A Simple Question

[Arthur Durnan]

1. There's more in the Encyc. Britannica about the Lord Jesus Christ than about Napoleon Bonaparte and Julius Caesar combined!

2. Because of what the very ENEMIES of the Lord Jesus Christ said about Him! -

"this Man has done nothing amiss." "truly, this was an innocent Man!" "I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood!" etc, etc.

3. Because no one else - including polygamist Muhammad - died for the sins of the entire world and offers everlasting life here & now thru faith in His Name! In fact, pertaining to Muhammad, Abu Bahkr said, "Mohammad can save no one!' Right on!

4. Because of the very existence of self-proclaimed "atheists" who proclaim WITHOUT CHECKING THE UNIVERSE FOR EVIDENCE OF GOD'S EXISTENCE! When might any self-proclaimed "atheist" participate in a vital & determining I.I.O. (an InterGalactic Investigative Odyssey) in order to "prove" that the Creator God "does not exist" anywhere in His universe? Truly, "the FOOL has said in his heart there is no God"......yes, but "atheists" tend to be much worse than fools in that they proclaim their ignorance out loud!

5. Because "atheists" have ZIP, ZERO, NADA to offer humanity beyond the grave! Burial or cremation, to an "atheist" ends all. Not good enuf here! If One offers everlasting life upon confession of faith in the God Who became Flesh, what's to hinder? Divorce, embalming and "atheism" are three things one should never resort to prematurely.

"There is life for a look at the Crucified One,

There is life at this moment for you!"

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Constant]

I believe in Him because I can feel Him in my heart and all around me. I like Nite owl's answer.

[Token Atheist]

1. There's more in the Encyc. Britannica about the Lord Jesus Christ than about Napoleon Bonaparte and Julius Caesar combined!

The Encyclopedia Britannica does not reflect scholarly historical research - only populist opinion.

2. Because of what the very ENEMIES of the Lord Jesus Christ said about Him! -

"this Man has done nothing amiss." "truly, this was an innocent Man!"  "I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood!" etc, etc.

Outside of the stories in the Bible, there is no evidence of this. When trying to determine whether a story is true or not, you can not take the words of one or more of the characters in that story as evidence.

3. Because no one else - including polygamist Muhammad - died for the sins of the entire world and offers everlasting life here & now thru faith in His Name! In fact, pertaining to Muhammad, Abu Bahkr said, "Mohammad can save no one!' Right on!

Once again, this is merely what the story says. Without external references, this is useless as evidence as to whether the story is true or not.

4. Because of the very existence of self-proclaimed "atheists" who proclaim WITHOUT CHECKING THE UNIVERSE FOR EVIDENCE OF GOD'S EXISTENCE! When might any self-proclaimed "atheist" participate in a vital & determining  I.I.O. (an InterGalactic Investigative Odyssey) in order to "prove" that the Creator God "does not exist" anywhere in His universe? Truly, "the FOOL has said in his heart there is no God"......yes, but "atheists" tend to be much worse than fools in that they proclaim their ignorance out loud!

Ah - you must be a Mormon.

After all, Mormons are the only ones who say that God lives on another planet...

The Bible says that he is everywhere - therefore, if the Bible is correct, he is here. Therefore I don't need to go looking on other planets. I simply need to look around here. I am looking, and I have see no evidence of his existence.

Sorry to spoil your favourite apologetic (well, you have used it twice against me so far in as many days - so I assume it is one of your favourites...)

Besides, if I did go to another planet and found some kind of god living there - it would not be the god of Christianity.

Unless you genuinely think that God cannot be found on Earth but instead does live on a small moon somewhere off Alpha Centauri? If so, then you are like no Christian I have ever met before...

5. Because "atheists" have ZIP, ZERO, NADA to offer humanity beyond the grave! Burial or cremation, to an "atheist" ends all. Not good enuf here! If One offers everlasting life upon confession of faith in the God Who became Flesh, what's to hinder? Divorce, embalming and "atheism" are three things one should never resort to prematurely.

Well, firstly let me say that you are wrong about atheists. Some atheists do not believe in any kind of life after death. Others do. Others simply say that we don't (or even can't) know what happens after death.

However, I fail to see the logic. In what way does the possibly that there is nothing after death mean that Jesus must have existed? This is just a big fat non-sequitor.

