I don't necessarily disagree with this either. There is a part of me that would say, "Gee, wouldn't it be neat if everyone back then had cameras, camera phones, "video news at 11," etc.

But all they had was the written Word, which was how God chose to communicate with us and reveal His truth to us. By way of inspiration, not dictation, He used the people who wrote the Scriptures to express and communicate what He wanted communicated, while leaving their "writing style" up to them.

I also understand and agree with what you said about the existence of Jesus. THAT is the sort of proof that I referred to as "courtroom proof." In addition, I also believe that eyewitness testimony to the miracles He perform as "proofs" of the claims He made about Himself are also "evidence" that is "courtroom admissable."

Conclusions as to the "Messiah-ship" of Jesus, of the existence of God who has control over the physcial world ARE matters of faith. Even if, and I think it could be established by the testimonies, that certain miracles actually took place, there is nothing that says anyone "has to," or even would, accept their reality as a reason to surrender their lives to God through Christ Jesus. In that sense it's sort of like "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," or as Jesus put it,

"The Jews gathered around him, saying, "how long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these fo you stone me?"

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:24-33, NIV, emphasis added)

The proof was there. The proof was presented. The Jews did NOT deny the proof, rather they accepted the proof. But they CHOSE to not accept Jesus for who He is and who He said He is. Instead, they chose reject regardless of the proof.

That IS what the Scripture says is the fundamental basis for belief in Christ, to not deny the miracles that proved who He was and is, but to "convict the world" of those choosing to NOT believe in spite of the proof.

As the Law (10 Commandments) convicted all of humanity that no one was without sin, the miracles, performed in public for all to see, "convict" those who CHOOSE to reject Christ in spite of all the evidence.

God softens the hearts of man to hear, and God warns us to not turn away and reject Christ. He calls us to "accept and believe."

WHAT we accept is crucial, because it can only be what God has determined to meet HIS "criteria" for granting forgiveness of sin.

In the end, God HAS provided "enough" proof and is not required to provide "more." That is a major reason why the Scriptures have been faithfully preserved over the years.

And they all have it. It's called the Holy Bible.


Interestingly enough, I just heard a news report and watched the interview of the son of the Hamas leader in Palestine who has renounced Islam, embraced Christianity, and left the Gaza area and his family to live in America.

Now how much do you want to bet that there will be an effort to kill him as an infidel for "converting" from Islam to Christianity?

Just one "little" difference. I can't say I know of any Christians who would kill someone for "leaving Christianity" for any other faith (just ask 2long), let alone try to kill someone just because they refuse to believe in Jesus Christ.

Now that son's action takes some REAL faith and believe, to say nothing of courage. He has said that they CAN kill his body, but they cannot kill his soul.

not today...but certainly in the very colored and questionsbale past this was not the case.



It is only a book without faith. It does not constitute proof.

they're not(and courtroom experience would make that more clear to you). The writings documenting these things happened too long after the fact. The lack of OBJECTIVE and verifiable witnesses to the events in question cast doubt upon their veracity for some.

Again, I have asked some real questions here. Who was the blind man? What evidence do we have that he was in fact blind? Who tested him? What doctor certified the death of Lazarus? Who examined the bottles of water before they were turned to wine? Did anyone else have access to them? We were the events not written about for so long? What is the testimony of the Roman soldiers? What is their credibility? Who else had access to the tomb? Who pronounced Jesus dead in the first place? Why did Jesus only appear to those close to Him?

So on and so on.

Spoken like a true defense attorney for the guilty, I guess. However it matters not what you or I would think in a courtroom, it only matters what the jury would think, and most of them have never spent much time in a courtroom either. By your reasoning here, NO person or events of historical importance should be accepted as accurate, especially with the lack of "OJBECTIVE and verifiable WITNESSES" to the events in question. "Casting doubt upon their veracity for some is NOT a "standard." There will ALWAYS be "doubters," for a variety of reasons. Why should ANY person or events of history, attested to by a paucity of proofs and usually loooong after the events be accepted as true, using this same logic?

