There is no proof!
I had a blast today over in the religion, philosophy, and science threads! What a far ranging set of polite discussions about my favorite topic: Jesus Christ.
For the record, these are the links I'm talking about:
Is there a scientific basis for Jesus Christ?
Does the Teleology Prove the Existence of God?
Jesus predicted a first century return that did not occur
Jesus Christ as Myth According to Factual Historical Scientific Analysis He Never Existed
While I had a lot of fun making dozens of posts in these threads, I also had a chance to clarify my thinking a bit.
Here's the one jewel, the one thing I now agree with my sparring partners on, only now I can state it more succinctly:
Whew! What a relief!
Stipulating that point removes the need to read most of my opponents posts. That's the argument they dearly want to establish. Fine. Agreed. That's my point too.
Jesus Christ explicitly did not want to leave behind any absolute proof. He found the demand for proof to be highly offensive and refused to give it!
You think I jest? Here's some of the things he said about it:
"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Ok, so here we have Jesus both a) confirming one of the most outrageous stories in Scripture is just as true as His coming death and resurrection and b) that what he was about to do is the best proof we are going to get.
There were many other places where he refused to "perform" for skeptics who kept demanding more and more proof. (Although there were tons of times where he provided proofs for those who already believed him.)
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21:25
The same with His teaching. He spoke in a way that those who wanted to understand would hear him but those who didn't really want to would not:
The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it. - Matthew 13:13
So, from now on I won't waste any time talking about the many credible accounts we have from the eyewitnesses who knew Jesus. Their accounts are enough for me, and for others willing to take a leap of faith, but they do not intend to provide "absolute proof."
Jesus said he didn't intend to provide such proof. That would leave no room for faith - which is the sine qua non of Christianity.
The righteous shall live by faith.
Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
You either read the eyewitness accounts in the Bible and take the leap of faith to believe them, or you don't.
That's how Jesus selects His servants.
He doesn't coddle those who play hard to get.
My skepticism isn't for any of the people/prophets. My skepticism relates in part to Greek Mythology. All of their beliefs were passed down from generation to generation using story telling and song. They are excellent stories, and their morals are just. But I'd hazard a guess that there was some creative embellishment as time went on.
The first known mention of Jesus Christ was in the New Testament, which was penned in 95AD. The estimations on Jesus' death was 35AD. So, for 60 years, all of the stories were passed down through story and song. There is a large possibility of embellishment before pen hit paper.
Since the New Testament was penned (in either Greek or Aramaic), it has been re-written and translated many times, as well as being modified by the authorities from time to time. I believe the last two re-writes that involved changes were 1977 and 1995. But that all depends on which version of the bible you subscribe to.
My point is not to deny any of the events. It's to question those who quote the scripture verbatim. Celebrate the faith, not the book.
Actually, no.
We know exactly what the original authors wrote in the original Greek. Anyone can go back and check the 5600 manuscripts dating back to the first generation. They all agree. Nothing got changed other than minor typos easily corrected by "ANDing" all the copies together.
The only New Testament book written as late as 95 AD was Revelation. Others, like the book of Acts were written in the early 60's. More than half of the New Testament is comprised of letters written prior to Peter and Paul's deaths in 67 AD. All of the New Testament was written by people who had first hand experience with the events and had spent their lives traveling and telling their experiences until it undoubtedly became rote memory. It was not passed verbally from person to person before being written down.
One exception might be the writings of Dr. Luke who traveled with Paul serving as a historian and "investigative reporter" who interviewed a lot of eyewitnesses to compile his accounts.
Finally Jesus explicitly promised them supernatural ability to recall everything perfectly:
Where can I go to check the manuscripts? Are they on display?
They are generally found in museums and monasteries all over the world.
For example Saint Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai (source of the Codex Sinaiticus), or Saint Sabbas Monastery outside Bethlehem. Every year, several New Testament manuscripts handwritten in the original Greek format are discovered. The latest substantial find was in 2008, when 47 new manuscripts were discovered in Albania;
Thank you @stan. I will do some research.
Some of my idea / thoughts / research
https://steemit.com/jesus/@virtualgrowth/ideas-and-thoughts-on-of-jesus-christ-metaphor-symbolism-to-read-and-or-discuss
Keep believing in your faith, the bible for me is a guidance.
Without proof, isn't it rational not to believe in god? Why would god punish innocent people who are making a decision that seems logical? Atheists are only doing what they think is right. And since there's no proof of god's existence... isn't an atheist's guess just as valid as a christian's?
It would be if God had not gone to the effort of providing us with a whole multi-millenia historical record of His interactions with mankind. But since He did, the scales are tipped in favor of the believer. All the poor atheist can do is complain that the historical record was not preserved well enough.
Granted, it's not perfect proof. But its a "hell" of a lot better than what the atheist has got. :o)
There's evidence that the historical record isn't accurate, though. Like I mentionned in another thread, the fossil record indicates the flood didn't happen. We don't have evidence that there is no god, but we have evidence that the bible is probably untrustworthy. There's plenty of evidence that points towards evolution and not intelligent design as described in genesis, for instance. And most historians now agree that the exodus was a myth and not a historical event.
Well, we all have to take responsibility for how we process the information available to us and which historians we will believe. But if "historians" are going to throw out the impeccably preserved historical accounts from the Bible, then they are going to be completely out of business since no other historical account on the planet comes anywhere near the pedigree of the Bible. Not even in the same league.
Anyone who is seriously asking for proof of the Gospel story should honestly examine the Shroud of Turin story.
http://www.shroud.com/
Nice @stan
Shot you an Upvote :)
Hi! This post has a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 7.2 and reading ease of 76%. This puts the writing level on par with Tom Clancy and F. Scott Fitzgerald.