Is there any solid evidence of Jesus or God?

The Spirit is the proof for believers. If we only say we have it but never felt it chances are we do not have it. Those who do know it.

2 Corinthians 13 also mentions this proof. It is not what you call scientific proof but it is enough for believers.

Is there any solid evidence of Jesus or God?

As far as Jesus is concerned, there is little evidence for him. In fact, there are loads and loads of evidence against Jesus being the Messiah, and loads of logical evidence against Pauline christianity.

As far as God, 98% of the planet believes in him...so....Is questioning his existence logical? No. Question how he operates is perfectly logical, but to question the existence of him...that is mere foolishness.

Put it this way. There is just as much proof/evidence of Jesus and/or the Abrahamic God as there is of each and every god in the Hindu or Norse or Greek or any other pantheon.

Is there any solid evidence of Jesus or God?

There is much historical evidence for Jesus. There is none for God (only various testimonies to what people thought of as 'god' which I believe was advanced people from another planet).

-Josh

As far as God, 98% of the planet believes in him...so....Is questioning his existence logical? No. Question how he operates is perfectly logical, but to question the existence of him...that is mere foolishness.

There is much historical evidence for Jesus. There is none for God (only various testimonies to what people thought of as 'god' which I believe was advanced people from another planet).

-Josh

God is certainly not believed in by 98% of the population. As of 2000 (and more recently)Christians only make up 33% of the Earth's religious breakup, whereas Islam is at 19.6% and Judaism is at 0.2%. FAR from 98%.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominat...istiantoday.htm
http://christianity.about.com/gi/dynamic/o...y/resources.php
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

As for physical proof of Jesus, there is none. Except the Bible, but that's not considered "history" by any historically accurate term. And perhaps some supposed "holy" artifacts, like the Shroud of Turin, but most, if not all, of those have been proven to be fakes, including the Shroud of Turin.

I concur

While I do believe in God, I would not necessarily say that questioning God just because everyone else seems to believe in him/her/it does not make it illogical. If that case were true then those who questioned the concept of a flat earth were illogical. Same goes for those who were against slavery. Just because the majority believes something it is not suddenly logical.

There is much historical evidence for Jesus. There is none for God (only various testimonies to what people thought of as 'god' which I believe was advanced people from another planet).

-Josh

You forgot about Josephus.

God is certainly not believed in by 98% of the population. As of 2000 (and more recently)Christians only make up 33% of the Earth's religious breakup, whereas Islam is at 19.6% and Judaism is at 0.2%. FAR from 98%.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominat...istiantoday.htm
http://christianity.about.com/gi/dynamic/o...y/resources.php
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

As for physical proof of Jesus, there is none. Except the Bible, but that's not considered "history" by any historically accurate term. And perhaps some supposed "holy" artifacts, like the Shroud of Turin, but most, if not all, of those have been proven to be fakes, including the Shroud of Turin.

You forgot about Josephus.

I do not solely mean monotheists. I am speaking of theism in general. As in anyone who believes in some sort of deity. Atheism most certainly doesn't not make up 47.2% of the world.

Ah, okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I assumed you meant the Christian/Abrahamic God only.

Here's the thing though, a flat Earth and slavery are things which inhibit humanity and limit our potential to be better humans. Both of those things died out. Both of them are gone. Sometimes the majority will believe the wrong thing for a little while, but it always dies out eventually. In the case of theism...man has always been majorly theistic. Also, theism does not limit or inhibit mankind in any way. Certain theistic views are harmful, but theism itself is not.


It's like I said, questioning God's existence is foolishness. What we should question is what people believe about God.

If any religion out there had solid evidence it would probably become the leading religion.

But then if we say that questioning certain things because they have a long history, don't do us much harm, and most people believe in them is rather silly IMO. It becomes a self fulfilling prophesy that we assume they exist then. "Don't question" because of these things keeps the idea alive, when perhaps it is a baseless assumption in itself.

I agree the nature of God is an interesting subject in itself. But it is not the puzzle in entirety.

If any religion out there had solid evidence it would probably become the leading religion.

I'm fairly certain that his account was proven to be false, for a long time. It's been thought that his account was altered and added/removed from and based on documents we no longer have. Can we provide any source that provides evidence to support the claim that his account was historically true? Because otherwise it holds as much water as any of the gospels for non-believers.