But I disagree with you. The Word of God IS truth, and just as there were many Jews who "doubted" the veracity of the 10 Commandments, there will be many who "doubt" the veracity of the eyewitness testimony of Jesus. That doesn't matter, we, who do believe in Jesus Chrsist, are COMMANDED by God to BE His witnesses. WHAT we witness about is NOT just "our feelings," but it is also what is said about Jesus, what HE did, and WHY He did it. That is the TRUTH, and whether or not anyone else "doubts" it is irrelevant. God WILL work in the hearts of those who hear, who are those He HAS CHOSEN since the beginning of time to BE His, and WE don't know who they are. All we KNOW is that WE are supposed to be, as His Servants, obedient to all of His commands.




The evidence of eyewitnesses who were there, including the Pharisees who refused to believe that Jesus performed the miracle. That the man had been blind from birth was WELL KNOWN as WHERE he was was where he had been every day, the "gathering place for the infirm and the general thought of the Jews was that his blindness was a "punishment from God" for some sin. They did NOT deny or doubt that the miracle HAD BEEN performed, they just didn't want to attribute it to Jesus.


You are joking, right? The people were VERY familiar with death and Lazarus had been in the tomb for several days. Have you ever seen someone die, or come upon a dead body after death? I have, many many times. It does NOT take a doctor to know someone is dead. Nor was a doctor required to "certify" that someone, like Jesus Himself, WAS dead. You are attempting to apply "today's" methods to methods in use "back then." I think it would be fairly easy to "prove" to a jury that someone was dead versus alive...a cadaver would would work just fine...and they could decide for themselves, with no doctor "certification," that some was "really, truly, most sincerely dead."


IF you don't have access to a Bible to see for yourself the answers to these questions, then let me make it clear. The servants of the HOST of the wedding part not only "examined" the jugs of water, they FILLED the jugs with water themselves and neither Jesus nor any disciple (this was His FIRST miracle, his "coming out" miracle if you will) ever touched the jugs.

You must not believe the miracles of Jesus actually happened to take this sort of approach to diminishing the truth of them. TRUTH is NOT dependent upon the "opinion of man." OUR "job," as believers, is to proclaim the truth, not to decide for someone else who might be a "hearer of the truth," what is and what is not "truth" or "worthy of standing for and presenting that truth." If you "believe the miracles simply because you 'have to' because you consider yourself a believer, then why the hesitancy to proclaim the truth that God has revealed even if you "dobut" the imperative of His command to "Go and make disciples," to "proclaim the truth to the uttermost parts of the earth?"


Because the letters were written to the churches, the churches that were not yet even in existence when the apostles BEGAN their witnessing. The people had the ORAL EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY of the apostles, the written testimony about the Messiah in the Scripture, and the beginnings of heresy and "false doctrine" beginning to infiltrate many churches that had been established in the apostles journeys. The apostles also knew that they, themselves, would not "live forever" and wrote down the events and instructions to "outlive them" for those who would come after they were no longer around.


medc, it would seem from these questions that you may have little understanding of just what a Roman Guard was, and what were the Severe Rules concerning any soldier who was "on guard duty." Consider the idiocy of the Jewish leader who wanted to posit the idea that the guards were sleeping on duty and the disciples came and stole the body of Jesus. The tomb was sealed by Roman seal. The tomb was covered by a Huge stone, highly unlikely to be a "silent stone" if moved. This "conspiracy theory" you are asking about is no different from what the Jewish leaders tried to propose. And if there WAS no resurrection, and if there WAS no appearances by Jesus AFTER He was resurrected, then your questions might have some merit. The "empty tomb" is HUGE proof of the veracity of the resurrenction and not an excuse to NOT witness to the FACT of the resurrection.


Oh come on, medc! Have your read the Bible? Can you read? I am sure you have and that you can, so what IS the purpose of your question other than to cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible, to call into question its reliablity AS the Word of God that contains TRUTH, not falsehood?

But to "cut you some slack here," the one who "pronounced Jesus dead in the first place" was Jesus Himself, and God the Father. "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" (Matthew 27:50-54 NIV, emphasis added)

AND,

"Jesus called out in a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46 NIV)

AND,

"Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph." (Mark 15:44-45 NIV, emphasis added)

medc, in answer to your earlier questions about "what doctor certified the death, and "What is the testimony of the Roman soldiers? What is their credibility?", the "doctor of death," the Roman Centurion testified to Pilate that Jesus was "really, truly, most sincerely dead." Why? Because he was intimately acquainted with DEATH, dead people. What else is their credibility? The sentence of death hung over his head for lieing, for dereliction of his duty.

