God

[Exquisition]

Actually there is a fair amount of historical evidence for Jesus, more so than influential figures such as Julius Caesar even. This is a great article on the historical authenticity of Jesus' life.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/12/24/3660194.htm

In my opinion the true question that people need to answer is that since Jesus existed and made all these claims on being God, and eternal life, is he someone who is trustworthy, or was a fool with outlandish claims. Best place to start thinking about this is with the resurrection, if he did rise from the dead, then surely he is trustworthy.

This may be a good place to start thinking about that - http://christianity.about.com/od/easter/a/7-Proofs-Of-The-Resurrection.htm

Hope that helps.

Just wrong.

Find me a coin with JEsus's head on it. I have several with Caesar's.

And 'evidence' for Jesus is merely recorded 99% of which is not contemporaneous with Jesus. Josephus who is oft quoted lived some 30 years after JEsus.

The evidence for Jesus is VERY circumstantial.

Certainly nowhere is he referred to as the Messiah until 200 years after he lived.

The evidence for evolution is significantly stronger.

 

[richard_daily]

What does it matter is people choose to believe in God?

It doesn't. It only matters when they try to get other people to believe in their made-up god, which is the method that almost every church trains their sheep to do.

 

[richard_daily]

It's hard to explain but I'll try. It's like getting hit by a big hammer. You can take the hammer and put it where you can't see it and you still know you got hit by a hammer. I don't see Jesus/God but I know he is there.

Sounds like hitting the crack pipe.

 

[julybaby04]

Actually there is a fair amount of historical evidence for Jesus, more so than influential figures such as Julius Caesar even. This is a great article on the historical authenticity of Jesus' life.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/12/24/3660194.htm

In my opinion the true question that people need to answer is that since Jesus existed and made all these claims on being God, and eternal life, is he someone who is trustworthy, or was a fool with outlandish claims. Best place to start thinking about this is with the resurrection, if he did rise from the dead, then surely he is trustworthy.

This may be a good place to start thinking about that - http://christianity.about.com/od/easter/a/7-Proofs-Of-The-Resurrection.htm

Hope that helps.

There are many on here who do not and will not believe in God. The faith part is something they will not understand so God being trustworthy is completely foreign to them.

They prefer scientific proof of something which require faith......that only comes through grace and they do not have it nor believe in it.

 

[Exquisition]

There are many on here who do not and will not believe in God. The faith part is something they will not understand so God being trustworthy is completely foreign to them.

They prefer scientific proof of something which require faith......that only comes through grace and they do not have it nor believe in it.

Faith requires no effort. Proof requires consummate effort.

Religion is the last refuge of the weak.

 

[richard_daily]

There are many on here who do not and will not believe in God. The faith part is something they will not understand so God being trustworthy is completely foreign to them.

They prefer scientific proof of something which require faith......that only comes through grace and they do not have it nor believe in it.

I have faith that we are descended from space aliens.

Why won't you believe me?

 

[julybaby04]

It doesn't. It only matters when they try to get other people to believe in their made-up god, which is the method that almost every church trains their sheep to do.

And those who do not believe try everything they can to get someone who does believe to change their minds........

Why?

 

[Tryharder62]

Sounds like hitting the crack pipe.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Exquisition]

And those who do not believe try everything they can to get someone who does believe to change their minds........

Why?

lols. i have nothing against you believing just quit preaching.

 

[julybaby04]

Faith requires no effort. Proof requires consummate effort.

Religion is the last refuge of the weak.

Faith requires the most effort. Science is easy......there is always "proof", of course science has it's problems when things are proven and then those things change......the "proof" has to change (ie, the egg......one week it is good for you, then next bad).....

God never changes and faith in Him only grows stronger as people move through their lives. It is never disproven......only proven more and more, to the believer.

 

[jp_275]

Just wrong.

Find me a coin with JEsus's head on it. I have several with Caesar's.

And 'evidence' for Jesus is merely recorded 99% of which is not contemporaneous with Jesus. Josephus who is oft quoted lived some 30 years after JEsus.

