Widely accepted evidence of Jesus

[Tuno]

I take your point that moral and spiritual nobility should be the hallmark of Christians yet it is also important to explain why belief in Jesus is not mere superstition. To claim that we should be examples of what He taught implies that our faith is authentic! If He were a myth what would be the source of His teaching?

If we agree that God IS, and that the Universe is the manifestation of God, then there is nothing that stems from other than God, even the ability to “sin.” Mankind, or unkind, is created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore the ancient dictum “Know Thyself” can be seen as useful tool, manifested as self inquiry or examination of conscience, as it might be called in other traditions, in their degrees of application.

The four forms of the Golden Rule are hoary and ancient and speak to the most fundamental of Christian ethics, the Great Commandment, which is therefore nothing “new” with Christianity. But these “Rules” speak to the notion that the Fatherhood of God is universal and common among men and is intuitively known. In other words, one does not harm another because the “other” is fundamentally no different from myself and therefore has equal value.

Granted that there needs to be a point of maturity reached in order to perceive this, but amongst the “spiritual” or religious leaders and amongst more highly morally accomplished individuals, this is pretty standard from the beginning. So in a deep sense, it matters not much whether Jesus taught what was already known since man awoke to conscience, or whether one totally and only attributes moral behavior to this one individual who may or may not have walked. I mean that if someone is observed doing “good,” that good is good because of its inherent recognition of the other as self whether the “doer” is namable otherwise as religious, philosophical or even unaffiliated, or even otherwise generally amoral. So in a mind tuned to christianity, such an act would necessarily be labeled as “Christian.”

So the part of all this that is “authentic” is not that such teaching was given by among others Jesus, but that the good itself is authentic and you, because of your faith allegiance, see it as congruent with the Teacher you feel most aligned with. Good does not in any way “prove” Jesus of Christianity. And as I have often said, Good and religion are on separate axes of consideration only seeming to coincide. Read in the news about our Church’s shenanigans ora nay church’s shenanigans and this becomes clear. Though there are deeper significances that are associated with this, as demonstrated by some of the Saints in our and other traditions, it is an internal equivocation of the “other” as self that is finally the root of morality, whatever one labels it as or to whatever origin one attributes it to.

“God” means “good” in so many languages. Neither good nor God are partisan. And both, as One, have myriads of voices. That we attribute to Jesus teaching what is Universal because we name Him the Son of God, even if correctly, is an accident of perception due to our training in prejudice at this time and place in history and the Universe. This is what the idea of Myth actually speaks to, as being a map for spiritual transformation. Myth, even if applied to Jesus, is not pejorative, but in the actual sense sanctifying.

 

[tonyrey]

If we agree that God IS, and that the Universe is the manifestation of God, then there is nothing that stems from other than God, even the ability to “sin.” Mankind, or unkind, is created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore the ancient dictum “Know Thyself” can be seen as useful tool, manifested as self inquiry or examination of conscience, as it might be called in other traditions, in their degrees of application.

The four forms of the Golden Rule are hoary and ancient and speak to the most fundamental of Christian ethics, the Great Commandment, which is therefore nothing “new” with Christianity. But these “Rules” speak to the notion that the Fatherhood of God is universal and common among men and is intuitively known. In other words, one does not harm another because the “other” is fundamentally no different from myself and therefore has equal value.

The Golden Rule was not revolutionary but the injunction to love your enemies and turn the other cheek certainly was.

Granted that there needs to be a point of maturity reached in order to perceive this, but amongst the “spiritual” or religious leaders and amongst more highly morally accomplished individuals, this is pretty standard from the beginning. So in a deep sense, it matters not much whether Jesus taught what was already known since man awoke to conscience, or whether one totally and only attributes moral behavior to this one individual who may or may not have walked. I mean that if someone is observed doing “good,” that good is good because of its inherent recognition of the other as self whether the “doer” is namable otherwise as religious, philosophical or even unaffiliated, or even otherwise generally amoral. So in a mind tuned to christianity, such an act would necessarily be labeled as “Christian.”

So the part of all this that is “authentic” is not that such teaching was given by among others Jesus, but that the good itself is authentic and you, because of your faith allegiance, see it as congruent with the Teacher you feel most aligned with. Good does not in any way “prove” Jesus of Christianity. And as I have often said, Good and religion are on separate axes of consideration only seeming to coincide. Read in the news about our Church’s shenanigans ora nay church’s shenanigans and this becomes clear. Though there are deeper significances that are associated with this, as demonstrated by some of the Saints in our and other traditions, it is an internal equivocation of the “other” as self that is finally the root of morality, whatever one labels it as or to whatever origin one attributes it to.

“God” means “good” in so many languages. Neither good nor God are partisan. And both, as One, have myriads of voices. That we attribute to Jesus teaching what is Universal because we name Him the Son of God, even if correctly, is an accident of perception due to our training in prejudice at this time and place in history and the Universe.
Countless people have become Christians down the centuries regardless of their cultural background because the truth shines by its own light…

This is what the idea of Myth actually speaks to, as being a map for spiritual transformation. Myth, even if applied to Jesus, is not pejorative, but in the actual sense sanctifying.

If Jesus were a myth much of His teaching would not make sense because it can only be fully understood in relation to His life, death and resurrection.

 

[Tuno]

The Golden Rule was not revolutionary but the injunction to love your enemies and turn the other cheek certainly was.

Yes; I mentioned that, the Great Commandment, as a form or logical extention of the Rule.

Countless people have become Christians down the centuries regardless of their cultural background because the truth shines by its own light…

Why not? There’s nothing wrong with that. Given the paradigm options most people have, they choose what seems to fit their experience best. That’s how my sister converted from Catholicism to Mormonism, my brother to Zen, my younger sister to Moony-ism and then back to a charismatic form of Catholicism, myself after a profound mystical experience to non dualism, (if that can even remotely be called a “conversion,”) and why my parents practiced two distinctively different forms of Catholicism: one based on social justice and the other on devotional practices. Yes, the Truth shines by its own Light, but it lights many forms of thinking about it. That doesn’t change the Light any more than being in a dark room stops the sun from shining. Whatever is in our thoughts regarding God is lit by that Light, right, wrong, or indifferent.

If Jesus were a myth much of His teaching would not make sense because it can only be fully understood in relation to His life, death and resurrection.

You, and most people continue to ignore the actual meaning of myth. It is not that Jesus is a myth, as in a fairy tale, it is that the point of Myth and mythical heros is that they provide an interior map to elevated awareness. Where does Jesus exist for you? You have to think about Jesus to have an image of what He means, stands for, and taught. He is not physically here for you to converse with, though understandable one does that type of thing with an absent role model, especially if He is Divine. But the point is that He is in your thought. That is not substantially different from other Mythos dynamics.

That the miracles of the Gospels are used as validating belief in Jesus in particular is little different than using the miracles of virgin birth and resurrection or of overcoming the “underworld” or whatever in mythological schemas or mystery religions. Your story works for you, so that is excellent. It is not therefore, as you know it, an objective truth synonymous with Reality thou it may be your own experiential accounting for reality.

On the other hand, you may have had a profound mystical experience and have had a direct insight. I submit that even then, that being a non discursive experience, the habitual nature of the mind is to describe those in familiar terms, in your case the developments surrounding the story of Jesus whether He lived or not being irrelevant to your own comprehension of that assimilated line of understanding. For some people such an experience gives them enough distance of perspective to realize that Truth is not tied to a particular individual even if they are a total embodiment of that Truth.

 

[tonyrey]

The Golden Rule was not revolutionary but the injunction to love your enemies and turn the other cheek certainly was.

To love your enemies is far from logical! It is still regarded by many as insane. Many Christians have difficulty in finding it reasonable, let alone practising it.

