I Wonder How Long Gulliver Will...
Politics2 mins ago
How Would Jesus Prove Himself Today?
120 Answers
If Jesus were to return to earth today, how would he prove he was actually Jesus and not just be seen as a magician? Would anyone believe him?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I took your statement to mean "verifiable", quoted here: "...Verifiable evidence is just that - evidence that is verifiable. Had the Roman authorities - or the Jewish authorities - recorded details of that first 'Easter', we could have considered that verifiable evidence - but they didn't…" but I could have misinterpreted, so let me try again…
You say "… I said that if official records existed (if only) they would be more reliable than a collection of conflicting stories written by unknown authors years after the event…" Could you explain how you arrive at that conclusion?
Look, I'm seriously attempting to understand exactly what you mean and how you arrive at your conclusions so we can have a meaningful discourse… nothing more, nothing less.
Perhaps a good starting point is clarification of what you mean by "official records"?
Again, thanks in advance...
You say "… I said that if official records existed (if only) they would be more reliable than a collection of conflicting stories written by unknown authors years after the event…" Could you explain how you arrive at that conclusion?
Look, I'm seriously attempting to understand exactly what you mean and how you arrive at your conclusions so we can have a meaningful discourse… nothing more, nothing less.
Perhaps a good starting point is clarification of what you mean by "official records"?
Again, thanks in advance...
Clanad, //Look, I'm seriously attempting to understand exactly what you mean…//
This is silly. I have no doubt whatsoever that you understand exactly what I mean. You’re an intelligent man – but in purposefully pursuing this obtuse path, you are not only doing a great disservice to your own intellect – you are wasting my time. I would borrow an expression from you and say ‘thanks in advance’ – but in this instance there is clearly no advance to be had.
This is silly. I have no doubt whatsoever that you understand exactly what I mean. You’re an intelligent man – but in purposefully pursuing this obtuse path, you are not only doing a great disservice to your own intellect – you are wasting my time. I would borrow an expression from you and say ‘thanks in advance’ – but in this instance there is clearly no advance to be had.
Clanad, you are asking me to define the meaning of ‘official records’. I have already spoken about about the lack of records from both the Jewish and Roman authorities. See that word ‘authorities’? I think you know exactly what I mean by ‘official records’ – and I think Grasscarp knows too – and if I’m wrong – both of you do now.
If you want this ‘discourse’ to continue, perhaps instead of concentrating on asking me inane questions, you might consider offering your own assessment – and your reasons for reaching the conclusions you’ve reached. You too Grasscarp. That would be rather more productive than sneaking in to take a sideways swipe on the back of someone else’s post and running away again, as you always do.
If you want this ‘discourse’ to continue, perhaps instead of concentrating on asking me inane questions, you might consider offering your own assessment – and your reasons for reaching the conclusions you’ve reached. You too Grasscarp. That would be rather more productive than sneaking in to take a sideways swipe on the back of someone else’s post and running away again, as you always do.
Clanad, your correspondence with naomi is genuinely interesting, but yet again serves as a distraction to get you off the hook as far as my question is concerned.
Why can't you admit, as you surely must, that there is no evidence at all of Jesus's existence during the time that he was supposed to be alive and until Paul introduces him in about AD55? Then, if we feel like it, we could go on from there to discuss the worth, if any, of references from other people who weren't there and who can produce no evidence either.
Why can't you admit, as you surely must, that there is no evidence at all of Jesus's existence during the time that he was supposed to be alive and until Paul introduces him in about AD55? Then, if we feel like it, we could go on from there to discuss the worth, if any, of references from other people who weren't there and who can produce no evidence either.
I would contend, chakka, that I have addressed your proposition… numerous times.
I've stated that Paul writes only 20 or so years after the death and resurrection of Yeshua and in all of his letters, Paul makes abundant reference to deviously existing knowledge of ha Masshiac's life. Not only do the letters of Paul teach a consistent message, the Synoptic Gospels all do the same. (I'm sure you are aware that a recently discovered fragment of the Book of James is being studied to determine if it is, in fact a remnant that appeared around 35 to 38AD).
After all, within that 20 or so years (as far as Paul is concerned) many, if not a majority of those alive through the years of Yeshua's ministry were still on scene… many who were very powerful and very anti… yet no examples of protestation to the facts are in evidence...
Finally, I'd refer again to the plethora of attestants that exist in the mid- to late first century and certainly in the second century. Some of the authors that make such reference are (as you know) Tacitus (who, as they say here in the colonies, 'doesn't have a dog in the hunt'), Flavius Josephus et al… but those are brought into question, strangely, only in their references to Yeshua. They are frequently quoted as preferred references to secular history. I'm not sure how one makes that leap.
Additionally, (again, as you well know) the history of oral tradition has been well established for millennia, especially in the mid-east. Even today, entire books are memorized and the student tested on his knowledge of their exact content.
Again, I seek only an exchange of information and ideas, but as demonstrated in this last instance, that's difficult to do, again, only because of the subject, in my opinion.
But I do commend you for your approach and thank you for your invitation to express a viewpoint...
I've stated that Paul writes only 20 or so years after the death and resurrection of Yeshua and in all of his letters, Paul makes abundant reference to deviously existing knowledge of ha Masshiac's life. Not only do the letters of Paul teach a consistent message, the Synoptic Gospels all do the same. (I'm sure you are aware that a recently discovered fragment of the Book of James is being studied to determine if it is, in fact a remnant that appeared around 35 to 38AD).
After all, within that 20 or so years (as far as Paul is concerned) many, if not a majority of those alive through the years of Yeshua's ministry were still on scene… many who were very powerful and very anti… yet no examples of protestation to the facts are in evidence...
Finally, I'd refer again to the plethora of attestants that exist in the mid- to late first century and certainly in the second century. Some of the authors that make such reference are (as you know) Tacitus (who, as they say here in the colonies, 'doesn't have a dog in the hunt'), Flavius Josephus et al… but those are brought into question, strangely, only in their references to Yeshua. They are frequently quoted as preferred references to secular history. I'm not sure how one makes that leap.
Additionally, (again, as you well know) the history of oral tradition has been well established for millennia, especially in the mid-east. Even today, entire books are memorized and the student tested on his knowledge of their exact content.
Again, I seek only an exchange of information and ideas, but as demonstrated in this last instance, that's difficult to do, again, only because of the subject, in my opinion.
But I do commend you for your approach and thank you for your invitation to express a viewpoint...
-- answer removed --
Sorry to have overlooked your missive, Naomi. I have no reason nor any animosity in responding to you in a sincere fashion. For example, I'm asking you, since you broached the subject first, what does 'official records' mean to you?
That's a sincere and well intentioned question. I can't respond to generalities unless I have some clear understanding of what the proponent of an idea means.
Seems to me that you may be a tad to sensitive to any response that's not already in agreement with you… but I am trying!
That's a sincere and well intentioned question. I can't respond to generalities unless I have some clear understanding of what the proponent of an idea means.
Seems to me that you may be a tad to sensitive to any response that's not already in agreement with you… but I am trying!
I am amazed, Clanad, that you don't seem to understand the question. None of the references you make are from the time when Jesus is supposed to be alive. I will have one more try:
Nothing written by Paul or subsequent writers is relevant to my question. Only something written between 6BC and AD33 or so (?) fills the bill. I repeat that I am surprised that you find it so difficult to say "There was nothing written about Jesus during his supposed lifetime" when that is demonstrably so true. It makes me wonder what other truths you are evading.
Nothing written by Paul or subsequent writers is relevant to my question. Only something written between 6BC and AD33 or so (?) fills the bill. I repeat that I am surprised that you find it so difficult to say "There was nothing written about Jesus during his supposed lifetime" when that is demonstrably so true. It makes me wonder what other truths you are evading.
It is a little difficult, chakka, to determine which question of yours to which you are referring… is it "Why can't you admit, as you surely must, that there is no evidence at all of Jesus's existence during the time that he was supposed to be alive and until Paul introduces him in about AD55?" … to which the answer is as I stated… Paul's letters all include direct references to information that precedes his writings. Or is the questions you're posing "...I repeat that I am surprised that you find it so difficult to say "There was nothing written about Jesus during his supposed lifetime" when that is demonstrably so true. It makes me wonder what other truths you are evading…?" (No reason to be snarky, is there?)
