I have no empirical proof that Christ exists. I have no empirical proof that my great-grandmother existed, but I certainly believe she did. I will try to set forth three pieces of evidence that Christ exists. This blog will not be helpful for anyone who believes God cannot exist. But perhaps someone who admits the possibility of the Christian God existing might find something useful here…
First, the Bible is often referred to as a book, as though one author sat down and wrote it one year. It is actually a collection of 66 books and letters written by a wide variety of people. The New Testament alone is written by at least eight different people, including fishermen, a doctor, and a Jewish scholar. The manuscript evidence is impressive. Think about some ancient historical figures you have been taught as historical fact- Caesar, Plato, Tacitus, Demosthenes, Aristotle. The manuscripts from which we recover their works, the earliest copies came over one thousand years after the originals were written, and our information comes from looking at 20 or fewer copies of their work. By comparison, scholars study thousands of manuscripts from within a hundred to two hundred years of the writing of the New Testament. (Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell) In all of its books and manuscripts, the Bible is internally consistent and has been attested to by archaeological findings time and again. It is the most reliable manuscript we have from ancient times.
The gospel accounts were written within 100 years of the death and resurrection of Jesus. For those who wish to argue that the resurrection was a myth, it would be as if we now heard that William McKinley, the president assassinated in September, 1901, had risen from the dead. Or perhaps William Jennings Bryan. We know it’s not true. There was never any report of this while the people who knew McKinley and Bryan were alive. No one would be taken in. When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, however, it was the foundation of the church from its earliest days. People who knew Jesus, had walked and talked with him, fished and eaten with him, proclaimed the empty tomb from the very beginning, while his mother and brothers were still alive, to contradict this nonsense if it weren’t true. Instead, his brothers became leaders in the church. Now, we must understand this. Being a leader in the church then did not mean the same thing it does in this country, today. It did not qualify you to hold political office. It did not gain you entrée into the high realms of society. It did not increase your business contacts. It meant that you were an outcast in your polytheistic society, that you were in danger of persecution and execution. James didn’t stop working with wood to become the leading television evangelist of his day, fat, rich and happy. I daresay he was happy, but he gave up his home and profession to risk his life and die for what he knew to be true.
Which leads us to the second piece of evidence- human beings do not give everything up to be persecuted and killed for something which they know to be a lie. The earliest Christians had seen Jesus crucified on a certain day. They had seen him laid in a tomb. They had found the tomb empty. And they had met him afterwards. They had eaten with him, talked with him, and touched him. And it wasn’t a case of one usually reliable person having a vision and telling the others about it. No, many people had the experience of meeting Jesus after his death, not late at night on a deserted street, but in groups of 2, 11, 60 at a time. And not just once, these meetings happened multiple times.
Most of the disciples were martyred for their preaching. Their preaching gained them nothing in this world. They knew they would be persecuted and there was no pecuniary gain in sight for them. They would not have done that if they knew that Jesus did not rise from the dead, that they did not meet him, that the tomb was not empty.
Finally, looking at the goal and purpose of the gospels, there is an interesting quirk in the resurrection story. The books of the Bible were written by men, and they were written for men. Yet, women pop up in the most inconvenient places in these books. A prostitute is one of the four women listed in the genealogy of Jesus. That’s an embarrassing little fact that would have been left out, if it could have been. Women were considered unreliable, second-class citizens. Jewish men would pray, “Blessed art thou, O God, for not making me a Gentile, slave, or woman." Women were not allowed to testify in a trial, because they were considered untrustworthy as witnesses. The gospels, or the first four books in the New Testament, were written at the time when Jesus’ contemporaries were starting to die out. They were written to leave a record of the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus for coming generations. If the gospels were made up to try and trick people into following this impractical religion, it would have had respected men discovering the empty tomb. Instead, in these books written by men and written for men, every author records that it is the women, including Mary Magadelene, who found the empty tomb. The authors would not have included that fact, except that it was the truth and they were bound to the truth. The very thing that probably made the gospels less persuasive to audiences in the 200-300’s makes them so much more persuasive today.
These are not the only pieces of evidence for Christianity, not by a long shot. But I thought I would start by putting three out there. If you are interested in Christianity, investigate it further. I do not recommend anyone to accept any religion on blind faith. Nor do I recommend that they reject it on blind faith either, which is unfortunately often done.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
No matter how much it is proven that things, people, places in the Bible are proven that can never prove that God exists. Humans don't want to be killed for what they know is a lie, but desenters while acknowledgeing that Christ did live and die can say he was delusional or crazy. There are cults that have existed and people have died for - it does not mean they are the ultimate proof to the ultimate truth. Even if we know mans actions and can be sure of man's actions, we can never have proof of their motivation.
There is a difference in having amassed evidence to the existence in God and believing in God. I don't think someone can come to God only based on historical facts.
I agree that people don't come to God based only on historical facts, or physical evidence. However, those who believe there is no evidence for God don't generally come to God at all. I was simply offering three pieces of evidence in the hopes of opening a mind or two to the possibility that what I believe is true. Thanks for reading, and the comment!
1- the authors of the bible wrote at different times and places, but were influenced by the same basic mythology. That is why, though we see many little contradictions (family tree, date of Jesus' death), the basic idea is the same. What is relevant are the gospels written that were stricken from the NT as well as the fact that different sects use different gospels.
2- People don't die for what they know is a lie, but they will die for a firmly held belief. Even if that belief is wrong, that doesn't mean they don't think it is true.
3- So what? Again, mythology spreads. (it is my understanding that who found the empty tomb isn't the most consistently reproduced scene throughout the gospels anyway) It is also important to remember that, while in the flesh, women were not respected, in myth, they were much more respected.
And it is also important to remember that the spread of Christianity wasn't so much the result of ground work. It was the result of a Roman Emperor making it the state religion of the largest empire in the world. That really helps the spread of anything. So, if some individual people read the bible and said, oh we can't trust these women, that doesn't matter when the force of Rome is behind the words of the book
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
1. What other gospel is used by what sect?
2. There is a difference between what you know to be a fact and what is your firmly held belief. I would be willing to die for my belief that Jesus was resurrected, if it ever came to that. That is my firmly held belief that the preponderance of all evidence points that way. The point is that first generation Christians died for that which they knew for a fact- either they saw him alive after he died or they did not. They were killed for saying that they did.
3. Myth involves stories of unknown people in far off times. Not, Jim, the kid you grew up with, you know, Joe and Mary's oldest kid. Christianity began, grew, and spread while the people who knew all of these events were alive. His mother was still alive. His brothers. His followers. The people who killed him. The guards at the tomb.
4. Christianity first spread in spite of the might of the Roman Empire, in spite of persecution and murder. The Roman Empire tried to stamp out this religion, and couldn't.
1-Catholicism and Orthodox sects have more books than most protestant sects.
2- Early Christians who were persecuted within the life span of Jesus were probably persecuted for following him in the first place, since the Jews didn't like him and the Romans certainly didn't like him. So, that's problematic for them. Afterwards, once the legends got going, people really, truly believed them. They knew in the same way I know that the Sun is going to rise.
3- Why would they guard his tomb.... But that is besides the point. I believe it was Paul who was the big missionary and he didn't know him....
4- Christianity would not be the world's biggest religion right now if the Romans hadn't changed their policy in that regards. Enforcing a religion legally is a great way to get a lot of converts.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Yes, the Apocrypha, included in the Bible of the Catholic, and I assume Orthodox sects, contains writings which are not included in the Protestant Bible. I have a copy, and it does not contain any other gospel narrations. If you know of others that other sects are following, I would like to check them out.
The tomb was guarded because Jesus had said that "the Son of Man" would be killed and rise again in three days. The Jewish leaders asked that the tomb be secured to prevent a hoax.
Paul wrote most of the letters that are contained in the New Testament, but certainly not all. Peter and John, two of the twelve apostles, contributed as well. And James and Jude (actually Judas) were also missionaries whose letters are contained in the New Testament. They were Jesus' brothers (half). Paul was certainly a missionary, but there were many other people who had known Jesus before his death spreading the word around the world.
We'll never know what would have happened if the Romans hadn't changed their policy. However, if Christianity hadn't been growing for the many intervening years of persecution before that policy change, why would they have abandoned their prior policy, allowing all occupied territories to add their deities to the pantheon, so long as they recognized the Roman gods as well?
One of the things that always shocks me about the NT is how the Jews are able to get the Romans to do all of these things that totally break with Roman tradition, Such as entomb a victim of the cross (a fate reserved for traitors, who were just thrown in pits), crucify a supposedly innocent man, and guard a dead guy. It was the Romans who conquered the Jews, sacked Jerusalem and put down any rebellion with ease, not the other way around. But, whatever.