Countless people have become Christians down the centuries regardless of their cultural background because the truth shines by its own light…

Why not? There’s nothing wrong with that. Given the paradigm options most people have, they choose what seems to fit their experience best. That’s how my sister converted from Catholicism to Mormonism, my brother to Zen, my younger sister to Moony-ism and then back to a charismatic form of Catholicism, myself after a profound mystical experience to non dualism, (if that can even remotely be called a “conversion,”) and why my parents practiced two distinctively different forms of Catholicism: one based on social justice and the other on devotional practices. Yes, the Truth shines by its own Light, but it lights many forms of thinking about it. That doesn’t change the Light any more than being in a dark room stops the sun from shining. Whatever is in our thoughts regarding God is lit by that Light, right, wrong, or indifferent.

“seems to fit” is the key phrase. Our choices are often misguided and sometimes lead us astray but that is the inevitable price of being free to shape our own destiny. Within the Catholic Church, as you have illustrated, there is a wide divergence of views and practices. That is a sign of her strength rather than weakness and evidence of flexibility rather than rigidity. We also have one great consolation: even our mistakes can bring us closer to God! We have an obligation to obey our conscience even though it is fallible.

If Jesus were a myth much of His teaching would not make sense because it can only be fully understood in relation to His life, death and resurrection.

You, and most people continue to ignore the actual meaning of myth. It is not that Jesus is a myth, as in a fairy tale, it is that the point of Myth and mythical heros is that they provide an interior map to elevated awareness.

I have been aware of that meaning of myth for a very long time!

Where does Jesus exist for you? You have to think about Jesus to have an image of what He means, stands for, and taught. He is not physically here for you to converse with, though understandable one does that type of thing with an absent role model, especially if He is Divine. But the point is that He is in your thought. That is not substantially different from other Mythos dynamics.

It is substantially different because they did not live on this earth.

That the miracles of the Gospels are used as validating belief in Jesus in particular is little different than using the miracles of virgin birth and resurrection or of overcoming the “underworld” or whatever in mythological schemas or mystery religions.

The miracles are far less important than His teaching - apart from the Resurrection which is literally vital!

Your story works for you, so that is excellent. It is not therefore, as you know it, an objective truth synonymous with Reality thou it may be your own experiential accounting for reality.

The fact that it works for many people does not mean it is not an objective truth as well as a subjective belief. There is only one Truth…

On the other hand, you may have had a profound mystical experience and have had a direct insight. I submit that even then, that being a non discursive experience, the habitual nature of the mind is to describe those in familiar terms, in your case the developments surrounding the story of Jesus whether He lived or not being irrelevant to your own comprehension of that assimilated line of understanding.

Mystical experiences can be deceptive. They need corroboration. If they are at odds with the Golden Rule, for example, they are suspect.

For some people such an experience gives them enough distance of perspective to realize that Truth is not tied to a particular individual even if they are a total embodiment of that Truth.

I agree with you but perhaps for different reasons from yours. Jesus revealed fundamental truths but He could not reveal the whole Truth in the limited time available nor was it necessary. He told us the Holy Spirit would come to guide us.
Nor are truths the monopoly of Christianity. Other religions and even individuals with no religion can give us insight into spiritual facts. Atheists and agnostics serve a useful purpose in refining our beliefs because human words cannot possibly express the richness and depth of supernatural reality. The word “love” illustrates how inadequate they are.

 

[Windfish]

I don’t deny that Jesus existed – I merely think that there is insufficient evidence to claim that the character Jesus – as portrayed in the Gospels – actually existed.

There may very well have been an historical person (or people) upon whom the Gospel legends were based (in the same way that the King Arthur legends may have been based on a real king or kings), but the amount of evidence for the existence of the character from the Gospels is exactly the same as the amount of evidence for the existence of the character from the King Arthur legends.

Look at the strange pieces of evidence offered in this thread: the writings of historians who lived long after Jesus’ supposed death and who were reporting the legends believed by the cult that worshipped this figure; the writings of Paul, who never knew the historical Jesus but claimed to have encountered his ghost; and, perhaps strangest of all, the claim that “Gee, there must have been a Jesus or Christianity would never have spread so far.” Well, golly. What an airtight argument. You might as well argue that there had to have been an Osiris, or else the Egytian religion wouldn’t have lasted all those thousands of years.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Logos_of_Ed]

**Proverb 8:22 My Heart has emmitted my most excellent word(Father your word is eternal wisdom thats all we need)**QUOTE=Bohm Bawerk;7096096]Many people believe Jesus did exist. In fact, that really isn’t the point of the debate. What concerns most skeptics is in fact whether Jesus was the Son of God.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[AntiTheist]

What additional evidence would you require?