"But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe." (John 19:33-35 NIV, emphasis added)


First, because: "As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." (John 20:21 NIV) That was the reason, to PROVE to them that he was NO "ghost" because He was sending them to testify to the world about Him and He wanted to remove ALL doubt from their minds that He WAS, and IS, the Messiah, the Lamb who takes away the sins of the word.

"On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord." (John 20:19-20 NIV) medc, WHAT "peace" was with them? What "peace" was Jesus giving to his disciples and WHY? (read Luke 24:36-53 and Mark 16:15-16 and Matthew 28:19-20 and Acts 1:1-3 for a more expanded answer.


And why do you suppose Jesus has not appeared to you, medc?

WHERE is it written that eyewitness testimony, immediately written down, written down after a short while, written down after a few years, written down after decades BY the eyewitness or recorded by other intimately familiar with the testimony of the eyewitness IS NOT to be accepted AS eyewitness testimony for the purposes of establishing the truth of the events under examination?

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 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 all the books that would be written." (John 21:24-25 NIV)

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presences of his disciples, which are recorded not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31 NIV, emphasis added)

And that is the "so on and so on" of the eyewitness testimony to "fulfill the Great Commission" after they were gone from life on Earth.

FH, you are once again playing a game that I refuse to participate in. When you cannot discuss things in an intelligent fashion, you resort to twisting a persons position.



I DO NOT doubt the miracles or veracity of the stories in the Bible. I have stated that clearly numerous times.

What I have said, and will say for the last time is that these things do NOT rise to a level of proof. You can disagree all you want, but you have helped prove my point by failing to provide even 1 smidgen of objective, verifiable proof. It simply does not exist. That is why FAITH is the key.

Telling me that the Roman guard stated that he was surely dead means nothing. Who was the guard? Was he bribed (after all his credibility is suspect at best)...every single thing you mentioned requires faith. Do I believe Christ died on the cross and was risen from the dead. Yep...I know it based on faith...not solely on words written years or decades after the fact.


If proof existed, some very smart people...with good hearts...would be open to it. The fact is...proof does not exist today (hopefully that changes) and the call...the touch from God is what will bring people to Him. Your fact based arguments are full of holes that leave room for debate and doubt. Faith is the cure for that.

IMHO, those that rely too heavily on proof are really a bit weak in their faith. I do not feel the need to prove any of this to a non-believer. I have faith and that is sufficient.

For the life of me, I can't figure out what the purpose of this debate is.

If FH "wins" and MEDC says "yes, that is proof", will MEDC's belief in Jesus be any stronger?

If MEDC "wins" and FH says "yes, there is no proof", will FH's belief in Jesus be any weaker?

It's not about "winning and losing," rprynne.

MEDC has his feelings about "proof" and why or why not he might stand on that proof and how it may or may not affect his speaking to others about what he believes and knows to be true.

I, also, have my own feelings and thoughts about these things and we have "differences of opinions" about some things.

But make no mistake about it, we both believe that Jesus IS the Messiah, the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, the incarnate Son of God, the second person of the Trinity.

It the end, one of the purposes of discussing differences of opinions is to understand the other person's opinion and what it is found on. Another purpose is so that others who might happen to read the discussion can "weigh things" for themselves and decide for themselves what makes sense to them. Yet another purpose is an obedience to the Great Commission and obedience to the directive to "be ready to give an answer for the faith that is in you."

It really is not a "debate" in the sense you seem to be using it.

This really started with the premise that there is "no irrefutable proof." My contention has been all along that THE most "irrefutable" of all the proofs is the Empty Tomb, the Resurrected Christ.

That anyone can, and many do, reject the proofs is not the issue. The proof, because it is TRUTH, stands before all people regardless of whether or not they want to accept it.