The evidence for Jesus is VERY circumstantial.

Certainly nowhere is he referred to as the Messiah until 200 years after he lived.

The evidence for evolution is significantly stronger.

Jesus won't be on any coins as he did not rule over an earthly kingdom like Caesar.
Tacitus the greatest Roman author of all wrote about Jesus, which is remarkable as he was crucified as a low level criminal. Tacitus had no motivation to write on a Jew and would not have commented on him unless he was special.
Additionally the Gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, unlike accounts of other historical figures from that age.
If they were incorrect there would be documentation on that.

Faith requires no effort. Proof requires consummate effort.

Religion is the last refuge of the weak.

There's a great line that 'Sometimes faith looks like doubt.' For me faith is supplemented by proof and understanding. Without this faith is shallow and easily destroyed. Hence, i disagree as I continually read and discuss opposition to Jesus' existence to further grow my faith.

 

[Exquisition]

Faith requires the most effort. Science is easy......there is always "proof", of course science has it's problems when things are proven and then those things change......the "proof" has to change (ie, the egg......one week it is good for you, then next bad).....

God never changes and faith in Him only grows stronger as people move through their lives. It is never disproven......only proven more and more, to the believer.

Faith requires no effort whatsoever. It just requires blind belief which, when you think about it is easy.

Scientific endeavour is harder - it requires the utmost scrutiny AND continuous testing and fine tuning. It doesn't mind if the open contention is true or false.

It doesn;t say 'something is' and then spend the rest of its days finding ways to justify itself.

 

[julybaby04]

Faith requires no effort whatsoever. It just requires blind belief which, when you think about it is easy.

Scientific endeavour is harder - it requires the utmost scrutiny AND continuous testing and fine tuning. It doesn't mind if the open contention is true or false.

It doesn;t say 'something is' and then spend the rest of its days finding ways to justify itself.

Neither does faith in God. I do not have any need to justify Him and I do not spend any of my time trying.

My studying the Bible, learning about God, is not to justify....it is to learn more about Him and grow as a follower of Christ.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

In the beginning was the Void ... Teeming with infinite possibilities.
Of which you
Are one.

Have you all in this thread ever seen "What the bleep do we know?"

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Neither does faith in God. I do not have any need to justify Him and I do not spend any of my time trying.

My studying the Bible, learning about God, is not to justify....it is to learn more about Him and grow as a follower of Christ.

Because you cannot. The Bible has nothing to do with it.

 

[Exquisition]

Jesus won't be on any coins as he did not rule over an earthly kingdom like Caesar.


So on the one hand you have tangible proof for Caesar's existence (coinage, archaeological artifacts, written records) and heresay for Jesus's (written records after he lived).

Yet you go with Jesus over Caesar. IMO Absurd.


Tacitus the greatest Roman author of all wrote about Jesus, which is remarkable as he was crucified as a low level criminal. Tacitus had no motivation to write on a Jew and would not have commented on him unless he was special.


Except Tacitus wrote about this over 100 years after the event....I make that 3 generations of 'hand me downs' and heresay.


Additionally the Gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, unlike accounts of other historical figures from that age.


The Gospels were written around 70-100 AD, best estimates. So Very doubtful if they were passed on by eye witness testimony given the significantly shorter life expectancy 2000 years ago,.


There's a great line that 'Sometimes faith looks like doubt.' For me faith is supplemented by proof and understanding.

OK, where is your proof? A feeling, intuition or some personal miracle is not proof.

 

[julybaby04]

Because you cannot. The Bible has nothing to do with it.

your opinion.....

 

[Tryharder62]

Hee Hee

 

[julybaby04]

Hee Hee

LOVE that!!!!!

 

[jp_275]

Jesus won't be on any coins as he did not rule over an earthly kingdom like Caesar.


So on the one hand you have tangible proof for Caesar's existence (coinage, archaeological artifacts, written records) and heresay for Jesus's (written records after he lived).

Yet you go with Jesus over Caesar. IMO Absurd.