Contemporary eyewitness reports would be a good start. Something written in Jesus’ own handwriting and confirmed by contemporary sources would be even better, but since he was probably illiterate, I won’t hold my breath for that.

So let’s start with contemporary eyewitness accounts, rather than legends written down decades after his supposed death.

King Arthur did not found an international organisation based on the noblest moral teaching known to mankind, inspired men and women to dedicate their lives to the afflicted and create much of the finest art, music and architecture in the world.

No. He was king of a nation that went on to influence much of the rest of the world through its empire. The achievements of an organization have absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of legends about the organization’s supposed founder or one of the organization’s supposed former leaders.

precise accounts of the life, teaching and achievements of their Master

Yes, “precise accounts” written down decades (at the earliest) after the supposed death of this supposed master. I’m not terribly impressed.

How else do you explain the sudden change of heart of a zealous Jew who was persecuting the Christians like a member of the Gestapo?

This is an argument from ignorance (i.e. “I can’t think of another explanation; therefore, explanation X must be true!”).

It is absurd to compare the cult and influence of Osiris to the influence of Christ on the modern world.

I think it’s absurd to use the achievements of an organization or nation as the basis of an argument in favor of the existence of a legendary founder of said organization. That’s the point I was making.

 

[tonyrey]

What additional evidence would you require?

A gratuitous assertion which simply reveals your prejudice. On the one hand you accept the historicity of Jesus and on the other you reject out of hand the accounts of His life and death which are supported by archaeological and historical evidence. An illiterate whose teaching presupposes detailed knowledge and understanding of the Old Testament!

So let’s start with contemporary eyewitness accounts, rather than legends written down decades after his supposed death.

You are assuming that the New Testament is not based on contemporary eyewitness accounts. Jesus and His Apostles were not scribes but men of action. The world was not evangelised writing books. The primary means of communication was the transmission of facts by regular meetings of the Christian community rather than individuals separately voicing their own opinions. This was the guarantee of truth and orthodoxy at a time when there were spurious gospels and epistles. The Protestant notion of the written word as the basis of Christianity overlooks the need for the selection and interpretation of the authentic scriptures.

Yes, “precise accounts” written down decades (at the earliest) after the supposed death of this supposed master. I’m not terribly impressed.

You’re not impressed because of your preconceived notion that all religion is superstition, your supposition that they were no eye-witness accounts on which the New Testament is based and your failure to realise that in a time of persecution by both Jews and Romans many Christian writings would have been destroyed, particularly during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

How else do you explain the sudden change of heart of a zealous Jew who was persecuting the Christians like a member of the Gestapo?

This is an argument from ignorance (i.e. “I can’t think of another explanation; therefore, explanation X must be true!”).

Yours is the argument from ignorance because you argue that Paul was deluded without giving one reason for your assumption and without explaining his transformation from persecutor to disciple.

King Arthur did not found an international organisation based on the noblest moral teaching known to mankind, inspired men and women to dedicate their lives to the afflicted and create much of the finest art, music and architecture in the world.

He was king of a nation that went on to influence much of the rest of the world through its empire.

Your comparison is baseless. Arthur was the king of a nation which invaded, decimated, enslaved and exploited peoples without any reference to his life and teaching.

I think it’s absurd to use the achievements of an organization or nation as the basis of an argument in favor of the existence of a legendary founder of said organization.

It’s absurd to claim that the moral truths of Christianity preserved and promoted by an international organisation to form the basis of modern civilization stem from a legendary founder. Your comparison with the cult and influence of Osiris is even more ludicrous. Christianity is not a collection of inert writings but a living community which has existed continuously from the time of Apostles with a leader who is the successor of the first Bishop of Rome, St Peter.

 

[Pieman333272]

Here’s a Good Book tracing the history of the Church back. I ordered it and am awaiting its arrival.

 

[minder_bender]

I think alot of these doubts come from the fact that such an important figure seemingly had no documented past. It is assumned Jesus lived all His life in Nazareth. Doubters wonder where He attained His wide knowledge. Some of His knowledge came from the temple but where was He before He started His MiddleEastern ministry? Some believe He travelled afar with a relative on the trade caravan trains. If Jesus existed, there would be some trace of His journeys. This brings me to the interesting story of ‘Issa’. A compelling narative of a considered holy man who travelled, studied & preached in india before returning to His homeland at the age of 30 where, after 3 years, He was arrested & put to death by cruxifiction. (you will find this story if you google ‘the life of issa’.) I don’t know if this is really ‘the lost years of Jesus’, but it is an orthentic document in existance and if proven to be so, would account for the missing years of Jesus from a completely unbiased source. The assumptions at the end of the story are just that. Assumptions. And can only point to the documents authenticity rather than fraud. But the truth is that pilot was afraid that Jesus followers would steal His body, and so (unlike the assumptions of issa) He did indeed guard the tomb with many soldiers to prevent the stealing of the body. If (as in issa tale) He took the body away himself to arrest such beliefs arrising, that would only undo his own intention and lend raise to the very proclaimation (He is risen) he was trying to prevent. If the Issa personna is in fact Jesus and an account of His missing years, then this is infact evidence. Unbiased evidence of His existance and of the type of man He was before His ministry began in Judea. Read the story! tell me what you think!

 

[OrthdxyTriumphs]

ere is how we know the Four Gospels are accurate:

1. They – unlike the Gnostic Gospels – mention many historical places, names, events, etc, that place Christ’s life in a very specific historical context. They focus on a man from Galilee traveling through a very real and archeologically accurate Israel/Palestine. For a while archeologists and historians found small problems with the New Testament (they thought Herod’s kingdom was not part of the Roman Empire so it wouldn’t have had a census), but were later proved wrong (the historian Josephus says that Herod was a client kingdom to Ceaser and was treated as a subject).
2. Over 24,000 New Testament manuscripts/fragments dating between c.100-300 AD have been found. There are 2856 miniscule manuscripts, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 2403 lectionaries, and 8000 others found in various languages.
3. The book of Acts ends before the death of Paul. Therefore it presumably was written before Paul’s death, as the book mostly follows Paul’s journey. This would date Acts at 62 AD. Acts was part 2 of a 2-part document written by Luke (The Gospel of Luke and Acts). This means the gospel of Luke was written before 62 AD. This means there is no more than a thirty year gap between Luke’s Gospel and Jesus’ death. Compare this with the accounts of Alexander the Great, which were written 400+ years after his death.
4. By c. 100, John’s Gospel was spread as far as Egypt.
5. The historian Josephus refers to (a) John the Baptists execution by Herod, (b) James brother of Jesus stoned by the Sanheidrin, and (c) Jesus himself. The text, in the more cautious translation, reads:
   “At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”
6. Julius Africanus (221 AD) comments on the historian Thallus, saying he is unconvinced by Thallus’ theory that the darkness during the day of the crucifixion was caused by an eclipse.
7. The early Christian Justin Martyr wrote to Emperor Antonius referring him to an outside source: Pontius Pilate’s reports.
8. Pliny (the Younger), an Asia Minor governor, said a sect called the Christians would meet in the morning to praise Christ as God.
9. Roman historian Tacitus (52 AD) wrote that “Christus” was executed by Pontius Pilate, and followers of a superstition surrounding his death (the Resurrection) spread through Judea even to Rome.
10. many random historical characters in the New Testament have been confirmed by archeology: Gallio, Joseph son of Ciaphas, Erastus, Lysanias, the Politarchs.

 

[Tuno]

Tonyrey~

To love your enemies is far from logical! It is still regarded by many as insane. Many Christians have difficulty in finding it reasonable, let alone practising it.

