewish scribes under the command of the Chief Priest and the Phariseees, reference Yeshua in their Mishna, written after the fall of Jerusalem but before the end of the first centruy?
In fact, in the 14th century that we find Toledoth Yeshu, a totally derogatory account of Jesus. But even that is reveaing. It focuses on Jesus' illegitimate birth and being fathered by a Roman soldier named Pantera. Why would such a writing focus on his birth unless there were something significant to refute about his birth?
Well, the promised attempt at brevity has evaporated, for which I apologize...
You're right, the obvious answer to Naomi's question is somewhere in that thread - right at the top of page one.
This though is a question you could reasonably have a court case about. Evidence could be presented and argued for by expert witnesses on both sides. The only trouble is you'd have trouble finding 12 unbiased people for the jury. They'd probably have to be from Mars or somewhere.
This though is a question you could reasonably have a court case about. Evidence could be presented and argued for by expert witnesses on both sides. The only trouble is you'd have trouble finding 12 unbiased people for the jury. They'd probably have to be from Mars or somewhere.
Well, I was waiting, Chakka!
Ludwig is probably right. This question would be a better subject. He's also probably right in saying that it would be very difficult to find 12 unbiased people to sit on the jury - as it would in the case for or against the existence of God.
Personally, I believe that the man, Jesus, existed, but I couldn't prove it - and nor would I attempt to. We have no real evidence, only scant hearsay, and that would be deemed inadmissible in a court of law.
Ludwig is probably right. This question would be a better subject. He's also probably right in saying that it would be very difficult to find 12 unbiased people to sit on the jury - as it would in the case for or against the existence of God.
Personally, I believe that the man, Jesus, existed, but I couldn't prove it - and nor would I attempt to. We have no real evidence, only scant hearsay, and that would be deemed inadmissible in a court of law.
So are you a Jesus Agnostic in that because you �cannot know� whether he existed or not, you remain unconvinced? Or have you �decided� that he did not exist?
If you have decided that he could not and did not exist, then presenting any proof or evidence no matter how veritable would be futile, since you would never allow yourself to accept this as fact and thus change your views.
If you have decided that he could not and did not exist, then presenting any proof or evidence no matter how veritable would be futile, since you would never allow yourself to accept this as fact and thus change your views.
So, how would one go about proving Jesus existed?
By providing irrefutable historical written and archaeological proof. Would that satiate your desire to believe he existed, thus requiring you to change your mind? Or is your answer simply that such evidence hasn�t been found (yet) therefore he didn�t exist?
By providing irrefutable historical written and archaeological proof. Would that satiate your desire to believe he existed, thus requiring you to change your mind? Or is your answer simply that such evidence hasn�t been found (yet) therefore he didn�t exist?
-- answer removed --
Well ermmm yes, but who can prove that �wmvxfsa,� or whatever (or unicorns) do not exist eh�? It can exist in the mind can't it?!
Anyway, talking of logic, it seems the question is trying to introduce some form of propositional logic but in essence failing somewhat.
Q. How would you prove Jesus existed
A. By providing factual evidence
Q. Do you have the evidence
A. No
The logical outcome in some parts = Jesus did no exist
The logical outcome in other parts = Jesus did exist
The logical outcome in other parts = Jesus may well have existed but we just don�t know for certain yet
The logical outcome in other parts = Jesus could not have existed because as yet there is no evidence to prove it yet
So the question would seem quite banal, and a repetition of so many others recently, with the premise that only asserting that Jesus could never/has never/will never exist is the only answer.
Anyway, talking of logic, it seems the question is trying to introduce some form of propositional logic but in essence failing somewhat.
Q. How would you prove Jesus existed
A. By providing factual evidence
Q. Do you have the evidence
A. No
The logical outcome in some parts = Jesus did no exist
The logical outcome in other parts = Jesus did exist
The logical outcome in other parts = Jesus may well have existed but we just don�t know for certain yet
The logical outcome in other parts = Jesus could not have existed because as yet there is no evidence to prove it yet
So the question would seem quite banal, and a repetition of so many others recently, with the premise that only asserting that Jesus could never/has never/will never exist is the only answer.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul45 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.