[Token Atheist]

To prove that a single person existed that long ago is incredibly difficult.

It depends how much evidence they left behind.

For example if we take Julius Caesar - a figure that I have often seen used as a comparison in various Apologetics when talking about the evidence for Jesus existing - then we have lots of independant writings about him by different groups of people. We have coins with his picture on them, we have statues and busts of him, we have his own writings.

So all in all, it can't be proved in a logical sense, but it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Julius Caesar did indeed exist.

In the case of Jesus, we have a set of anonymous works that tell his story but which were written over a century after the alleged events took place - and don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts; a couple of obviously faked insertions into history books; and, er, that's it.

All of the various historians and writers that should have mentioned him fail to do so.

Plus, you cant prove that he didnt. You cannot logically prove a negative.

Actually, sometimes it is possible to logically prove a negative - all you have to do is to prove that the positive is impossible, and the negative must therefore be true.

However, I would agree that in this case it is not possible to prove that he didn't exist - only to demonstrate that it is so incredibly unlikely that he existed that to believe otherwise is unreasonable.

The burden of proof lies on those who say he existed, and he was who some say he was.

Agreed.

Personally, I dont really know if he existed or not, theres not a great deal of evidence either way, but its irrelevant to me.

I am in the same position with regard to relevance. I am not sure why people assume that if I don't believe he existed it is because of "bias". I was an atheist for years happily believeing that he existed. It is not somehow "necessary" for him not to have existed in order to validate my point of view.

It is only after doing more Biblical and historical research that I have changed my mind, and taken up and MJ ("Mythical Jesus") position rather than an HJ ("Historical Jesus") one.

Someone may have existed that the stories are now based around, but it doesnt really matter.

Either some person, or some group of people, must have existed to have said the sayings that have been written down and collected. However, since - in my opinion - that person or persons had nothing to do with the Jesus story, it makes no sense to think of them in terms of "Jesus" having existed.

Just like I dont believe in all the other cults that have leaders who have magic powers, I dont believe Jesus was who some think he was, theres no evidence for that.

My point exactly. If "he" wasn't who we think he was, and didn't do the things we think he did, then the person we think he was didn't exist.

The difference seems to be that you think that if we take away the miracles and supernatural parts of the story - the bits that are left might be a semi-accurate biography of someone. I think that once we take away the additions to the story, there is nothing left except a few sayings - and we have no idea who originally said them or what their life story was.

[NITE OWL]

I believe in Him because I can feel Him in my heart and all around me.  I like Nite owl's answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're so nice

[Gerioke]

To prove that a single person existed that long ago is incredibly difficult.

Plus, you cant prove that he didnt. You cannot logically prove a negative.

The burden of proof lies on those who say he existed, and he was who some say he was.

Personally, I dont really know if he existed or not, theres not a great deal of evidence either way, but its irrelevant to me. Someone may have existed that the stories are now based around, but it doesnt really matter.

Just like I dont believe in all the other cults that have leaders who have magic powers, I dont believe Jesus was who some think he was, theres no evidence for that.

Ian

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't vote because the questions are not complete. I agree with Ian that a man named Jesus probably did exist but it is not provable and definitely not provable that he was the son of God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To prove that a single person existed that long ago is incredibly difficult.

It depends how much evidence they left behind.

For example if we take Julius Caesar - a figure that I have often seen used as a comparison in various Apologetics when talking about the evidence for Jesus existing - then we have lots of independant writings about him by different groups of people. We have coins with his picture on them, we have statues and busts of him, we have his own writings.

So all in all, it can't be proved in a logical sense, but it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Julius Caesar did indeed exist.

In the case of Jesus, we have a set of anonymous works that tell his story but which were written over a century after the alleged events took place - and don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts; a couple of obviously faked insertions into history books; and, er, that's it.

All of the various historians and writers that should have mentioned him fail to do so.

Plus, you cant prove that he didnt. You cannot logically prove a negative.

Actually, sometimes it is possible to logically prove a negative - all you have to do is to prove that the positive is impossible, and the negative must therefore be true.

However, I would agree that in this case it is not possible to prove that he didn't exist - only to demonstrate that it is so incredibly unlikely that he existed that to believe otherwise is unreasonable.

The burden of proof lies on those who say he existed, and he was who some say he was.

Agreed.

Personally, I dont really know if he existed or not, theres not a great deal of evidence either way, but its irrelevant to me.

I am in the same position with regard to relevance. I am not sure why people assume that if I don't believe he existed it is because of "bias". I was an atheist for years happily believeing that he existed. It is not somehow "necessary" for him not to have existed in order to validate my point of view.

It is only after doing more Biblical and historical research that I have changed my mind, and taken up and MJ ("Mythical Jesus") position rather than an HJ ("Historical Jesus") one.

Someone may have existed that the stories are now based around, but it doesnt really matter.

Either some person, or some group of people, must have existed to have said the sayings that have been written down and collected. However, since - in my opinion - that person or persons had nothing to do with the Jesus story, it makes no sense to think of them in terms of "Jesus" having existed.

Just like I dont believe in all the other cults that have leaders who have magic powers, I dont believe Jesus was who some think he was, theres no evidence for that.

My point exactly. If "he" wasn't who we think he was, and didn't do the things we think he did, then the person we think he was didn't exist.

The difference seems to be that you think that if we take away the miracles and supernatural parts of the story - the bits that are left might be a semi-accurate biography of someone. I think that once we take away the additions to the story, there is nothing left except a few sayings - and we have no idea who originally said them or what their life story was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your arrogance is jeopardizing your salvation. A christian has no burdon of proof because we have faith. The burden is yours, as your brain is bullying your hearts.

Read the red letters. Jesus is talking to you.

[Fiosh]

While I believe that you CAN prove that Jesus existed, as well as you can prove any historical figure, I don't believe you can PROVE He is God.

Like someone else pointed out, reason will only take you so far, then you need faith.

However, there is plenty of evidence that God exists. In addition to everything offered so far, I would add miracles and the incorrupt bodies of saints ---bodies that do not decompose after death.

If you want more info....even pictures..Google "incorrupt bodies saints". You can actually go and see them for yourself. My sister viewed the body of St. Bernadette while in France a few years ago, St. Bernadette died in 1879, and said it was amazing.

[NITE OWL]

He's just like air, you can't see it but you know it's there.

[Token Atheist]

There all kind of evidence outside the Bible that Jesus existed.

Anyone who tries to deny that he even existed is obviously biased.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, like what? Josephus is the only source I've heard of and there is some speculation (even among theologians) that that account was added to the text.

Please provide sources for examination. Thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" lists several souces beside Josephius. I don't feel like going upstairs to get it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you should - because McDowell's "Evidence" is considered a joke amongst most educated atheists.

His "several sources" are all as dubious as the Josephus quote - either being obviously manufactured by Christians or simply not being the evidence for Jesus that he claims they are.

For example, things like Tacitus are pointed at as evidence that Tacitus knew of a historical Jesus - but all that Tacitus really says is that he knows of Christians ant that they believe in Jesus.

Seutonius - to take another example - is also claimed as reporting about an historical Jsesus. He, however, is merely referring to a minor rebellion in Rome being led by Chrestus (a common Roman name). Christians have taken the name Chrestus and assumed that it means Jesus because of the superficial similarity between Chrestus and Christ - ignoring the fact that even if the historical Jesus did exist, he did not lead a rebellion in Rome.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. McDowell's book might be popular with Christians who already believe what he is saying, and therefore won't look too hard at his "evidence" - but to a neutral observer, his "evidence" is simply not worth the paper it is written on.

[Token Atheist]

However, there is plenty of evidence that God exists. In addition to everything offered so far, I would add miracles and the incorrupt bodies of saints ---bodies that do not decompose after death.

If you want more info....even pictures..Google "incorrupt bodies saints".  You can actually go and see them for yourself.  My sister viewed the body of St. Bernadette while in France a few years ago, St. Bernadette died in 1879, and said it was amazing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This would be the same "St Bernadette" who's corpse was buried surrounded by sawdust and charcoal - providing an environment that would lead to her being naturally mummified (like many corpses that have been found, both animal and human - the process is not limited to Catholic "Saints") and who's face was so "incorrupted" that it had to be rebuilt and coated with wax in 1919 to make it still look fresh?

By those standards of "Incorrupt", I know lots of Peruvian mummies (and even a few mammoths in glaciers) that must have been "saints" too...