Yes, I agree, because the point I’m working at applies here: “Love thine enemies” is usually understood from within the context of identifying oneself as in an adversarial relationship with someone else, an “enemy,” who is that because of some actual or perceived transgression on one person, property, or associates. This dictum, however, requires the maturity of perception that has the essence of the other known to be equal to one’s own. Thus one can respond as needed from a basis of equality that forbids, for instance, the common practice of objectifying and lumping together persons with different beliefs from our own who may yet have distinctly opposite views from each other as “gooks,” “krauts,” heebs," nips," “bohunks,” towelheads," and etc.

It also can aid in separating the thought pattern and actions of a person from their intrinsic value and aid in navigating emotionally charged differences. As a simili, we can consider the dynamic of a parent who has been harmed by a child who is either ignorant or immature in a given situation. You love the child, you correct the mistake and educate. Why not with adults who appear different? Because they may not have your own maturity? That does not mean that you cannot exercise forbearance. And if it comes down to it, there are those who did that to the point of death. They are called martyrs.

So loving thine enemy can be seen and exercised from some point on a scale that may even have other dimensions. But if there is difficulty in understanding the dictum, it is most likely, as far as I can see, due to the immaturity of the practical understanding of the other as essentially equal in value to oneself.

“seems to fit” is the key phrase. Our choices are often misguided and sometimes lead us astray…

from what?

…but that is the inevitable price of being free to shape our own destiny.

Yes; that is why non dualism is called by some “the Path of Ultimate Responsibility”

Within the Catholic Church, as you have illustrated, there is a wide divergence of views and practices. That is a sign of her strength rather than weakness and evidence of flexibility rather than rigidity. We also have one great consolation: even our mistakes can bring us closer to God! We have an obligation to obey our conscience even though it is fallible.

Exactly. And that applies universally and is the teleology of spiritual practice. We can’t skip levels of maturity and arrive at the Beatific Vision, even if we get a glimpse. We have to go back and do the necessary foundational work of each level, assimilating and transcending, and at each phase re-identifying with a higher and more complete noumenon of Soul.

I have been aware of that meaning of myth for a very long time!

Great! Let’s stick to it.

It is substantially different because they did not live on this earth.

Actually it is only relatively different due to ascribing reality of one and not to the other. Those who did have only certain hero myths as guides, including most of the miracles of Jesus, had no less use of them as transfomative aids than we do with our belief based on our own criteria. Jesus is no more here as a person to walk with than Horus and Mythra, or whomever.

And that is where the Mythos aspect of the Gospels is such a can of worms. If one is already invested by faith and emotion, as I was, it is exceptionally difficult to see this aspect. There is a built in blindness. I knew, because I had this whole non dual idea presented to me before I had my pivotal Insight which divorced me from my preconceptions of what constitutes person, and I summarily dismissed it. But in fact, the usage of the Bible and tradition is no different in practice than are the Myths. Perhaps they are less so because they historicize an individual and relegate His accomplishment to singularity, which idea leaves the rest of us dangling in limbo. As I have often said, faith is sometimes as much a barrier as a help.

The miracles are far less important than His teaching - apart from the Resurrection which is literally vital!

Absolutely.

The fact that it works for many people does not mean it is not an objective truth as well as a subjective belief. There is only one Truth.

Yes, there is only One Truth. And really, the objective part of it matters not, because it is automatically in the “subjective” department as it is not a matter of personal witnessing, but of tradition and belief, with a soupcon of historical support.

(continued)

 

[Tuno]

(continuation)

Mystical experiences can be deceptive. They need corroboration. If they are at odds with the Golden Rule, for example, they are suspect.

Yes, that is an excellent criterion. However, the one reportage that consistently results from a particular variety of mystical experience, and which is consistent regardless of age, place, culture, religion, or personal circumstance of the mystic, cannot be denied as meriting serious consideration. That holds especially since it is easily congruent with Identity statements in both the OT and NT and with similar in other Scriptures.