Even if what Josephus wrote is true, it isn't enough to constitute the christian religion, nor does it add validity to their movement.

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became 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 recounted wonders."

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed - worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

In conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the 12 apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

If you truly believe that it is a baseless assumption then you also admit that man is (in essence) a group of illogical creatures with not sensibility or ability to have reasonable thought. You are saying that mankind is prone to "baseless" assumptions due to it's long history. If you truly believe this then you also believe that you yourself are prone to baseless assumptions and then (based on logic and probability) we would have to assume that everything you say is a baseless assumption.

Agreed.

Here is more proof that Jesus as a person did exist:

How am I saying that mankind is prone to baseless assumptions due to it's long history?

You have run with the words 'baseless assumption' into areas my post did in no way inference.

There are many baseless assumptions that have been made. Nobody and no field of inquiry is immune - to say otherwise is hubris. To question is to learn ultimately.

Even if there is evidence of his existence, there is no evidence that he was as the NT describes him...

The debate is ongoing but mainly concerns itself with if Jesus was ever called 'Christ' by Josephus. It was never 'proven' to be false. It was never 'proven' to be true either.



Agreed.

Here is more proof that Jesus as a person did exist:




http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

No one is saying historical evidence validates the Bible. For a believer it is the Spirit that validates the Bible.

The OP most assuredly is asking for historical evidence outside of the Bible. I believe that list I found and posted sums up all the current historical evidence.

When I tell what I know, He won't believe , so he needs to experience God's love first hand then he won't ask this question.

Thankyou for that link to the site, it's very interesting.




Yes but i have not yet experienced, as you say, "god's love". So i thought i ought to ask the question.

If any religion out there had solid evidence it would probably become the leading religion.

Look around you every day, look in nature and Man, are all coincidences actually coincidence?

Hold a baby in your arms.
Look in a Microscope.

Ask God for revelation.

Pray on this with respect and I bet you will recieve answers.
Only through personal experience can one believe in God, Not through someone else's, unless you witness with someone else.

Nothing chanced , Nothing Gained.

Love Omnaka

As far as Jesus is concerned, there is little evidence for him. In fact, there are loads and loads of evidence against Jesus being the Messiah, and loads of logical evidence against Pauline christianity.


As far as God, 98% of the planet believes in him...so....Is questioning his existence logical? No. Question how he operates is perfectly logical, but to question the existence of him...that is mere foolishness.

^ And in all the hearsay, fullywired, why is there not a single account of the hearsay that Jesus did not exist? Surely if someone writing so close to the event wrote about him, other people reading that would write counter-claims to the effect of - "hang on, who's this Jesus bloke. This is the first we've heard of him". As the Encyclopaedia Britannica attests - These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

I am not in disagreement that the Jesus as depicted in the gospels is in dispute. I believe that the accounts are true, but there is no historical evidence to back me up on this one. But hearsay as it may be, the lack of dissenting comments, makes it abundantly clear that even those living less than a generation after Jesus fully believed in his existence (if not quite so vocal on his alleged miracles). And this isn't even going into the martyrdom of Peter, who did claim to be an eye-witness to jesus, and who did willingly die for what he believed.

I ask curiously again, I wonder why it is that the earliest writings about the Buddha date to 200 years after his supposed death, which is more than double that of Jesus, yet no one seems to question that......

People around here like to assert that Jesus Christ never existed. I point to the historical evidence of Gaius Publius Tacitus the first century Roman historian who mentions Jesus Christ quite specifically.

I also like to interject a quote from Albert Einstein. "Generations to come will scarce believe that one such as Ghandi ever in flesh and blood walked this earth." Now if Einstein would say that about Ghandi what do you suppose would be the extrapolation for Jesus? Well, we've seen it on this thread.

PS. There are people who claim the holocaust never happend as well.

^ And in all the hearsay, fullywired, why is there not a single account of the hearsay that Jesus did not exist? Surely if someone writing so close to the event wrote about him, other people reading that would write counter-claims to the effect of - "hang on, who's this Jesus bloke. This is the first we've heard of him". As the Encyclopaedia Britannica attests - These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

I ask curiously again, I wonder why it is that the earliest writings about the Buddha date to 200 years after his supposed death, which is more than double that of Jesus, yet no one seems to question that......

Here we go again with the same old references




NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm