Did Jesus Exist?

The testimony of believers from the earliest times ought to be excellent evidence, but I guess we can just call all of them crazy, misguided, or evil, and all those who believed down the centuries after that too. No Jesus. No point in arguing it that I can see. Enjoy your illusion.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-05-2006 01:07 AM

I've got to comment again, that it is very odd that the existence of multiplied millions of followers of Jesus Christ from the earliest days through the present is not considered evidence. Yes I know you can bring yourselves to insult many millions too. It's just odd.

The Hindu gods DO exist.Mohammed murdered those who wouldn't follow his religion. That accounts for the millions in his case. But I do believe he really did hear from an "angel" who taught him the Koran.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-05-2006 01:31 PM

Sorry, I should have emphasized the quality and achievements of the millions of believers. The writings of the early church etc.But I knew no one would have trouble insulting them. Way it goes.

Yes, that, and the basic charitable stance that people aren't as stupid as so many think they are, and the fact that peoples all over the world have experience of demonic entities, and the fact that the Bible has revealed the demonic nature of these religions. Of course the Bible doesn't count I understand, although it was written by many and was written about many who were living at the time it was circulated and could have contradicted it but didn't, etc. What provoked my answer was the comparison to the Loch Ness monster and similar claims, for which the absence of followers in comparison to the millions who followed Christ from the beginning, ought to make it obviously a bogus comparison.

Evidence of what? You seem to keep changing the focus. The existence of millions of believers ought to testify to the actual existence of Jesus Christ. None of the other Messiah claimants acquired such a following. I don't know of one instance of people following someone who didn't exist, do you? If you are talking about believing in God, or believing that a snail is God, that is another subject.

See Message 48

An intelligent man writing about another man he takes as having existed is evidence.

I first referenced the ORIGINAL believers. We now believe because those before us believed. You could say the same about any belief in any historical figure now dead. What's the evidence that any such ever lived PS? The hundreds of thousands who believed in the first centuries, evidenced by the network of bishops and other church leaders to organize them if nothing else, and also the writings of the early church fathers. This is all evidence. All believed in the real Jesus Christ. The early church was also persecuted for that belief, dying for it by the thousands. The New Testament itself is evidence for heaven's sake.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-05-2006 02:10 PM

There were thousands upon thousands along with Augustine with the same belief. There were MANY Church Fathers who believed the same, going back to the first century. The belief of hundreds of thousands truly ought to be enough. The New Testament testimonies themselves ought to be enough. The building up of a historical record from the earliest times ought to be enough. The fact that early Christians were martyred for their belief ought to be evidence. The fact that the more they died the more the religion grew ought to be evidence. We have no original sources, but we have plenty of copies of original sources. Archaeology is not needed.

=
That was a reference to ALL believers over all time. And I thought I specifically mentioned the first century believers in that post too but if I didn't I should have. I had them particularly in mind.Physical proximity is a bogus requirement for knowledge of the existence of a historical figure. The New Testament is historical accounts. Always were regarded as historical accounts by anyone with half a brain. Oh honestly. YOu trot out this obscure reference to a novel that managed to inspire some people to believe in the actual existence of its hero and how many people and it lasted how long and we should care why? Jesus Christ inspired multiplied millions over two millennia and you would make such a ridiculous comparison.

No, from a historical perspective. The historical evidence that they existed is those who followed them who believed they existed and took the New Testament as historical and were willing to die for it. If you think the New Testament reads like those fictions there is simply nothing more to be said. Easily could and did fail to gain outside interest at first. Just another religious uprising in little Judea, backwater of the huge illustrious Roman Empire. Big deal. What records there are of pagan notice of the Christian sect were negative anyway, accusing them of strange practices and generally despising them as "atheists" for refusing worship of the many gods of Rome and of Caesar himself. Well Josephus was a Pharisee and didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah and had a different order of priorities than a believer would have.

I think it's obvious PS, but nothing I say will convince you. If you want to make such comparisons and believe them valid, I have nothing more to say.

It rests on a complete network of facts for each of us, Percy, not just this piece of evidence or that piece. All together the evidence for the reality of Jesus Christ is enormous. I've mentioned a few pieces. You shoot them down. But it's the whole picture, the many believers, the inspired writings, the martyrdoms of the early church, the way the New Testament reads etc etc etc -- if you don't see it you don't see it.I don't care any more if anyone sees it. One thing I've learned from being at EvC is that this whole thing is beyond debate, it's supernatural. Genuine evidence exists in plenty and yet people ignore it, bat it down with speculative answers. This is a supernatural phenomenon.

No, the fact itself is what makes it so. No, I'm applying standards of history. I didn't believe out of the blue although I know some people think they do, they just sort of believe based on who knows what, but I believe based on the collection of evidence I recognize as factual. The history of Christianity, the numbers of believers, what they wrote, their willingness to die, the effect they had on the world over time, etc etc etc, really is valid evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. I find it utterly ludicrous that this is denied. Not THAT many. Not THAT way. Not over so many centuries for the same cause either.Outside a few writings, most ancients are "unknown to history." Well there's more evidence for my side. But they weren't arguing with people who denied their historical validity. Yes, I believe that is true. God left us the gospels and the letters of the apostles as the historical record. They are plenty. As Pascal said, God has made sure that there is enough light to guide us to belief, but enough obscurity to put off the insincere, the debunkers. If you prefer.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-05-2006 03:20 PM