I agree with you but perhaps for different reasons from yours. Jesus revealed fundamental truths but He could not reveal the whole Truth in the limited time available nor was it necessary. He told us the Holy Spirit would come to guide us.

We don’t really know, as uninitiates, what Mark 4:33,34 refers to. My own sense is that, like ancient and contemporary proponents of the Absolute, He had somewhat different and clearer interactions with His disciples than public parabalizingss allowed for. I also have greave doubts, considering much that has allegedly recieved the sanction of the Holy Spirit, what exactly “guide us” might mean as a practical measure, other than that category of mystical experience which I have alluded to, and which, I beleive, is the origin of religions to begin with. That is to say that religions, as paradigms, are second hand interpretations of an original transmission from one such as Jesus. They are then in the hands of the less competent, to say the least. Look at the history of our own Church, if you please.

Nor are truths the monopoly of Christianity. Other religions and even individuals with no religion can give us insight into spiritual facts. Atheists and agnostics serve a useful purpose in refining our beliefs because human words cannot possibly express the richness and depth of supernatural reality. The word “love” illustrates how inadequate they are.

I completely agree.

 

[brumano]

is there any that exist or they all skeptical evidences like i know the shroud is not widely accepted as evidence of Jesus.

this would need to be evidence that could convince an atheist that Jesus existed

I don’t know if this will convince an atheist, in fact I doubt that it will, but we should alwalys remember that we ourselves are often struggling with doubt, and even denial. That Jesus existed in His time, as we do in ours is really a universally accepted fact now, even by seculars and atheists. For the hard proofs of who He was, is and always will be as all that we believe Him to be, I think there are two (2) excellent proofs. One is the existence to this day of His Holy Church, but really the best proof of Him is Him, in The Holy Eucharist. Mind boggling isn’t it? His greatest and most beautiful miracle is still being carried out in real time, so that we can receive Him and truly know Him as He truly is.

 

[brumano]

The empty tomb of Jesus, The King of the Jews. Why have you not been able to account for it,
in two thousand years?
The Apostles of Jesus, huddled together in sadness, fear, despair on the Sabbath after their Lord is crucified emerge after the descent of the Holy Spirit with not the slightest fear of anyone Jew or Gentile preaching boldly the Gospel of Truth to the whole world, How do you explain that?
Why is it that the Passover Sacrifice of the Lamb has never since the day The Lord was sacrificed been sacrificied in a Temple?
Why have there been no more High Priests of The Jews since Caiaphas?
How do you explain that the Curtain enclosing The Holy of Holies was torn exactly in two at the moment that Jesus expired?
Early Christians with nothing whatsoever to gain materially, or socially by believing and being baptized in The Christian Church, having in fact everything to lose including their lives, willingly die for their faith in Christ Jesus, how do you explain this?
We could go on, but first you answer these questions, then we’ll go on.

 

[rabbounied]

The many Eucharistic miricales in Itally Santareen where the Host turened into Blood and is stillso today…

is there any that exist or they all skeptical evidences like i know the shroud is not widely accepted as evidence of Jesus.

this would need to be evidence that could convince an atheist that Jesus existed

 

[rabbounied]

Let us believe that when we are layed in the tomb we are not alone but with the Lord who loves us.

The empty tomb of Jesus, The King of the Jews. Why have you not been able to account for it,
in two thousand years?
The Apostles of Jesus, huddled together in sadness, fear, despair on the Sabbath after their Lord is crucified emerge after the descent of the Holy Spirit with not the slightest fear of anyone Jew or Gentile preaching boldly the Gospel of Truth to the whole world, How do you explain that?
Why is it that the Passover Sacrifice of the Lamb has never since the day The Lord was sacrificed been sacrificied in a Temple?
Why have there been no more High Priests of The Jews since Caiaphas?
How do you explain that the Curtain enclosing The Holy of Holies was torn exactly in two at the moment that Jesus expired?
Early Christians with nothing whatsoever to gain materially, or socially by believing and being baptized in The Christian Church, having in fact everything to lose including their lives, willingly die for their faith in Christ Jesus, how do you explain this?
We could go on, but first you answer these questions, then we’ll go on.