I freely support the conclusion that nothing we have in hand yet is signed sealed and delivered as being from the years you quote. But… I just as freely support the fact that it doesn't make one whit of difference in scholarly study of the subject. Only a few decades ago, the earliest copy of any writing from that era was in about AD700 or so. But we now, as I've stated, have thousands of examples of copies going back to (in the case of Rylands) to AD120. Other, much older ones are under study even as we speak.
But, to dismiss the connections (and they are myriad) between Paul and the writers of the Synoptic Gospels (with the possible exception of Matthew) is the height of close mindedness… Few scholars today profess a belief that Jesus wasn't a historical character living in a time and place that is well known and well attested.
As far as amazement is concerned, may I express my own that you, apparently, can't understand the rudiments of the study of ancient documents?
Amazement is also in order when I find that you've never addressed any of the facts that I've presented directly to you with an invitation to respond.
'Nuff said… these exchanges soon devolve into slanging matches, in which I have no interest… witness Naomi's response to a simple statement from Grasscarp.
I freely support the conclusion that nothing we have in hand yet is signed sealed and delivered as being from the years you quote. But… I just as freely support the fact that it doesn't make one whit of difference in scholarly study of the subject. Only a few decades ago, the earliest copy of any writing from that era was in about AD700 or so. But we now, as I've stated, have thousands of examples of copies going back to (in the case of Rylands) to AD120. Other, much older ones are under study even as we speak.
But, to dismiss the connections (and they are myriad) between Paul and the writers of the Synoptic Gospels (with the possible exception of Matthew) is the height of close mindedness… Few scholars today profess a belief that Jesus wasn't a historical character living in a time and place that is well known and well attested.
As far as amazement is concerned, may I express my own that you, apparently, can't understand the rudiments of the study of ancient documents?
Amazement is also in order when I find that you've never addressed any of the facts that I've presented directly to you with an invitation to respond.
'Nuff said… these exchanges soon devolve into slanging matches, in which I have no interest… witness Naomi's response to a simple statement from Grasscarp.
Clanad, if you’re still around, allow me to address your comments to me and about me. Firstly psychoanalysis is clearly not your strong point – I never mind people disagreeing with me. You and I have disagreed for years on this subject. Secondly, regarding Grasscarp’s input here. No slanging match. Simply saying it as it is. To borrow another phrase from you, no reason to be snarky, is there?
//I'm sure you are aware that a recently discovered fragment of the Book of James is being studied to determine if it is, in fact a remnant that appeared around 35 to 38AD//
I’d be interested in seeing a link, but that said, in the absence of earlier writings I fail to understand how you conclude that ”Paul's letters all include direct references to information that precedes his writings”. What information?
//I'm sure you are aware that a recently discovered fragment of the Book of James is being studied to determine if it is, in fact a remnant that appeared around 35 to 38AD//
I’d be interested in seeing a link, but that said, in the absence of earlier writings I fail to understand how you conclude that ”Paul's letters all include direct references to information that precedes his writings”. What information?
Clanad, I give up. It would start another discussion if I were to tackle claims that Paul had connections with the gospel writers when we have no idea who those writers were and therefore whether their wrtingss have any value.
I give up because whenever I try to talk about the years of Jesus's supposed life (the time when you would expect much to have been written about a man who went around performing miraculous cures, arguing with scribes and Pharisees, preaching to thousands, falling foul of the Roman and Jewish authorities and raising people from the dead) you jump ahead to future years when, let's be frank, anyone could write anything they liked with no direct evidence to gainsay them.
I am such an admirer of many of the other things you post on AB that it is with genuine regret that when it comes to this subject I find myself classifying you with Theland, goodlife and others who always find a way to evade the immediate topic of discussion.
Let' hope that when we converse again it is on a subject where the rational Clanad shines - always a treat. Cheers and a Merry Christmas.
I give up because whenever I try to talk about the years of Jesus's supposed life (the time when you would expect much to have been written about a man who went around performing miraculous cures, arguing with scribes and Pharisees, preaching to thousands, falling foul of the Roman and Jewish authorities and raising people from the dead) you jump ahead to future years when, let's be frank, anyone could write anything they liked with no direct evidence to gainsay them.
I am such an admirer of many of the other things you post on AB that it is with genuine regret that when it comes to this subject I find myself classifying you with Theland, goodlife and others who always find a way to evade the immediate topic of discussion.
Let' hope that when we converse again it is on a subject where the rational Clanad shines - always a treat. Cheers and a Merry Christmas.
Chakka, your one note samba has always been that the Gospel writers are unknown… however, I can (as you certainly can) select any number of websites that agree with me regarding historical attestation, while you can select any number that agree with you, no?
The only difference that I can see is that yours will always disregard scholars that maintain centuries of investigation in to all that goes into the science of paleography if those scholars and their interpretations refer to anything spiritual. They are quick to quote Flavius Josephus, for example, if their citations concerns only secular events. This includes a plethora of such scholars. To me that seems patently unfair and borders on dishonesty.
I, on the other hand, maintain that the superb, calculated and careful investigations of such scientists into such subjects as we are discussing here are to be considered in the same light. On that basis, the fare very well indeed.
So, having said that, what does it really matter if two decades separated the events from their memorialization? If you maintain that such a short amount of time corrupts the writings then what are you to say in support of other historical writings (of secular events and characters) when they are separated from the events by 1,000 years or more?
I've beaten the dead horse of Vercingoeterix and Hannibal enough, but scores, if not hundreds of other examples exist of probable historical characters we all accept as true when no contemporaneous writings exist for them. Would you not agree?
So, if only bias separates us from one another in such disagreement, then your suggestion of wishing each other Merry Christmas (or here in the colonies, firstly Happy Thanksgiving) is well taken… and I sincerely return the greeting.
Naomi, please enter Dr. Jose' O'Callaghan Martinez in your Google or other search function and you'll locate more information on the Dead Sea Scrolls possibly containing Mark fragments (as well as other references to New Testament writers) to keep you busy 'til spring. These are, of course, both pro and con. Dr. O'Callaghan (as he is generally known) died in 2004, I believe, but investigation into his studies continues...
Grasscarp forgive my oversight in not thanking you for your support… it's greatly appreciated… especially in this Forum. How's things, aviation wise?
We're still trying to keep the brown side down and blue side up here with the installation of the newer Collins Pro-line auto-flight system. I'm getting too old for this flying airplanes by pushing buttons on a key board...
The only difference that I can see is that yours will always disregard scholars that maintain centuries of investigation in to all that goes into the science of paleography if those scholars and their interpretations refer to anything spiritual. They are quick to quote Flavius Josephus, for example, if their citations concerns only secular events. This includes a plethora of such scholars. To me that seems patently unfair and borders on dishonesty.
I, on the other hand, maintain that the superb, calculated and careful investigations of such scientists into such subjects as we are discussing here are to be considered in the same light. On that basis, the fare very well indeed.
So, having said that, what does it really matter if two decades separated the events from their memorialization? If you maintain that such a short amount of time corrupts the writings then what are you to say in support of other historical writings (of secular events and characters) when they are separated from the events by 1,000 years or more?
I've beaten the dead horse of Vercingoeterix and Hannibal enough, but scores, if not hundreds of other examples exist of probable historical characters we all accept as true when no contemporaneous writings exist for them. Would you not agree?
So, if only bias separates us from one another in such disagreement, then your suggestion of wishing each other Merry Christmas (or here in the colonies, firstly Happy Thanksgiving) is well taken… and I sincerely return the greeting.
Naomi, please enter Dr. Jose' O'Callaghan Martinez in your Google or other search function and you'll locate more information on the Dead Sea Scrolls possibly containing Mark fragments (as well as other references to New Testament writers) to keep you busy 'til spring. These are, of course, both pro and con. Dr. O'Callaghan (as he is generally known) died in 2004, I believe, but investigation into his studies continues...
Grasscarp forgive my oversight in not thanking you for your support… it's greatly appreciated… especially in this Forum. How's things, aviation wise?
We're still trying to keep the brown side down and blue side up here with the installation of the newer Collins Pro-line auto-flight system. I'm getting too old for this flying airplanes by pushing buttons on a key board...
Clanad, when you said //I'm sure you are aware that a recently discovered fragment of the Book of James is being studied to determine if it is, in fact a remnant that appeared around 35 to 38AD// I thought you had something new to offer, but it appears you don’t. I’ll no doubt find something else to keep me busy until spring.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.