Tacitus the greatest Roman author of all wrote about Jesus, which is remarkable as he was crucified as a low level criminal. Tacitus had no motivation to write on a Jew and would not have commented on him unless he was special.


Except Tacitus wrote about this over 100 years after the event....I make that 3 generations of 'hand me downs' and heresay.


Additionally the Gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, unlike accounts of other historical figures from that age.


The Gospels were written around 70-100 AD, best estimates. So Very doubtful if they were passed on by eye witness testimony given the significantly shorter life expectancy 2000 years ago,.


There's a great line that 'Sometimes faith looks like doubt.' For me faith is supplemented by proof and understanding.

OK, where is your proof? A feeling, intuition or some personal miracle is not proof.

Few things:
Tacitus is the most reliable Roman writer for historians.
First Gospel, Mark was actually written about 56-58AD on current historic estimates - 20 years after Jesus' crucifixion. Last John was about 70AD. Usually anything writtena century after the event is very reliable for ancient texts.
My proof is all of these historical evidence, and the sense they make in this world.

 

[Exquisition]

Few things:
Tacitus is the most reliable Roman writer for historians.
First Gospel, Mark was actually written about 56-58AD on current historic estimates - 20 years after Jesus' crucifixion. Last John was about 70AD. Usually anything writtena century after the event is very reliable for ancient texts.
My proof is all of these historical evidence, and the sense they make in this world.

'current historical estimates', nope, just one source you've found. I have several sources (credible) that estimate 70-100 ad. They cannot be exact to within a few years because there is no historical provenance yet that can place them so exactly.

Tacitus was still writing 100 years after the event.

From Wiki:

Though his work is the most reliable source for the history of his era, its factual accuracy is occasionally questioned: the Annals are based in part on secondary sources of unknown reliability, and there are some obvious minor mistakes (for instance confusing the two daughters of Mark Antony and Octavia Minor, both named Antonia). The Histories, written from primary documents and personal knowledge of the Flavian period, is thought to be more accurate, though Tacitus's hatred of Domitian seemingly colored its tone and interpretations.

Not quite so cast iron as you seem to suggest.

I'll take physical archaeological evidence over 100 year old, secondary source accounts.

That's why I prefer science over heresay and faith. More reliable for me.

 

[richard_daily]

And those who do not believe try everything they can to get someone who does believe to change their minds........

Why?

This thread originally served as propaganda. It's been (rightfully) challenged.

Stop spreading "the message" and I promise that I won't comment on your beliefs in imaginary beings.

 

[jp_275]

'current historical estimates', nope, just one source you've found. I have several sources (credible) that estimate 70-100 ad. They cannot be exact to within a few years because there is no historical provenance yet that can place them so exactly.

Tacitus was still writing 100 years after the event.

From Wiki:



Not quite so cast iron as you seem to suggest.

I'll take physical archaeological evidence over 100 year old, secondary source accounts.

That's why I prefer science over heresay and faith. More reliable for me.

I've got credible sources on this as well, in fact this date (56-58 for Mark, 60-65 for Matthew and Luke) is actually taught now in University history courses in Australia. The Gospels had to be written before 70AD, because none of them mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in that year. In fact Acts which is written by the same Luke after writing the Gospel of the same name, doesn't mention this either. Hope this helps!

Glad that you have come to your own opinion though. Even if it is not the same that I hold, I hope that you continue to question and build to your understanding, so that you have a solid basis to build your life on.

 

[Exquisition]

I've got credible sources on this as well, in fact this date (56-58 for Mark, 60-65 for Matthew and Luke) is actually taught now in University history courses in Australia. The Gospels had to be written before 70AD, because none of them mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in that year. In fact Acts which is written by the same Luke after writing the Gospel of the same name, doesn't mention this either. Hope this helps!

Glad that you have come to your own opinion though. Even if it is not the same that I hold, I hope that you continue to question and build to your understanding, so that you have a solid basis to build your life on.

Science is the solid basis for life imo. All else is assumption that doesn't move on.

 

[jp_275]

Nice article on dating http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom