› ›

On the existence of Christ

IoannesIoannes
edited December 1969 in Faith Issues
I am finishing up a book on the existence of Christ, I want to know what everyone else thinks and or believes.
«1

Comments

  • George_Mina_Awad
    I do believe that Christ exists.
  • George_Mina_Awad
    Sorry lol. Seriously though, can you elaborate on what aspect of His existence you're writing about and looking to discuss?
  • IoannesIoannes
    [quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=11507.msg138633#msg138633 date=1306523276]
    Sorry lol. Seriously though, can you elaborate on what aspect of His existence you're writing about and looking to discuss?


    Prove it.
  • JoshuaaJoshuaa

    I think we look at situations and the reality and the relationship in them that shows and tells us there is GOD. The bible is full of them. GOD places us often in the exact opposite situation we want to be in our lives as to get us to obey his commandments of loving our neighbours and our enermies.
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    Christ the historical figure?
  • JoshuaaJoshuaa
    The Trinity has three different roles.
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    [quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=11507.msg138643#msg138643 date=1306528096]
    The Trinity has three different roles.



    Was that a response to me?

    My post was directed at Ioaness. Do you want us to give our thoughts on how prove the existence of Christ (the historical figure Jesus) or God?
  • JoshuaaJoshuaa
    No sorry I must of misunderstood
  • SteamCoal
    I believe in the existence of Christ and that He died in the cross for us. For those who do not believe. I respect you so I hope you respect the beliefs of others also.
    http://coalportal.com
  • IoannesIoannes
    If I were an atheist and asked you, "Prove Christ existed" what would you reply?
  • JoshuaaJoshuaa

    I know what I would feel. I would be pulled into their arguement of having to prove something. Something which I experiance rather than what I have to prove. Having to prove someting is about facts, and I see mine or our arguement is about experiances and situations GOD has put us into for redemption. To get us back to that state which he originally had before there was man. Satan was thrown out of Heaven and took devils with him, and they were angels, so from what I can see is he's doing it again. But we have to decide which way we're going to go.
  • IoannesIoannes
    Unfortunately Josh this would not suffice as an answer to atheists. If they are merely asking for evidence of His existence, not necessarily deity. THAT would be your reply?

    ***Keep in mind everyone, I am trying to provoke thought by playing devil's advocate, I want people to argue this as if I am an atheist. It would help me out tremendously.***
  • aidanaidan
    That Christ is a historical figure I think even an atheist would agree. The evidence of the early Christian writings, mainly the gospels point to a real person. This is reinforced by the evidence of other writers (Josephus et al)and the unbroken tradition of the church.

    THAT He existed seems fairly sure but what manner of person He was is a different kettle of fish. Today is the Sunday of the Blind Man. Did Jesus really restore the sight of a man born blind? Another unlikely happening is the Raising of Lazarus or, indeed, His own alledged resurrection.

    One proof of the existence of the Christ of the gospels is an experimental one. If I am quite attracted to the person of Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospels maybe I find a church,talk to people and maybe read and pray. I  may decide to go deeper and make a commitment, be baptised etc. This commitment will bear the fruit of an ever deeper love of the person Jesus Christ and a preparedness to continue to deepen your love.

    So the Christ who is God and does the works of God has to be known in faith, be it ever so small. By His grace it will grow into a tree.
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    First of all, I doubt an atheist would use the word "Christ" just because of all that comes with it nowadays.

    But the most obvious argument is that of historical evidence. The historians Josephus and Tacitus agree on four crucial points in the life of Jesus. Why is this a proof? Both historians were in no way related and had no contact with each other. One a Jew, the other a Roman (I believe). Yet they agree on very important points. This confirms that Jesus did live on earth.

    I think the four points were concerning His birth, teachings, death, and continuation of His message by the Christians. . .but don't quote me. I'll try to get more evidence and references when I can.
  • dzheremi
    I have not read it myself, but I have heard good things about The Historical Jesus by Gary Habermas, who has also written other books on the historical arguments about Jesus Christ and early Christianity. As usual, there are plenty of bad reviews for the book from people who don't think that it is right to say from the beginning that such things require faith (it's not "scientific" enough, I suppose), and I suppose would instead prefer it if there were some DNA-testing done or something...and then of course, when preliminary testing indicates that there may be something to this whole "Jesus" business, the "science or faith" crowd scoffs at that, too, for not being conclusive enough.

    In my own field, Linguistics (a certain kind of science, if I may say so), there are certain very strong historical evidences of what were once described as Biblical mythology. The decipherement and classification of the Hittite language in the early part of the last century, for instance, provided some substantiation of the existence of the people mentioned in the Bible. Solid linguistic studies published in peer-refereed journals on the Aramaic of Jesus' time (e.g., Toll 1997, Merino 2003) show that it is not some sort of whacked-out fundamentalist opinion that Jesus really did exist, and He existed in a certain time and a certain place, and there is SOLID EVIDENCE to be studied of that time and place.
  • JoshuaaJoshuaa

    Sorry Ioannas, I won't try and prove anything but as Jesus Christ is my example in word and deed then so must I be. But with GOD Moses asked GOD who he was and GOD said "I am who I am". Then when the Christ was going to leave the world Pilate said the jews say your the king of the jews and Jesus said yes.So we we know GOD by who we are.
  • JoshuaaJoshuaa

    Ioannas my dear atheist friend, I also believe we have different truths and so we go in life by the direction of our truth. I know a lot of atheist believe in the darwin theory on life. But is the survival of the fittest the way to go? From what I can see, Hitler believed in this, and believed in the superiorty of his race. Whose swastica sign was the reverse of the indian peace sign, which reflects their belief that the spirit goes full circle. If you straighten it out then it's a cross. Which to me GOD shows us the way to go and we have to take up the cross and lose what we think, that life is intepreted by how we see it. GOD is spirit and his will and law is love. This is the direction I take.
  • IoannesIoannes
    Joshua, first off if your not going to add to this thread, why would you post in it? Read it clearly, I am not an atheist.
  • JoshuaaJoshuaa

    Sorry Ioannes. I thought in a previous post of yours you said, ' If I were an atheist', and from there I used my arguement. Forgive me please. I know your not an atheist, but firmly believes in Jesus Christ. And one who glorifies GOD in a lot of the things you do ie writting your book.
  • IoannesIoannes
    Thank you Josh, I am merely trying to see the arguments used here so I can see if there is a need for the book I am doing.
  • George_Mina_Awad
    Personally I've come to the conclusion that some (or, most) atheists just simply will not budge on the issue. No matter what you say to them, their evidence will always just trump ours, in their eyes.

    MY biggest reason for believing in Him is because I just know, beyond any real doubt, that He's there. I feel Him there. I look to Hebrews 11:1, " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," and I think it's a very misinterpreted verse. Too much attention is payed to the first part of the verse. But if you take a look at the second part, St. Paul is going beyond just speaking about the importance of faith; he's citing it as evidence of the things we don't see. I didn't really get this verse until I thought about it and began to really experience it. The faith that's in me through the Holy Spirit, which would otherwise be absent, is my evidence. This will not convince an atheist, but there's not much that will anyway.
  • IoannesIoannes
    George, thank you for your reply first and foremost. I am actually a bit shocked that nobody has really even tried, except maybe one post, to show the existence of a historical Christ. I do not think anyone expect us to convince anyone that Christ existed, people will inevitably believe what they want no matter what. Our job is to have an answer, and sometimes we might not convince the person whom we are speaking with, but possibly others who are watching and or listening to the conversation.

    I guess my goal was to see just how much knowledge others had on this subject. "My people are destroyed for a lack of Knowledge" (somewhere in Hosea) and I have witnessed this very thing several times. An atheist attacking a Christian and the Christian crumbling to the atheist. The main reason for this is that many of our brothers and sister, especially our youth, are not equipped for this type of argument. Unfortunately we are seeing a surge in atheism and atheist propaganda (such as the Blasphemy Challenge by Brian Flemming author of "The God Who Wasn't There"

    I have seen the mentality of people who would rather just ignore this whole subject as opposed to learn about it in order to properly understand WHY they believe what they believe and that there is evidence for much of what we believe. That is the purpose of this post, unfortunately hardly anyone replied, and the few that did had varying responses but more often than not had little knowledge of the subject. Therefore I can see the need for what I am composing at the moment.

    Thank you for all your help.
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    People who don't believe that Jesus existed are usually uninformed. The accounts of the two historians should be enough. But the gospels and the NT also provides more evidence. It is clear that Jesus was not just some imagined character. The authors were writing at different times and locations to different audiences, etc. Also, Judean culture put a high value on the oral teachings and law. Many were illiterate. So if they heard wrong details or stories, they would have made that quite evident. So the apostles who wrote about Jesus couldn't just write about someone who didn't exist - the Jews wouldn't allow it.
  • George_Mina_Awad
    I definitely agree with you on the necessity of having knowledge on this. I've been pestering my church to teach us about it in our youth meetings and such for years now, but it's like I'm not even there sometimes. So I'm glad you're doing this, and i think I'll be reading your book when it's done.
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    BTW the four points that Josephus (Judean) and Tacitus (Roman) agree on are:

    1. Jesus existed during the time of Pontius Pilate
    2. Jesus had become a public figure w/ a following
    3. Jesus was executed on a cross. (Josephus says both Jews and Romans involved, Tacitus mentions only Romans)
    4. Death of Jesus did not stop the movement and it continued

    Is it possible that Jesus did not exist? Maybe, anything is possible. . .right?
    Is it plausible that Jesus did exist? Absolutely - to disagree is to put aside logic and facts.

  • HezekielHezekiel
    To an atheist no explanation seems to be enough,but Biblical archeology might be of great help here:

    1) The discovery of the James ossuary with the inscription " James the son of Jospeh, the Brother of Jesus". If it is authentic , as mnay scholars argue,then this is a huge evidence to the non-biblical existance of Jesus.

    2) The discovery of the Caiaphas Ossuary with the inscription "Joseph son of Caiaphas". This is the same Caiaphas who presided over the arrest and trial of Jesus.

    3) The discovery of  the Pontius Pilate inscription,the Roman governor who pronounced the death sentence against Jesus.

    4) The remains of a 1st century AD crucified man ,with the bone heel pierced by nail, found in a burial cave in Jerusalem.  
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    I am not sure what the forth point proves. May you elaborate?
  • HezekielHezekiel
    [quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11507.msg138751#msg138751 date=1306789047]
    I am not sure what the forth point proves. May you elaborate?


    The remains of the crucified man just confirms the bibles narrative about the death and burial of Jesus.It was common for the crucified to be buried in mass graves or were left in the open to be eaten by wild animals.Thus,many experts doubted the biblical account of Jesus' burial. So the discovery of this man's remains ,in the same place (jerusalem), who had lived around the time of Jesus proves the bible's story on the way Jesus had died and was buried.The remains also show that the man's bones had been broken, giving clear evidence of first century AD Roman crucifixion method.

  • andrew8345andrew8345
    Interesting - I would expect most to be buried in mass graves. It is the most efficient thing to do. They put Jesus in a tomb and sealed it at the Jews' request, lest His disciples take His body and say He has risen. But what about others - why would anyone else get a tomb burial? Thanks.
  • HezekielHezekiel
    [quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11507.msg138755#msg138755 date=1306792586]
    Interesting - I would expect most to be buried in mass graves. It is the most efficient thing to do. They put Jesus in a tomb and sealed it at the Jews' request, lest His disciples take His body and say He has risen. But what about others - why would anyone else get a tomb burial? Thanks.


    While the bodies of executed criminals were usually damped as trash,there may had been some cases,where the bodies of some of the dead were retrieved by mourning relatives and friends and given a decent burial.Perhaps,the remain are of an honest man from a good and wealthy background.  
Sign In or Register to comment.