 

[rabbounied]

**If we cannot believe in his Word let us then believe in his wounds, Isiah - by his stripes we are healed… **

(continuation)
Yes, that is an excellent criterion. However, the one reportage that consistently results from a particular variety of mystical experience, and which is consistent regardless of age, place, culture, religion, or personal circumstance of the mystic, cannot be denied as meriting serious consideration. That holds especially since it is easily congruent with Identity statements in both the OT and NT and with similar in other Scriptures. We don’t really know, as uninitiates, what Mark 4:33,34 refers to. My own sense is that, like ancient and contemporary proponents of the Absolute, He had somewhat different and clearer interactions with His disciples than public parabalizingss allowed for. I also have greave doubts, considering much that has allegedly recieved the sanction of the Holy Spirit, what exactly “guide us” might mean as a practical measure, other than that category of mystical experience which I have alluded to, and which, I beleive, is the origin of religions to begin with. That is to say that religions, as paradigms, are second hand interpretations of an original transmission from one such as Jesus. They are then in the hands of the less competent, to say the least. Look at the history of our own Church, if you please.
I completely agree.

 

[rabbounied]

The Holy Spirit answers all these questions for us, as, My Jesus I believe in You and all that you have taught because you have said it and your word is True

ere is how we know the Four Gospels are accurate:

1. They – unlike the Gnostic Gospels – mention many historical places, names, events, etc, that place Christ’s life in a very specific historical context. They focus on a man from Galilee traveling through a very real and archeologically accurate Israel/Palestine. For a while archeologists and historians found small problems with the New Testament (they thought Herod’s kingdom was not part of the Roman Empire so it wouldn’t have had a census), but were later proved wrong (the historian Josephus says that Herod was a client kingdom to Ceaser and was treated as a subject).
2. Over 24,000 New Testament manuscripts/fragments dating between c.100-300 AD have been found. There are 2856 miniscule manuscripts, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 2403 lectionaries, and 8000 others found in various languages.
3. The book of Acts ends before the death of Paul. Therefore it presumably was written before Paul’s death, as the book mostly follows Paul’s journey. This would date Acts at 62 AD. Acts was part 2 of a 2-part document written by Luke (The Gospel of Luke and Acts). This means the gospel of Luke was written before 62 AD. This means there is no more than a thirty year gap between Luke’s Gospel and Jesus’ death. Compare this with the accounts of Alexander the Great, which were written 400+ years after his death.
4. By c. 100, John’s Gospel was spread as far as Egypt.
5. The historian Josephus refers to (a) John the Baptists execution by Herod, (b) James brother of Jesus stoned by the Sanheidrin, and (c) Jesus himself. The text, in the more cautious translation, reads:
   “At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”
6. Julius Africanus (221 AD) comments on the historian Thallus, saying he is unconvinced by Thallus’ theory that the darkness during the day of the crucifixion was caused by an eclipse.
7. The early Christian Justin Martyr wrote to Emperor Antonius referring him to an outside source: Pontius Pilate’s reports.
8. Pliny (the Younger), an Asia Minor governor, said a sect called the Christians would meet in the morning to praise Christ as God.
9. Roman historian Tacitus (52 AD) wrote that “Christus” was executed by Pontius Pilate, and followers of a superstition surrounding his death (the Resurrection) spread through Judea even to Rome.
10. many random historical characters in the New Testament have been confirmed by archeology: Gallio, Joseph son of Ciaphas, Erastus, Lysanias, the Politarchs.

 

[rabbounied]

When the Nicean Creed was written and Arius was against the divinity of Jesus the Word Logos and Hommonuious were used to prove that in the begining The Logos was with God

**Proverb 8:22 My Heart has emmitted my most excellent word(Father your word is eternal wisdom thats all we need)**QUOTE=Bohm Bawerk;7096096]Many people believe Jesus did exist. In fact, that really isn’t the point of the debate. What concerns most skeptics is in fact whether Jesus was the Son of God.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk