you claim that you base your answer on logic and evidence but you give no evidence
how can you prove that Jesus really existed? there is no conclusive evidence that he existed, died and especially not resurrected as we are told. The only thing we have are the stories told about him and some vague notes in Roman archives about a man in Judea called Jesus
how can yo prove that what is written about him is the same thing as what he really said and did? The only thing we have are stories that are twisted during 2000 years and written in an old language so that we are not even sure about what is meant
and how can you prove that what he said is the truth?
in the end your only prove to your believes is your faith that it is true...
No one asked for it. Partly because this thread is to with the question 'what happens after death?', discussing indepthly about Jesus would be going off topic. Though now that I've been asked, I will provide a list concerning some of my reasons why I believe the historical Jesus existed.
Now the biggest problem on my part is proving the existence of an individual who left no writing's of himself, but rather oral statements and actions recorded down by others. Though in the case of the 'Jesus myth' I doubt it would make little difference. However, on that note, such a case isn't unusual for figures of antiquity; the Greek philosopher Socrates also left no writings of his own, his disciple Plato wrote down what we know about him today and yet many of us don't have trouble accepting the fact that Socrates was a real, flesh and blood human being. Jesus had multiple disciples (including his own younger brother, James) who recorded down his sayings and the events that took place.
The next questions that naturally follow are; 'how historically accurate are the writings of the disciples?' 'Is it possible that the disciples wrote down false accounts and descriptions of the historical Jesus in order to imply his divinity?'
Today, most mainstream historians agree with the notion that Jesus was historical figure based on these premises; writings found in both inside and outside of the new testament, which includes Christian, Roman and Jewish sources, which is remarkable considering how obscure Jesus was. Jesus at most had a 3 year public life as a Galilean preacher, and yet there is far more information on Jesus of Nazareth's life and ministry than there of other historical figures in antiquity. The most important of these sources have been collected into what is known as the New Testament. Sources outside of the bible confirms what is already found in the New Testament. Though this may appear to be circular reasoning; proving the bible with the bible, or begging the question by quoting scripture - presupposing that the New Testament is reliable - however historians, scholars and philosophers alike are testing the documents found in the New Testament in the same fashion as any other ancient document is being tested today. Bear in mind that the New Testament is a collection of documents and letters which were handed down through several churches and were not brought together to form the New Testament until 3rd century AD. The chruch in forming the New Testament only selected sources that were earliest and closest to Jesus and the disciples and left out the secondary accounts which were proven to be forged and hypocritical in contrast with the original documents. The best historical sources on Jesus are found within the New Testament documents. Everything found outside of the New Testament is considered secondary and less reliable in terms of historical accuracy.
For anyone interested, here is a link that provides the translated texts rejected from the New Testament, most of these texts were written in the 2nd century AD and later.
http://notinthebible.com/
Dating of the New Testament Documents:
http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/
Jesus Christs DOB: 4 B.C.
Jesus Christs DOD: 30 A.D
The next question is 'should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless proven to be unreliable or should we assume that the gospels are unreliable until proven to be reliable?'
Here are five basic reasons given by Dr. William Lane Craig why it would be historical unjustified to assume that Gospels are unreliable, unless or until proven to be correct;
1. Insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge historical facts during the crucial time period between the events and the evidence of those events.
Good evidence doesn't become poor evidence just because of the passage of time, so long as the time gap between the events and the evidence of those events is short, then it is irrelevant how long ago the events have been to the present day. Based on this, there is more historically accurate evidence for the life of Jesus than there is for Alexander the Great in which his biography was not written for centuries after his death. According to historian A.N. Sherwin-White (who is by no means a theologian) states that; tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. For the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable', more generations would be needed.
Adding two generations onto the period after the death of Jesus Christ would place you in 2nd Century A.D. the time period in which the first, false gospels and letters begin to appear. Remarkably, Marks account of passion is the oldest record in the New Testament, which in itself derives from a source that predates his gospel to A.D. 37, 7 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.
2. The Gospels are not analogous to folktales or urban legends.
3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable.
In an oral culture such as 1st century Palestine, the ability to memorize and retain large tracks of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school and in the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred traditions. The disciples would of exercised similar care with respect to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment in the traditions about Jesus. Such as; the presence of eye witnesses and the apostles supervision.
Since those that had heard and seen Jesus, continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction which would be contrary to that which was preserved by those who had known and walked with Jesus themselves.
5. The gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.
One example for an instance is Luke. Luke was the author of a two part work; the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the apostles. The two parts are separated because the church wanted to group the gospels together, but really Luke and Acts are one book that should be read together (starting with Acts which overlaps significantly with the secular history of the ancient world). Luke is the gospel writer who writes most self consciously as a historian, In the preface to his work he states the following;
Luke 1 - 1:4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
This preface was originally written in classical Greek, as used by the classical Greek historians. After this preface, Luke switches to common Greek, however what this proves is that Luke was a highly educated individual who knew how to investigate and record history. The most significant of the eye witnesses that Luke interviewed was Jesus Christ's own mother who not witnessed his death but also discovered the empty tomb and was reportedly one of the first to meet Jesus after his resurrection. Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, world famous archeologist stated "Luke is a historian of the first rank, this author should be placed among the very greatest of historians."
The best way for the skeptic to apporach the documents found in the New Testament is with a neutral stance, until the gospels are proven to be in one form or the other to be historically inaccurate.
This is only a mere fragment as far as the subject is concerned, but I would rather not change the OP's topic, doing so would be throwing a red herring, which in itself is not only disrespectful but logically fallacious.
Note that this post is not the reason why I am a Christian, rather this post is one of the basic reasons why a individual would be justified in their belief in the existence of the historical Jesus.
I've heard of people who have died and then been revived who have had glimpses of heaven or hell. Of course, many people probably had completely different visions than that for all I know. An interesting book for this subject would be Plato's four dialogues of Socrates. Socrates weaves quite a web of arguments to show that the soul will survive after the body is dead. Quite a web. So many arguments that you basically end up agreeing with him because you don't really know what he is talking about any more.
I was raised Catholic, but shied away from that fairly early on. The Catholics I heard preach during my youth would have claimed that heaven belonged most strongly to them (the others would still be loved by God, though - just possibly condemned to eternal flames). I still retain the experiences - mass, attending catechism classes, Bible study, briefly going to Catholic school, etc... but, I don't know, that all kind of crumbled away. Having questioned Christianity I couldn't treat any other religion differently, and eventually came to the simple conclusion that I could never know what lies beyond, if anything. I kind of get the feeling that there's something more, though, that we're all connected on some deeper level and that this can't be all there is to our existences. Maybe, maybe not.