The reason the Romans changed their policy is because Constantine converted. He claimed that this was because of an image he had before a battle he won. This may be true. It also may be true that it was a brilliant political move, since he was able to put himself at the head of the church, the gateway to heaven, rather than the head of a myriad of cults that promised nothing but the same dreary afterlife of the Grecco-Roman religions. The reason is besides the point. Neither proves anything.
The point, though, is that the Emperor had a big loyal army that would stand behind the enforcement of a single state religion.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Jesus primarly preached to poor, desperate, superstitious peasants. Certainly he existed, but we have very few eyewitness reports of his supposed miracles, and on reason to think those reports are accurate.
(1) The manuscript evidence is not as good as you suggest. Of the traditional attribution of authorship, modern critical biblical scholarship supports the claims for only 7 of the Pauline epistles (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Phillippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). The authorship of all the rest are considered uncertain, anonymous, or ... forged.
(2) We do NOT have thousands of manuscripts that date from 100 to 200 years after the original autographs as you say. In fact we have very few. And NONE that contain the entire New Testament. There are 3 (and 3 only) complete manuscripts that MAY date as early as the Emperor Constantine, and they ALL come from the 4th century CE.
(3) The bible is NOT internally consistent. There are literally thousands of inconsistencies. The only way that one can claim that they are consistent is by refusing to see the GLARING inconsistencies. (I'll address one obvious one later)
(4) You say that it would be ridiculous to believe any stories about the resurrection of William McKinley or William Jennings Bryan. That is correct but nobody is telling those stories, are they? How about the thousands of stories that were told about the post-death appearances of Elvis Pressley? I'll bet millions of people believed them. With a little bit of help from a good proselytizer like Paul and a ruler like Constantine, that could have become a religion.
(5) We don't know how hardly any of the disciples actually died. We know the traditional attributions, but they weren't so good on the authorship of the books of the bible so why should we think that they were good on the disciples. The books of the bible don't even agree on who Jesus' 12 disciples were.
Furthermore, people can always be talked into believing erroneous things. 19 college-educated muslims were convinced that God wanted them to give up their lives by flying planes into buildings.
(6) It is interesting that you talk about the genealogy of Jesus. Matthew and Luke give them. The one you refer to is from Matthew. It mentions Rahab who was described as a prostitute and the father fo Boaz (who was the father fo Jesse, and therefore grandfather of David). But nowhere other than Matthew is there even a suggestion that Rahab was in the line of David. In fact, it seems very unlikely that it could have been.
Rahab was the prostitute that hid Joshua's spies before the battle of Jericho. She and her family was spared, everyone else was killed. If one follows biblical chronology, and Rahab had married Salmon (Boaz's father) immediately after the siege of Jericho, and had Boaz shortly thereafter, then Boaz would have been well over a hundred years old before he married Ruth. If Rahab had waited 30 years to marry a young Salmon, then she would have been in her 60's (unlikely to bear children) and Boaz (if he would have been born at all) would still have been in his 80's before marrying Ruth. Don't you find that a little bit of an inconsistency?
But if you don't here is a bigger one. Matthew's genealogy of Jesus is incompatible with Luke's. Contrary to what I think you are going to say BOTH genealogies CLEARLY go through the paternal line to get to Jesus, yet after David they only have the names of Salathiel and Zerubabbel in common. Furthermore one has almost double the number of generations of the other. The ONLY way you cannot see that as an inconsistency is to try to make the bible say something it manifestly does not say.
(7) There is no reason to suppose that it would be strange for the gospel writers to claim that women were at the "empty" tomb. They would NATURALLY be the ones to spice the body.
(8) The gospels do not agree on who was present when Jesus appeared, the order of his appearances, or where the appearances took place. Compared to many stories in the bible this disagreement is remarkable. (The reason they don't agree is because Mark -- the gospel that Matthew and Luke use as their primary source for chronology of Jesus -- originally ended at 16:8, before Jesus appears to anyone.)
(9) Unfortunately, the rest of the evidence for Christianity is as bad or worse than this.
I am in the process of composing a series of blogs that details the evidence supporting these claims.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
There is a religion of Elvis. I saw the holy book once...
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I have posted a blog that presents the evidence that traditional ascription of authorship for the Gospels is wrong. You can access it here.
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France