MEDC "argues" whether or not people accept the proofs based on his understanding of "election," as do I, but it is not for any of us to try to determine in advance who the "elect" are nor is it for any of us to "tolerate" beliefs that are contrary to the proofs provided by God to us without "challenging" those beliefs. It is NOT that "all faiths are are good as any other," nor is it we "love our neighbor" by NOT telling them about the only true gate by which God will forgive our sins, because the objective is not "the here and now," the objective is eternity and where each person WILL spend eternity, regardless of any "sincere belief" in whatever they happen to believe.

That is the essence of truth and that is the essence of love for others who are created in the image of God, even if they don't believe in God or believe in something other than the truth as it has been given to us by God.

MEDC can speak for himself, but those are my thoughts in answer to your question.

I would have thought this myself as well UNTIL the twisting of my very clearly stated positions becomes the norm. When you flat out say that it is my intention to call into question the veracity of the Bible, it is time to step away from this. I clearly stated all along what my beliefs were and said that I know them to be true based upon God's call to my heart. Faith. I also clearly stated that His call would allow others to see THE truth despite a lack of existing proof.

I could not have made the points any more clear. A few here have chosen to twist what I have said because they feel that absent proof our faith is weak. FAITH will NEVER require proof.

I no longer see any purpose in this discussion. I appreciate the time everyone has taken to discuss this topic.

Time to get back to the purpose of the board.

I'm sorry you feel that way, medc. Your "stated position" has been very clear and never in doubt. The discussion has, and I suppose always will be, WHY does anyone believe what they believe.



No, your intention seemed clear enough, "there are no irrefutable proofs." That is the concept that was being discussed. YOU "called into question the veracity" of the biblical writers, the veracity of man born blind, the veracity of the miracles. All I did was ask you on what basis do you NOT think the Bible provides PROOF as to who Jesus is, or for that matter WHO YOU believe in and why should you believe that what was said about Jesus IS true and should be accepted by you or by anyone else.

"FAITH" as you have used it can easily be applied to "any sincere belief." That alone does NOT give any reason why what any one individual, you, me, or anyone else, "believes by faith" is actually TRUE. What you believe about Jesus Christ is NOT true simply because you "believe it" or have "faith in it." It is TRUE because God says it is true, and God even provided PROOF of who Jesus is and proof of what He claimed to be.




And God's 'call to your heart' was to believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world. He IS that and He is also LORD to those who are called to Him. AS Lord, He also commands us to be His witnesses, not to "passively" say something like; "Well, I received mine, now it's solely up to God to give you yours. I am not required by God to be obedient to His command to "Go" or to "stand ready to tell others WHAT you believe and WHY you believe in Jesus Christ."



I disagree with a part of this statement. You cannot "divorce" the proofs we have talked about; i.e., the miracles, the resurrection of Christ from the dead, etc.; from WHAT it is that God calls His elect to accept. FAITH cometh by hearing, and hearing by the WORD of GOD. That is the clear statement of the Bible.




No one has "twisted" what you have said, medc. What you have said has been clearly stated and comments offered regarding those statements. IF "Faith will NEVER require proof," then the Apostles needed no appearance and further teaching from Jesus. Thomas needed no physical contact with Jesus. They WERE all CALLED by God TO BE Jesus' disciples. Extending your reasoning to the actions taken BY Jesus, then Jesus Himself stands as "unnecessary" and "not needed" by anyone. It is NOT about "faith," it is about the object of that faith...Jesus Christ...and WHY He is THE ONE who is God the Son and the Savior of the World for all who believe He is and who accept Him as their personal Lord and Savior.

You and I cannot, it would seem, "divorce" faith from proof, or else Jesus would NEVER have worked a miracle or presented Himself post resurrection to His disciples, who were ALREADY His disciples,

"While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled." [Yet another "proof" of Scripture.] I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more that I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be sanctified. My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (John 17:12-16 NIV, emphasis added)





I too appreciated the discussion. And no one requires you to participate in any discussion that you see no purpose in participating in.




By all means. The purpose of this forum is for "Other Topics" of General Discussion.

If you are referring to offering opinions and possibly some help to others suffering from infidelity, by all means do so. It try to do both, but time is limited and I do understand that.

