Please give me so-called "proof" of Jesus or God.

Hi Chioptera, Nice article but inconclusive...Ok I admit its sketchy but it still is an artifact que no? Lam wants evidence damnit!!

I kinda meant both, actually. I suppose you could take this as somewhat similar to the comparason between the historical and the biblical Jesus.

---

The Laminator

​

quote:

---

I personally believe that this man did live and die most likely how was described. Was he God? Is the better question.

---

Just out of curiousity and this is not specifically directed at you, why do you believe he was even a single person? Why not several people who are were then later claimed to be a single person i.e. events, quotes, etc. attributed to one person that actually came from other people? Considering all supposed evidence post dates his hypothetical life, Jesus' life could be composed of the lives and events and interpretations thereof of multiple people. One sees such historical revisionism at much shallower time depths such as quotes ascribed to Lincoln that came from others...the cult of Che Guevarra etc. Why not with a religious figure?

Why add complexity without need?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why is it without need? Lam asked for "proof" of Jesus. If it cannot even be established whether or not he represented a single individual or a composite sketch of different people or groups of people then how would you propose to demonstrate it as a fact that he ever existed?

Why is it without need? Lam asked for "proof" of Jesus. If it cannot even be established whether or not he represented a single individual or a composite sketch of different people or groups of people then how would you propose to demonstrate it as a fact that he ever existed?

Is there some reason to suspect a composite?For example, did those acts alleged to have been performed by Jesus take place in a way that would be impossible for a single individual? Did they cover too long a time span (for example, the legend that Arthur participated in the battle at Baden), or in places beyond the resonable travel area of an idividual or at multiple locations at one time?Since the tale of Jesus is relativelly compact, takes place in a very small geographic area, is of a normal lifespan and does not contain any glaring requirements for him to have been in two places at one time, there is no reason that I can see to add the addditional complexity of multiple attribution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

However, independent historical cooboration of the existence of Jesus does not exist (at least none that is not controversial or this would be an open an shut case). Since his supposed words were written down by others, any of them could have written things not said by any person named Jesus..in fact, once enough is written by multiple individuals ascribed to a single individual and then widely spread as the word of god/gods/ whatever..that individual would not have had to even exist (note the same applies for Buddha). Whether one suspects a composite or not, I think given the topic of this thread, it is not something that can be ruled out. And Christian mythology is in many aspects a composite of other religions so it is not unwarranted to think that its central figures are not composites as well.

While it could well be added, there is simply no need, as I said, to add the additional complexity.How would adding the issue of multiple attribution make the case for Jesus existence any better?As a general principle of science, given two theories that each adequately explain the observations, usually the simpler theory is prefered.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

How would adding the issue of multiple attribution make the case for Jesus existence any better?

​

As a general principle of science, given two theories that each adequately explain the observations, usually the simpler theory is prefered.

---

That would be true but only if one of the two hypotheses (not even near the level of theories for either hypothesis) was supported by evidence. Like Lam, I am curious as to what historical evidence there is for Jesus. If it is a matter of faith that is fine...but since it is often stated as an unassailable fact that he lived, what is the evidence?

Well, hang loose. Lam has said he would like to persue that very point and so would I. But for now, let's wait and see if any of those who claim that there is proof for Jesus existence can step up and provide same.see Message 20

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Dude, I think what has been posted here is about it. That's why xians pull the 'there's as much historical proof of Jesus as there is for socrates' line. (Although no one has commented on the Talmud entries interestingly).I'm satisified with the secondary and tertiary evidence that a guy identified as Jesus did or said some notable things that made the Romans put him to death.Of course it isn't 100% proof, but what would be for a historical figure? We accept that pharoas and kings existed as scant, or less, evidence than what we see here.Unless Lam wants to be unreasonable, I think he has to agree that a guy called Jesus probably existed and said or did enough things to piss off the Romans (and Jews). What really gets fuzzy, and is truly conjecture is exactly WHAT he said, did, looked like, etc.

Hi Mamanthus, I have no evidence to offer other than what has been offered. If the writings of Mark and various debated non-source authors, the Christian movement throughout the world are not enough then what can be said? Jesus could be fiction, but evidence suggest he could of lived. It would be nice to have more non-source evidence such as eyewitness accounts but I feel that even eye witness accounts do not hold up 100%. A body or DNA sample with a maternal and paternal comparitive samples would perhaps mildly give thought for pause? But mankind is left with a mystery which the Holy Roman Catholic church has conceded to call it. Good to see something has caught your interest.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Well Jesus mere existence is as likely as any other ancient person we know of. Of coarse records can be falsified but there's no reason to specifically pick on Jesus. It can at least be said he was a revolutionary and genius leader. That he was the son of God cannot be prooven. That he rose three days after death, or any other miracle cannot be prooven (though i did watch this discovery channel special about a special type of radiation found in the shroud of turnin). For those things you must choose to believe.

Well this is an age old question isn't it.I would probably say that most professing Bible believing Christians would say that the proof in god lies not only in the pure message of the bible, but in the answers to their prayers and the overall guidence in their day to day lives.That's what people at most Churches would agree upon.