Thanks for your discussion participation.

I did NO SUCH THING. I do stand by my assessment that the Bible does not offer proof... BUT...and please pay attention, THAT DOES NOT MEAN I QUESTION THE ACCURACY OF WHAT THE BIBLE(or its authors) STATES. Once again, I am able to KNOW that the Bible is truth (therefore I do not question the veracity of the book) based on my faith.

So, yes, my words were and continue to be twisted.

As for being a witness to God's love, FH, I do that every single day of my life. And I do it without offending people or pushing them further from God.

medc, I don't doubt that for one minute.

Let me ask you a question then;


If an unbeliever asks you WHY he should consider accepting Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, what would you tell him in response to his question that would give him an answer to his question and a reason to surrender his life to Christ?

I would tell him what I believe and WHY. I would make it very clear that my faith is based on well, faith. I would invite him to come to a service and pray with and for him if he was open to that.
I would also suggest that he search his heart and ask himself WHY he is questioning me. What brought this up in him?
See, I don't believe that people (unless they are being antagonistic) will really search out answers of faith unless the Lord is already working in their heart.
I can tell you what I would NEVER say to someone....here's the "proof" that Jesus is God. Here's the "proof" the Bible is correct.
As I have said numerous times, it leaves open too many places for intelligent counter arguments. I am a believer and have NEVER been convinced of "proof." Most of the other believers I know feel the same way. Try reaching a non-believer that way and IMHO, most will tune you out.

A good answer. WHAT *I* believe and WHY *I* believe it.




And when they tell you that the person you call Jesus DID NOT really exist and is just an "imaginary" person or a "mythical figure," removing the FACT of that person really, truly, existing as a "Person of History," is proof offered or not?

The "proof(s)", or at least the personal acceptance, of His claims to BE the Son of God and the Savior of the World are a matter of faith in their truth and veracity.

I would then talk about Saul who was an "atheist," if you will, with respect to Jesus and the "Christian" belief. He was a "zealot" in his denial and in his actions to deny what he considered to be a "false belief." THAT sort of person does not "change his mind" without concrete, verifiable, proof. Yet he DID change his mind and spent the rest of his life telling people WHAT and WHY he changed his mind and accepted Jesus as the Christ.

I would also talk about the FACT that there are only TWO ways that life began on earth. One is by random "natural processes" wherein NO "god" or "supreme being" was, or is still, involved. The other is by a purposeful act of creation BY a supreme being who MADE things according to His will and for His purpose.

Since neither condition of how things came to BE is "reproducable" in the lab, anyone MUST accept either scenario based on "faith," not on proof. Yet one of the two scenarios MUST also be TRUE and the other must be FALSE, because life DOES exist. Examining the "circumstantial evidence" for both scenarios (the available "facts" if you will) lends or takes away credence from the interpretations of those facts. That's no different than what happens in a court of law. The evidence is presented and "weight" is given to the evidence, sometimes by the "preponderance" of the evidence and sometimes by showing how the very same evidence has more than one credible interpretation.

100% "certainty" is rarely achieved. Many times the "most reasonable interpretation" is used. Sometimes, even the "most reasonable interpretation" is found to be false because the "underlying assumptions" used are shown to be "not true in all cases." That's part of the problem with using "physical laws" and "observations of how nature is" today to try to "prove" that evolution, rather than creation and the existence of God, is "the truth."

Still, either evolution (including how life began) or creation IS true. Truth will not change and it is not dependent upon OUR interpretations or "wishes." The "evidence" that supports God and creation over evolution and natural processes is, admittedly in my opinion, overwhelmingly in favor of God and creation. In addition, as more and more scientific advances are made, more and more "evidence" is accumulated to support God and creation rather than evolution and natural processes. "Uniformitarian" ideas are already crumbling as more and more scientific DATA is accumulated. The effects of "catastrophism" are more and more becoming accepted (while still choosing to deny a "univeral catastrophic event" such as the Flood of Noah). Yet catastrophism in any form causes big problems for Linean Uniformitarianism that is the BASIS for most of "evolutionary" opinion.

Lastly, the "Evidence" of the "Empty Tomb" is easy to simply "deny." But WHERE is any proof, in opposition to "sworn eyewitness testimony to the veracity of the resurrection of Jesus, that it DID NOT occur? There is none, other than opinion. NO facts, no evidence, merely a CHOICE to deny the actual evidence. People frequently say something like "prove to me that Jesus really did rise from the dead." I would, in a similar manner, ask them to "prove that He did NOT rise from the dead" as was predicted BEFORE His death?

Once more it is back to the REAL historical (provable) person of Jesus and whether or not He WAS who He said He was. The questions of the "Trilema" apply here in much the same way that the questions of "Origins" apply.

"Acceptance" is up to each individual, but the truth will not change based solely upon "opinion" or what someone may acknowledge but still refuse to embrace as truth.

there is no proof.



sorry FH, it doesn't work that way. f there is to be PROOF of these things, the burden falls on those making the claims of deity.
I have spoken numerous times about the problems regarding the "testimony." Sworn???

The fact that it was predicted BEFORE his death could add fuel to those that believe this is all a big hoax. An outline was written and those that believed it conspired to make it appear true. The story of the empty tomb is easy to make when no real evidence need be provided(what you see as evidence, I do not. Based on my time in law enforcement, I think I have a pretty good handle on evidence and what would be acceptable in court or stand up to reason without faith). FAITH...a belief in that which cannot be proven.

The FACT that there is no verifiable proof of God will not change because you do not accept it. I sincerely hope that changes tomorrow...I'm ready. But for today, I am sorry, you continue to re-wrap the same present and it isn't proof.



or perhaps there are a lot of things we fail to understand based on the limits of science and our intellect. We shall see!

Okay, perhaps there was some misunderstanding of the question. The question pertained ONLY to the real existence in history of the person known as Jesus. The question did not pertain to what he did (i.e. miracles) or who he claimed to be (i.e., the Messiah, the Son of God, the Second person of the Triune God).

I thought you had already agreed that proof of his existence was there to prove that the person Jesus of Nazareth did actually exist and was not a "myth" or an imaginary "legend."

I based that assumption on your previous post:



Okay, we seem to be talking about two different types of proof here. You seem to want to want to call anything that is NOT "provable" your standards of "acceptable proof in present day court of law" as something that cannot be taken as "proof", thereby consigning belief in anything that does not meet the criteria of "courtroom proof" to an "opinion" or a "faith" in something "unproven."

But I am talking about both types of proof. I am talking about the same sort of proof you want (i.e. the existence of the person Jesus as a real person) AND the type of proof that is not "quantifiable" in a laboratory. That second sort of proof is what you seem to want to "relegate" to "faith" in order for it to be accepted. Unquestionably, the acceptance by someone of what the testimony about Jesus states IS a matter of faith, but it is also predicated on what has been said about and testified to concerning WHO that historical person actually was.

IF this real live person Jesus made certain claims, and certain claims were made about him, what "evidence," "hearsay" or other, is there that supports or refutes those claims?



Sworn??? I guess the closest you will come to that is Jesus' trial before Pontius Pilate. The "testimonies" of those accusers against Jesus "presented their case" and Pilate found Jesus innocent of the charges.

"The Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."

"Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death." (Luke 23:4, 13-15)

Now this trial had nothing to do, in Pilate's eyes, with any claim of being God, it had to do with the Roman rules and laws. The Jews knew that Jesus had made such a claim, as they confirmed in their questioning of him. And, just like today in many courts, they knew that they could not get the "court" to impose the death penalty for a "religious" reason, but they could charge him with offenses against Roman law, and that is what they did in order to get him the death penalty for the real "offense" against them, his claim to be the Son of God.

"At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. "If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips." (Luke 22:66-71)



Is there "proof" that OJ killed his wife? Not according to the jurors of the criminal trial, but "yes" according to the civil trial. Circumstantial evidence was presented, but no "proof." Yet even though the evidence apparently failed to meet the "legal test" of "beyond a reasonable doubt, there are still a large number of people who "believe" that OJ WAS guilty of the murders despite the "finding" of the jury in the criminal trial.

The testimony and the evidence are there. The conclusions made by individuals are different.

Such is the case with what you want to label "hearsay" and "inadmissible." If it's "inadmissible," then it cannot be used to tell someone why they should believe it. If it is "admissible," then the individuals can consider it and reach their own conclusions about the veracity or falsity of the information and arrive at a "verdict" concerning Jesus for themselves.

You say that "the burden falls on those making the claims of deity." Okay, those claims were recorded, as well as the understanding of those claims and their being the basis of the Jews handing Jesus over to Pilate for "capital punishment," which was a power that had been taken away from the Jews by the Romans.

"Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. "I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said." When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is that any way to answer the high priest?" he demanded. "If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" (John 18:19-23)

It is interesting that even Pilate recognized this issue of what IS truth when he listened to Jesus;

"Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying that I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him." (John 18: 36-38, emphasis added)


I suppose you may think that you have the definitive word on what a judge might allow as evidence, but the judge determines the admissibility of evidence and many times one "side" has argued that some evidence should be "inadmissible" while the other side argues for it to be "admissible" as evidence. Sometimes a judge rules "admissible," and the relevance of the information to the case.

In this case, the Jews did NOT "argue" for Jesus' death on the basis of his claim to deity. They WOULD have done that if THEY still retained the power of "life and death" decisions. But they didn't, and they KNEW that the Romans could care less if someone thought they were a "god." So they concocted a story of offenses against Roman law and presented that case, and they LOST their case.



NOW you want to use modern rules to "exclude" eyewitness testimony about what was really important concerning Jesus' presence on Earth? Never mind the fact the disciples ALL (with one probable exception) went to their deaths for a "concocted conspiracy?" Never mind that Paul was an ardent OPPONENT of Christ and Christianity and was on his way to Damascus to persecute more Christians when he had a complete reversal of his belief concerning Jesus Christ.

This "hoax" theory has been around for a long time. There is no evidence of a hoax, especially if you apply your stated requirement for "proof" of a hoax.

But again, when someone asks why you believe in Jesus instead of some other person or some other "god," what do you tell them if NOT what has been presented by John and the other writers of Scripture. As John said, "these things are written so that you WILL believe."

Take away the "writings," and what do you have left to "testify" about?"



It WILL change, and it COULD be as early as today or tomorrow. But then it will be "too late" for proof of the sort you are "requiring."

"Faith cometh by hearing." What IS IT that is "heard" if NOT the Word of God, inerrant and true? "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man shall open the door, I will come in and sit down with him." Who IS this person that "knocks" and "comes in?" "He that believeth in me shall have eternal life." Who IS this "me?" What makes believing in him the basis for eternal life?




Undoubtedly there ARE a lot of things that we "fail to understand," but HOW life began is NOT one of them. There ARE only TWO possibilities, God or Natural Physical Processes without any design or purpose.

Evolutionists will claim they don't know HOW life originated, but they are certain it was NOT a creative act by God.

Now THAT would seem to be conclusion based on FAITH, even "sincere faith" in the case of an atheist, but inadmissible in court as "evidence" as it is solely an opinion not based in anything verifiable. All attempts to "create life" from non-life have FAILED, and "even if" some scientist somewhere DID manage to create "life" from a soup of chemicals, all it would prove is that it took an intelligence to "manipulate" a desired result, not that random chance could ever do it all by itself.

I did. So, if THAT was the purpose of the question, why are you asking it again? It has NOTHING to do with a person accepting God into their lives. No one questions the existence of Mohamed either...that doesn't prove anything beyond that he was a man.



It simply isn't true that proof wasn't offered. There was. It was, however, made irrelevant because of other factors.



I didn't say there was. I said "COULD."


FH, respectfully, your points are not doing anything to sway me here. In fact, I think you are just providing fuel for those that want to deny God. Inasmuch, I am not going to be party to this discussion any longer. As I have said, "proof" will cause division because people as smart or a lot smarter than I am can debate that issue with a fair measure of authority...and their arguments make a lot of sense to the intellect. Faith, the foundation of a belief in God cannot be argued away or debated in my opinion. I don't have to PROVE anything to anyone.

Once again and for the last time...

FAITH is a belief in that which cannot be proven.

***EDIT***

So, Kiwi, are you ok?