by tiffany bowen on October 2nd, 2005

Question

Help answer this question below.

How do I know that Jesus and God are real?

Like
Report

Share:: Facebook; Twitter; Other

Answers. 203 helpful answers below.

by bbumgarner on October 2nd, 2005
Short answer: you cannot "know" that Jesus/God are real. You can only believe that they are real.

Most religions -- certainly, Catholicism/Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism -- are built upon their followers willingness to accept the tenets of the religion without proof that it is either the "one true religion" or based upon historical fact.

Sigh. I don't know why I bother to try to answer religious questions. "False conclusion"? Exactly how? You can only "know" that Jesus or God is real because you have faith that they are real. There is no actual, real, verifiable proof that either are real.

Nor is there any real, actual, verifiable proof that Jesus and God do not exist.

To know that they are real is to have faith that they are real. Nothing more, nothing less.

And by answering this question this way, there will -- no doubt -- be comments from folks who think that the above indicates I do not believe in God. That would be a false conclusion and one that, if drawn, indicates that the person making the comment needs to re-assess their position.

Flynn: That would be the point. I am not saying what concept of "God" I might believe in, only that the answer is not intended to imply anything about my beliefs one way or another. The answer very specifically addresses the original question. And, to that end, there is no way to prove the existence of God (christian sense), God (in any other context), Jesus, Gods, Deities, Satan, or any other supernatural forces given the current state of the art of human knowledge and science. As it stands, belief in God and Jesus comes down to a question of Faith and while complete faith is effectively equivalent to knowing for those with said complete faith, it is not proof.
Comments
- good impartial answer . we try because we wish to share our insights in the debate
  
  Report
  
  by Grandma Roses - my avatar is my real dog on October 16th, 2005
- False conclusion. Assumes there is no experiential relationship possible with Jesus. Doesn't factor personal ignorance.
  
  Report
  
  by TulsaDavid on October 12th, 2005
- DO answer religious questions- it stops the categories from becoming over-biased.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on December 8th, 2005
- This is true. Christians, prove God exists. Non christians, prove he doesn't. If it could be done, by now it would have...
  
  Report
  
  by Shabba on January 10th, 2006
- Just because virtually no amount of proof is enough for those set against believing in God, doesn't mean there is no proof
  
  Report
  
  by Joshua Zambrano on January 28th, 2006
- This is a moderately useful answer, but remember, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion of something's existence. Your reasoning helps no one believe in your concept of God. It could be applied to Zeus belief.
  
  Report
  
  by Flynn444 on September 29th, 2006
- flynn, in a dichotomous argument, there are two sides, both of which make a claim. In this case 1.) that God exists, 2.) that God does not exist. The burden of proof falls on both sides. Whatever you say, you have to substantiate it.
  
  Report
  
  by kingky21 on December 20th, 2006
- by that same token, conclusive proof as we conceive of it does not exist for either side as bbumgardner has already stated. Don't think that just because you place your faith in something other than God, in this case, the faith-based claim that there is no God, that you do not have to justify yourself. Everyone has faith, it's just a matter of where you put it.
  
  Report
  
  by kingky21 on December 20th, 2006
- Do you feel the burden of proof is on you to show that Zeus doesn't exist? Thor? Allah? Purple unicorns? Sorry, but if you're going to posit the existence of a fantastic being, it's up to you show that it exists, not for the rest of us to disprove whatever your imagination conjures. Disbelief in God is no more "faith-based" than your disbelief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You have no evidence to believe it exists, so you don't believe. It's the same with non-theists.
  
  Report
  
  by Flynn444 on December 21st, 2006
- I'd just like to comment as no one would read my answer 60 posts down. God of course is your belief. (hence the word faith) no real proof but you still believe, and Jesus IS real, He was tooken on the Roman census. It's just a matter of if you believe he was the son of God.
  
  Report
  
  by Final_Starman on March 8th, 2007
- kingky, your statement is illogical. you are speaking from the narrow perspective of assuming that there is a god and that it's the highest priority in the universe. You're assuming that everyone else "puts their faith" somewhere other than where you put yours. That's not how it works. Everyone else has their own view of what is and isn't real, and what is and isn't important. My lack of belief in your god doesn't define me, any more than your lack of belief in leprechauns or unicorns defines you. Finalstarman, you are mistaken. There is much debate over the existence of a historical Jesus. It's not backed up by evidence outside religious texts.
  
  Report
  
  by Jessicax23 on March 25th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
11 comments | Post one | Permalink
by TulsaDavid on October 17th, 2005
Actually, Jesus and God are one and the same. Jesus is God manifested in flesh, hence that humanity is what the Bible refers to as the son of God.

However, that is not really your question, so to answer your question, may I simply submit that nowhere in the Bible does God ever attempt to prove He is real. He simply asserts it, and it is in your court to seek Him.

Of course, His Word is full of promises that you WILL find Him if happly you will seek after Him. But you must both believe (1) that He is and (2) that it is worth your while to seek Him, ie that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

And so far in my life, every promise in His Word applicable to the joy and happiness that He offers when one finds Him has actually been understated. The half has not been told.
Comments
- How can they believe if you don't give them proof? He gave many signs and proof, evidence, prophecy. Faith is not blind.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on November 10th, 2005
- Report
  
  by Anonymous_ on December 7th, 2005
- In other words, you must accept the existence of God as a pre-requisite for knowing he is real. This is question-begging.
  
  Report
  
  by Flynn444 on September 29th, 2006
- The onus is on disproving the existence of God, not on His very true and real existence. Such an innate knowledge of His reality drives atheists (and the like) with such unparalleled (and futile) passion. No other known task demands such energy.
  
  Report
  
  by TulsaDavid on October 4th, 2006
- Since you're the one making the claim, the onus is on you to prove it. If I claim that invisible magic fairies are responsible for all that we see, would you accept that? Would it be up to you to disprove it? Nope.
  
  Report
  
  by Flynn444 on October 10th, 2006
- i really like your answer.
  
  Report
  
  by thats.just.me on November 19th, 2006
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
6 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Patti jo on April 1st, 2007
Yes - because I feel it in my heart
Comments
- Love this answer, PJ. They won't let me give you any points though! boo hoo.....
  
  Report
  
  by gtravels loves her life penguin on April 1st, 2007
- That's faith, huh? Good for you, pattijo.
  
  Report
  
  by Jodie44 on April 1st, 2007
- Thank you gtr and Jodie - I've been having problems rating also - After only rating someone twice and then some I can rate all day long - Don't understand it
  
  Report
  
  by Patti jo on April 1st, 2007
- I'll give you some pattijo. Good answer BTW.
  
  Report
  
  by Abbyguy on April 1st, 2007
- Just because you feel it doesn't make it true. There are lots of things that feel true, but aren't.
  For example:
  - optical illusions
  - magic tricks
  - phantom limb syndrome (the feeling an amputee has that their limb is still there)
  - the physical solidity of objects (really they are mosty empty space, since they are composed of atoms)
  
  Report
  
  by godma on May 1st, 2007
- _godma_: It's an intagible yes, but you cannot reason away the feeling pattijo describes, and you will never know that feeling unless you experience it first hand. Once you do have have it, no amount of debate or science or even punishment will take it away, nothing can.
  
  Report
  
  by Abbyguy on May 1st, 2007
- Thanks Abbyguy. I appreciate your point...after all, I (so far) can't shake the feeling that I myself exist as an entity distinct from the rest of the universe.
  
  However, I would never ever claim that as justification for believing it to be true...simply because I have to admit to myself that since the human mind is easily fooled in general, it is entirely possible that I am being fooled as well..
  
  For the sake of humanity, we should insist that people use more than "feeling" to draw conclusions about reality.
  
  Report
  
  by godma on May 1st, 2007
- Thank You Abbyguy for your support
  
  Report
  
  by Patti jo on May 1st, 2007
- You've got mine too babe.
  
  Report
  
  by gtravels loves her life penguin on May 1st, 2007
- As well as mine. God's, too, I'm betting:)
  
  Report
  
  by Jodie44 on May 1st, 2007
- Sometimes that's all we have. Life is an illusion so we need to use what we can to make sense of it, no pun intended.
  
  Report
  
  by Abbyguy on May 1st, 2007
- And just grab on to whatever gives you joy and inner peace.
  
  Report
  
  by gtravels loves her life penguin on May 1st, 2007
- Love and Hug's - Jodie - Gtravels and Abbyguy
  
  Report
  
  by Patti jo on May 1st, 2007
- feel see love hate is it real? is god real?are we......how can you prove it? yes we breathe see eat sleep whats past our eyes are we nano's in a petre dish programed to do specific tasks.Was god made up to soothe the thought of death? to put order in soceity?..........maybe we are real maybe there is a god we will never know untel death/or not know because of death.
  
  Report
  
  by DRAKE221 on February 2nd, 2009
- All righty then.
  
  Report
  
  by gtravels loves her life penguin on February 2nd, 2009
- Watch out for the Matrix!!!....LOL
  
  Report
  
  by Abbyguy on February 2nd, 2009
- some people are like that
  
  Report
  
  by andblack on April 22nd, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
17 comments | Post one | Permalink
by WishUponAStar on August 19th, 2008
Yes, God is great, glory to God and his blessed son Jesus.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Anonymous on April 1st, 2007
According to my religion and my beliefs, yes he is.
Comments
- Straight and to the point. +1 from me
  
  Report
  
  by godma on May 1st, 2007
- Thank you.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on May 1st, 2007
- I like the hacker emblem.
  
  Report
  
  by corrupted filer on July 5th, 2007
- Thanks filer. You're the first person to know its real meaning.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on July 9th, 2007
- omg my husband didn't even know what it was... I was shocked. I'm a hacker sympathizer and hope to be one some day lol. I one of those that tries things just for the mental challenge and fun of 'can i do this?' lol.
  
  Report
  
  by corrupted filer on July 10th, 2007
- Lol.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on July 11th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
6 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Abbyguy on February 7th, 2007
Prove He isn't! For those of us who have experienced Him we don't need to explain anything. It's like trying to explain how something feels or tastes, you get an idea, but will never know unles you experience it for yourself.
Comments
- lol sry god is one hell of an asshole if he is real .. think about it
  
  Report
  
  by Volvox on February 7th, 2007
- how can you experience him?
  
  Report
  
  by Volvox on February 7th, 2007
- A person experiences Him when they get to a point in thier life when they realise that they are not in control and ask Christ into thier life. I searched for years, all sorts of religions and ideals. I prayed over and over for God to show me the tuth. I didn't care what it was I just wanted the truth, and through a series of circumstances I became a born again Christian. in the moment I accpeted Him everything in my life changed, it was a feeling and a knowledge that even the person having it can't quite explain. My marriage was healed in that moment (we had planned on splitting up after that Christmas) and a number of other things. So I "know" the difference between having Christ as my savior and not having Him, and believe me, it's way better with Him.
  
  Report
  
  by Abbyguy on February 7th, 2007
- Abbyguy: One who speaks the truth!
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on March 8th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Anonymous on November 17th, 2006
If you ever had a doubt, look at a newborn baby and tell me that God is not real.
Comments
- Some say God, some say Allah, some deny any higher power and just point to that newborn baby as a sign that the Universe is a good place.
  
  Report
  
  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 17th, 2006
- If I believed in God, and I looked at my newborn baby, my first thought would be "God may have given me a beautiful baby...but did he have to make it so damn painful?"
  
  Saying what you did is just like saying "Look up into the sky and tell me that god is not real" (Because the sky is just so damn pretty ^o^)
  
  It doesn't make it true. The baby would be beautiful because YOU created it, not god. He had nothing to do with it.
  
  Report
  
  by Eve_Nightingale on November 18th, 2006
- ok, let change books. open to the chapter of the universe and mother nature. look around you. really look around you. where do think your surroundings came from? not from the devil!
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on November 18th, 2006
- your answer is so true. all you have to do is look around and God is everywhere.
  
  Report
  
  by thats.just.me on November 19th, 2006
- So is hydrogen. Your point is?
  
  Report
  
  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 19th, 2006
- I looked at my newborn son and I still think God is an imaginary friend. (i.e. not real)
  
  Report
  
  by ReverendJeremiah on December 9th, 2006
- well God never said it would be easy he said it would be worth it
  
  Report
  
  by luv4cs on January 8th, 2007
- looked at one, he's still not real.
  
  Report
  
  by Shaun381 on May 12th, 2007
- yes he is!!
  
  Report
  
  by luv4cs on May 17th, 2007
- My father thought many things were real too, but he was mentally ill. While I do not consider your belief in God to be an illness as such, it IS a condition that not all of us here are afflicted with. Many Atheists and Agnostics are just as secure in their faith (or lack thereof) as you are and attempting to "make us see the light" is at best rude. Some of us may actually feel offended by it, as many Christians are offended when they see a Crucifix immersed in urine and called Art.
  
  Report
  
  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on May 17th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
10 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Faith111 on November 19th, 2006
Challenge Him, He will dare to reveal Himself. I did and found Him.
Comments
- Ok..God, please show yourself to me right here right now and I will believe and worship you. Nope..nothing...didnt show up. So he is either imaginary or doesnt care..so I will not care.
  
  Report
  
  by ReverendJeremiah on December 9th, 2006
- ReverendJeremiah, brilliant! Come on everybody let's dare God to reveal himself!
  
  Report
  
  by Godfather Part II on December 11th, 2006
- Eh... I disagree with this theory. I believe you must believe in the Lord for him to reveal Himself, unless the Lord wills it elsewise =)
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on March 8th, 2007
- Amen Faith111
  
  Report
  
  by Singingismystyle on April 2nd, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by qballz on November 5th, 2005
Good answers by both bbumgarner and Silent Serenity.

There is a lot of proof that God and Jesus are real, like the bible is the Word of God, God sent his son Jesus to live among us, when Jesus was asked what proof he had that he was the son of God, Jesus replied, �Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.� A lot of men have come claiming to be Jesus, the Messiah, prophets, gods, etc�but Jesus set himself apart from all those men in that he conquered death, while every other man claiming something similar just died.

However, all of that evidence aside, the simplest proof comes through a logical thought process in answering the �problem of first cause��simply what came first?

I�m not talking about where life on Earth came from�I�m talking about where did the galaxies, stars, planets, and universe come from?

You either believe in the big bang theory, aliens, gases, matter, or God.

Bbumgarner is right there is no real, tangible, viable, evidence you can see with your eyes today that proves that God or Jesus exist, but it is also true that just because you don�t believe in God that doesn�t make God not exist. He either exists or does not exist regardless of what you or I believe.

But for you to believe that, In the beginning ALIENS created the heavens and the earth, takes way more faith and belief than to simply believe that, Genesis 1:1 has always been right, �In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.� It takes way more faith to believe that in the beginning matter, or in the beginning gases� I mean the whole theory of the big bang sounds great except where did that matter that exploded-first come from?

You see Christians or �religious� people are not the only ones expressing their faith. If you don�t believe in God you have to have a ton of faith to actually believe God doesn�t exist. That means you believe in aliens, or matter, or gases. I find it far easier to believe in God than to believe in aliens or matter. It is just more logical.

We all have to believe in something being eternal. Either God is eternal, he always was and is and nothing created him, or you believe that matter is eternal, or aliens are eternal etc�

Let�s assume you are correct and aliens or matter is eternal and God does not exist�how does that really make you feel inside? Now you have to answer a lot of other questions�What is the point of life? Why are we here? Why do I exist? Am I just an accident? Aliens created me? For what purpose? Sounds like a bleak existence to me�and pretty depressing�

You see I find it easy to believe that God created something out of nothing. Believing that nothing created something out of nothing is something I really struggle with!

Once you realize how easy it is to believe Genesis 1:1 then you can believe everything in the bible. If God can create everything out of nothing, then surely he can walk on water, surely he can part the Red Sea, heal people, save people from their sins etc.

Once you realize that God does exist and that he created us for his pleasure, that he never intended for us to live such difficult lives, that he wanted to take care of our every need until we sinned in the Garden of Eden, life starts to make a lot more sense. You�ll understand why there are hurricanes, tsunamis, wars, cheating, lying, etc.

You see God has given us a great gift called free will. God could have created everyone to just automatically love and worship him and not have a choice about it, but that wouldn�t be anything real. God is looking for those who want to seek him in truth and in spirit, and have a real relationship with him! That is why God doesn�t settle the matter of his existence and make himself unequivocally known. The bible says, happy is the person who believes without seeing! Why is that true? You won�t know until you take that leap of faith and try it for yourself!
Comments
- That is by far the best answer I have ever heard for that question. One would think that you are degreed in theology. Love it.
  
  Report
  
  by guitarman18 on September 27th, 2006
- This reply is full of false choices, question begging, and circular reasoning.
  
  Report
  
  by Flynn444 on September 29th, 2006
- Very good answer, qballz, I definately agree with guitarman18!
  
  Report
  
  by navyvet1 on September 30th, 2006
- While this answer is intelligent, it is also clearly biased. I am with Flynn on the circular reasoning. The way I read it, you are saying that God is real because he gave us the option to disbelieve His existence.
  
  Report
  
  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 17th, 2006
- You make an awful lot of assumptions and round-robin reasoning here. First off, just believing God is real because an old religious book told you so doesn't really "prove" squat. For instance, The Vedic texts, such as the Rig-Veda, are the oldest known written works in the world (depending on what expert you might ask, anywhere between 5,000 and 20,000 years). And they have nothing to say about Christian mythos, such as a belief in Jesus or a Christian-limited God. There is no need to "prove" the existence in either Jesus or God, in any context, because FAITH does not require proof, merely belief.
  
  Report
  
  by teknimage on November 17th, 2006
- from the symbols I can see among your answer it is obvious that this has been copied and pasted from a webpage. Please quote the origin of your reply because, even though it may sum up your beliefs, it isn't your original thoughs.
  
  Report
  
  by Brian I on March 8th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
6 comments | Post one | Permalink
by unknown on April 1st, 2007
Yes I believe that God is real. I cannot, however, prove to you or anyone else that He is real. Even if I preformed a miracle right now it wouldn't matter; because, if you wanted to you could pass it off as coincidence or fakery. It happened in the bible and it happens today. Faith is a choice to believe without proof.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Jennybean on November 17th, 2006
I know that they are real. I know that, because I prayed about it, and I was answered. See you don't have to rely on what other people tell you to beleive. You can go to the source. You CAN know for yourself. I know that if you pray, Heavenly Father can testify to you of the truth of all things. You simply have to ask with faith, and an earnest desire to know the truth; an open mind and a contrite spirit. I know that it might
Comments
- Is it just me, or is it sad when an Agnostic agrees with this statement?
  
  Report
  
  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 20th, 2006
- You make it sound like your god is powerless to prove his existence unless someone already believes in him. I dont have to believe that a stranger exists for that stranger to knock on my door and introduce himself. Your answer sounds more like an excuse.
  
  Report
  
  by ReverendJeremiah on December 9th, 2006
- ummm i prayed for my grandpa not to die one day and the next day he sufferd so badly we couldnt watch him laying in the hospital bed not being able to speak hear or move so praying to god obviously didnt work if god is so great why does he take the ones we love the most in a needy time? answer that
  
  Report
  
  by phantom142 on January 17th, 2009
- I took this answer as pretty much saying that the only way one can know if God is real is faith. When one has faith, ANYTHING can be seen as proof. RJ is pretty much right on this one.
  .
  Phantom - Depending on one's predisposition, one could say that He works in mysterious way while others might say that He is just a cruel, petty SOB, or even downright evil. Again, it boils down to what you already believe as anything that happens will be seen thorough whatever filters we already have.
  I would likely see your grampa as merely the progression of an illness or infirmity with no Divine will influencing his outcome one way or the other, his fate relying on the state of his immune system, the skill of the doctors, and other more mundane factors.
  
  Report
  
  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 17th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Bowen on June 22nd, 2009
In my opinion, not likely. There is no empirical evidence for any deity.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Lemonyellow Di Vintage on December 19th, 2007
no, he stole my riding mower
Comments
- lmao
  
  Report
  
  by Nuclear Kitten on December 19th, 2007
- he doesnt exist?
  
  so how did "he" steal it?
  
  Report
  
  by ... on August 24th, 2008
- You don't exist. How did you comment?
  
  Report
  
  by Lemonyellow Di Vintage on August 24th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
3 comments | Post one | Permalink
by branciforte3241 on April 1st, 2007
What does it mean for something to be "real"?
Comments
- downrated? If you don't define what you mean by "real", this question will never be answered. Is something "real" if it can manipulate the physical world? If it can communicate with us? If it can influence our lives? Is love real? Is the economy real? Is money real? Is a promise real? Without defining our terms, this is just another amoung millions of moronic questions.
  
  Report
  
  by branciforte3241 on April 1st, 2007
- I up-rated you because your logic is reasonable.
  
  Report
  
  by unknown on April 1st, 2007
- What is reality anyway? Great angle!
  
  Report
  
  by Abbyguy on April 1st, 2007
- This is as much at the heart of the issue as "what is God?". Obviously we use different criteria for judging what is real. For example, many people rely on faith for some beliefs about reality but then require less faith and more evidence/logic for their other beliefs.
  
  Report
  
  by godma on May 1st, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by kirababe on June 22nd, 2009
nope.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by de Joisey on June 22nd, 2009
Yes
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by RiverRat on June 22nd, 2009
Yes, God is real. I don't know if it's possible for someone who hasn't accepted Jesus to understand the faith that he brings to you, but if you ask him, he will come into your life and you will understand.
Comments
- i agree :)
  
  Report
  
  by Blondie on June 23rd, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by American idle on April 1st, 2007
"God" resides in all of us. It's our Spirit.
Comments
- Super Answer A.Idol --- +up
  
  Report
  
  by Patti jo on April 1st, 2007
- I gave you points but don't entirely agree, with you analogy.
  
  Report
  
  by Abbyguy on April 1st, 2007
- If you choose to redefine god, that's cool with me, but it does avoid the intent of the question, which I think was more like "Is the popularly held conception of God real?" You didn't answer that.
  
  Report
  
  by godma on May 1st, 2007
- godma, I answered it just fine. Stop over analyzing, you give me a headache.
  
  Report
  
  by American idle on May 1st, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Seraphim Shinobi on April 1st, 2007
i believe so but it is impossible to prove.
Comments
- and thats how he wants theres nothing about god to prove he isn't bigfoot satan exist to and i think his greatest trick on humanity is making us believe he dont exist either and look at us we can't tell the difference between the truth and a lie
  
  Report
  
  by andblack on April 22nd, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Eve_Nightingale on November 17th, 2006
I believe it was Anselm who said... "God is that-than-which-no-greater-can-be-thought, and He must, therefore, exist, for otherwise He would not be that-than-which-no-greater-can-be-thought."

I do see a problem with this...

Though it is a grand explanation, thought is limited to the human mind and god is supposedly measured with omnipotence. Thought is a limited aspect of the abstract, therefore if god can only be measured as far as thought, it simply can not exist until the thought becomes a reality. Because thought is no reality, and god is no greater than that which can be thought, god is no reality, making him abstract and not real.

Ergo, god does not exist.

Jesus also does not seem believable due to lack of proof. There hasn't been a piece of evidence that shows the indeed 100% he did exist.

Courtney - "If when I die, and go to these big 'pearly gates', I see God...I will gladly admit I was wrong. Though if he's mad at me for not believing in him, then he wasn't a god I would have wanted to worship in the first place. The last thing I want to do is be rewarded for gullibility and prosecuted for intelligent questioning of something that I've never seen."
Comments
- By the way where did you get your thought from? How do I know you even think? I have never seen you. Do you exist? Can we find evidence that you exist? Oh well you wrote on your computor into cyberspace, the internet, and I read your message. God has left us immeasurable signatures of his existence. He will always be. You better take many pictures to prove that you existed because according to your theory 10,000,000 years from now there will not be any evidence of you. But if you read Gods writing and find out that he is true eternity is a long time to be outside the presence of a loving God. He never sends anybody to hell those who go volunteer by not believing
  
  Report
  
  by PastorSalaz on June 11th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Flynn444 on September 29th, 2006
If you allow your reality to be determined by what you want to believe and by what your emotions tell you, then this is how you can "know." However, practically every other religion establishes the truth of its beliefs by the same method, so it is of little practical value in settling the question.

The questions presumes a level of skepticism that is wholly right and rational. We should not accept claims without reasonable evidence. If the answer is that faith is needed, then what faith? How does one determine the correct faith to have? Appeals to alleged holy books are not useful because they make competing and contradictory claims, and none establish their superiority without question-begging.
Comments
- finally a decent answer
  
  Report
  
  by seisho on October 4th, 2006
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by ImaCatholic2 on June 22nd, 2009
Yes.

Newton's Third Law of Motion states "For every action there is equal and opposite reaction."

Every action in the universe was caused by a prior equal and opposite reaction.

If we logically follow each and every action and reaction back to the beginning then logically there has to be a first action without a prior equal and opposite reaction. Modern astrophysicists call this event the Big Bang.

This first action was completely independent of outside forces.

Monotheists beleive this action was God creating the universe.

By the way, it was Georges Lemaître (1894–1966), a Belgian Catholic priest and professor of physics and astronomy, who proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

With love in Christ.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by prisoner on June 22nd, 2009
"Asking a human about God, would be similar to asking a fish about the water in which the fish swims."
Comments
- someone didn't get it... it's cool...
  not my quote.. I just thought it was interesting.
  
  Report
  
  by prisoner on June 22nd, 2009
- I got it. It's based on an old Hindu proverb: Never ask a fish for a definition of water. +3
  
  Report
  
  by Stormarm on June 23rd, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Fiddle Playing Creole Bastard on June 22nd, 2009
He's fo shizzle.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by MegantheNerd on June 22nd, 2009
It all depends on YOUR beliefs.
All answers will vary due to ones belief.
No person is correct or incorrect.
It's your belief.
Comments
- That's moronic. If you say there is no God, die and find yourself before him being judged, I'd think that would mean you were incorrect.
  
  Report
  
  by RiverRat on June 22nd, 2009
- That's your oppinion isn't it?
  I do believe in God, thank you very much.
  I was just proving my point.
  It all depends on your beliefs.
  Thank you and have good day : )
  
  Report
  
  by MegantheNerd on June 22nd, 2009
- You also spelled opinion wrong. More proof of the moronic theory?
  
  Report
  
  by RiverRat on June 22nd, 2009
- Nope.
  Just proof of the tired theory : )
  You are critical aren't you?
  Either way I hope you have a good day (or the rest of your day for that matter : ) )
  
  Report
  
  by MegantheNerd on June 22nd, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by cowgirlprep on June 22nd, 2009
um yeah
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by The Galaxy Hitchhiker on December 15th, 2008
Faith cannot be argued against and God cannot be proved by physical means but that doesn't make Him any less real to the person who believes in Him by faith. I never take it upon myself to carry the burden of proof for God, it isn't mine to bear.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Babycakes on August 19th, 2008
I'll give my God a capitol *G* and he is real ...to me.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by shady on August 19th, 2008
Absolutely
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Friartuck on April 1st, 2007
First question is "which one is real?" There are literally thousands upon thousands of gods.

http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm

Assuming you mean The Judeo-Christian one - I honestly don't believe he exists outside our own collective imagination. Same goes for all the others.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Final_Starman on February 7th, 2007
It was proven he didn't on a great episode of the simpsons...lol.
Comments
- thanks but personally i dont belive in god ...unless someone could prove it to me
  
  Report
  
  by Volvox on February 7th, 2007
- Same here.
  
  Report
  
  by Maximum Displacement on February 7th, 2007
- I agree as well
  
  Report
  
  by Porche on February 7th, 2007
- that's the friggin arguement and why no one can prove it. I was saying homer got a formula when they got the crayon out his brain proving god does not exsist, lol it wasnt a real answer...dammit.
  
  Report
  
  by Final_Starman on February 7th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by smsedmc on November 20th, 2006
interesting there is more historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus Christ, than there is for Napolean. If you want to know about Jesus and God, the only thing you can do is read the Bible and talk to a pastor or a Christian friend that you trust. There is plenty of evidence for him and his teachings (there are more ancient manuscript copies of the Bible than any other literary work, by several thousand).
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by seisho on November 8th, 2006
If you found out the answer would it make any difference? If you found out that god was real would it make any difference in ur daily life if u chose not to worship him? I dont believe in god and i dont see my life being much different from the next guy who does believe in god. I dont feel like im missing out on life or anything. The existance of god has so little bearing on ur everyday life,(unless ur a religious fanatic) it makes no diff if he exists or not because god doesnt interact with humans. The only interaction is from stories written thousands of years ago.
Comments
- Without God there are no morals or right and wrong. Who is to decide. Darwin might think you are not fit enough to exist. So who is to decide if it is alright to kill innocent babies we think might interfere with our lives. Oh there might be somebody too old they are just using valuable resources. The sick, mentally handicapped, black, Jew, hispanic who decides who is valuable. In American Law we find the God Given principle "all men are created equal". That is the difference you live in Gods World. He makes the rules. We've got to obey them. Then this gives your life value and meaning.
  
  Report
  
  by PastorSalaz on June 11th, 2007
- "Without God there are no morals or right and wrong. Who is to decide?"
  Human beings decide. People naturally come to the conclusion to not hurt those closest to your own. To take care of ones own is a natural occurance in all of the animal kingdom. And to kill off innocent children would be against animal nature, and in times where there is much less war and clashes between larger nations(comparatively speaking with times such as mesopotamic or roman empires.) there is no need to kill off your enemy if they are not a threat.
  
  Report
  
  by seisho on June 12th, 2007
- Time and time again through out world history laws have been based off of religious teachings. Only natural that our forefathers would keep inline with their own religious beliefs in our laws. But you are insinuating that other nations w/ diff religious beliefs predating your own have been wrong in their ways for thousands of years? Feudalism, Caste systems, traditional hierarchical societies are all proof that ppl dont believe in equality upon birth. our modern AMERICAN notion has only come about since the birth of our nation. The only laws that god has created are that of gravity and of the like that we cannot over come yet due to our limited understanding of the universe and technology. On our human planet we make the rules, always have always will. We base our laws on our religions which are what we think to be the best and most honorable way.
  "Then this gives your life value and meaning." So all those millions of Agnostics and atheists lived meaningless/valueless lives?
  
  Report
  
  by seisho on June 12th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
3 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Alatea on October 5th, 2005
"We can look at the world and see if the world is constructed in such a way that it is reasonable to believe that there must be a God." Just as the hunter follows the trail of an animal that he has yet to see--paw prints, clumps of fur, broken branches--we are looking for the fingerprint of God in the physical world.

Winfried Corduan
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by vera city on June 22nd, 2009
He is to some of us
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Shes Country on June 22nd, 2009
Yes, god is all around you. All you have to do is clear your mind and open it up and god will come in. God is the thoughts in your head that just happen. The little voice that try's to guide you in the right direction, when you may be trying to decide what to do. Listen carefully and act accordingly and god will never steer you wrong. Yes, god is real.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by IntotheForge on June 22nd, 2009
Nah, he's just fuckin' with ya, he didn't mean it. He'll probably apologise in a few eons, provided you're still around.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Aero is back and wiser on June 22nd, 2009
In my opinion, no but it's one of those things you can never really know.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by celticmoonlight on March 4th, 2009
nobody knows dont ask stupid questions!
Comments
- Define a stupid question.
  
  Report
  
  by Shavale is very happy on March 4th, 2009
- that one
  
  Report
  
  by celticmoonlight on March 4th, 2009
- Then most people ask stupid questions.
  
  Report
  
  by Shavale is very happy on March 4th, 2009
- ok ok i get the point, but im so sick of that particular question as im convinced people just ask it to cause arguments
  
  Report
  
  by celticmoonlight on March 4th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by CaptainHarley adores his life penguin on December 15th, 2008
A question that every person must answer for him or her self.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Rinky Dinky Do on November 15th, 2008
The lunatic assylums are full of people who claim he is
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Mephistopheles on November 14th, 2008
Oh, yeah! So is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Boogieman, the Tooth Fairy
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by ninja man on August 19th, 2008
Yes (though I tend to think of the subject in less relativistic terms...)
Comments
- thanks for the comment:D
  
  Report
  
  by AmorousLilith on August 19th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Feller on March 2nd, 2008
Yes, THe earth is 93 million miles away from the sun.If we where 1 mile closer,we would burn up.1 mile further away we would freeze to death. The Big Bang is like saying a tornado could go through a junk yard and build an F-14.

There is no denying is existance or his everlasting love for us,even when we turn our backs on him.
Comments
- References to the distance from the Sun answer would be good. I too know that God is real and have some good reasons for it, but too many followers give "facts" to try and prove his (or her) existance without making sure that those facts are sound. That makes those that are not followers of a higher power think that followers or uneducated fools.
  
  Report
  
  by DLAPHAM on March 2nd, 2008
- If you think the big bang is like saying a tornado could go through a junk yard and build an F-14, isn't that just as amazing as the fact that the earth is in the perfect position for life on earth? Couldn't the big bang support your awe of God, given how improbable it is? Just for the sake of argument...
  
  Report
  
  by Siddharma on March 2nd, 2008
- 92,955,807 miles is the EXACT distance between the two.there is truth to the statement. not that it was to PROVE the existance of God, although it does inspire me.I really couldn't care less what non beleivers think of me.even though I pray they find the Lord.
  
  Report
  
  by Feller on March 2nd, 2008
- hey Loggin feller: do you believe that the big bang contradicts your religion? I can't tell from your answer. I like to view the big bang and evolution as an answer to "HOW" but not "WHY"... the universe is so much more amazing if you see God in science (instead of pitting the two against each other). by the way I am an inquisitive, agnostic philosopher-scientist, so I really enjoy hearing religious opinions about this.
  
  Report
  
  by Siddharma on March 2nd, 2008
- I beleive God was the intelligent force behind what some call evolution and the big bang.
  
  Report
  
  by Feller on March 2nd, 2008
- In that case, the mystic inside me likes your answer :-)
  
  Report
  
  by Siddharma on March 2nd, 2008
- Thanks Siddharma, I like alot of your answers and views as well.
  
  Report
  
  by Feller on March 2nd, 2008
- right back at you!
  
  Report
  
  by Siddharma on March 2nd, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
8 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Jimmyp on February 18th, 2008
God is in everyone. He exists if you think he does. What is reality anyway?
Comments
- Just like the You and I exist even though some may believe that I do not.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on March 2nd, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Ec-nal Licensed Bootie Inspector on February 18th, 2008
To some of us.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by weatherman taking week or so off on May 18th, 2007
Consider this analogy. The earth has an atmosphere with air to breathe. On your own, with no advanced scientific equipment, is is difficult to prove that the air is there, but you breathe it, and you can feel the wind blow on your face.

In the above case, the air could not be seen, but could be felt and otherwise sensed. In other cases, it is other senses which are "blinded". Like trying to smell something which produces no odor. It exists even though your sense of smell tells you there's nothing there.

Now picture a scenario where all five of your senses cannot detect something. Does that mean that the particular something does not exist? Maybe, maybe not.

Faith is the key to knowing God and Jesus. Whether faith is a sixth (or higher) sense, I'll leave that for the philosophers to debate.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by singwell-is off researching a lot on April 1st, 2007
This is an answer to steelhamster saying that the NT docs were written hundreds of years after the events of the NT....NOT TRUE.

NEW Testament documents: FF BRUCE
CHAPTER II

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: THEIR DATE AND ATTESTATION

1. What are the New Testament documents?

THE New Testament as we know it consists of twentyn seven short Greek writings, commonly called 'books', the first five of which are historical in character, and are thus of more immediate concern for our present study. Four of these we call the Gospels, because each of them narrates the gospel-the good news that God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ for the redemption of mankind. All four relate sayings and doings of Christ, but can scarcely be called biographies in our modern sense of the word, as they deal almost exclusively with the last two or three years of His life, and devote what might seem a disproportionate space to the week immediately preceding His death. They are not intended to be 'Lives' of Christ, but rather to present from distinctive points of view, and originally for different publics, the good news concerning Him. The first three Gospels (those according to Matthew, Mark and Luke), because of certain features which link them together, are commonly called the 'Synoptic Gospels.

The fifth historical writing, the Acts of the Apostles, is actually a continuation of the third Gospel, written by the same author, Luke the physician and companion of the apostle Paul. It gives us an account of the rise of Christianity after the resurrection and ascension of Christ, and of its extension in a westerly direction from Palestine to Rome, within about thirty years of the crucifixion. Of the other writings twentyone are letters. Thirteen of these bear the name of Paul, nine of them being addressed to churches and four to individuals.

THEIR DATE AND ATTESTATION

Another letter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, is anonymous, but was at an early date bound up with the Pauline Epistles, and came to be frequently ascribed to Paul. It was probably written shortly before AD 70 to a community of Jewish Christians in Italy. Of the remaining letters one bears the name of James, probably the brother of our Lord; one of Jude, who calls himself the brother of James; two of Peter; and there are three which bear no name, but because of their obvious affinities with the fourth Gospel have been known from early days as the Epistles of John. The remaining book is the Apocalypse, or book of the Revelation. It belongs to a literary genre which, though strange to our minds, was well known in Jewish and Christian circles in those days, the apocalyptic.' The Revelation is introduced by seven covering letters, addressed to seven churches in the province of Asia. The author, John by name, was at the time exiled on the island of Patmos in the Aegean Sea, and reports a series of visions which symbolically portray the triumph of Christ both in His own passion and in the sufferings of His people at the hand of His enemies and theirs. The book was written in the days of the Flavian emperors (AD 69-96) to encourage hard-pressed Christians with the assurance that, notwithstanding the apparent odds against which they had to contend, their victory was not in doubt; Jesus, not Caesar, had been invested by the Almighty with the sovereignty of the world.

Of these twenty seven books, then, we are chiefly concerned at present with the first five, which are cast in narrative form, though the others, and especially the letters of Paul, are important for our purpose in so far as they contain historical allusions or otherwise throw light on the Gospels and Acts.

2. What are the dates of these documents?

The crucifixion of Christ took place, it is generally agreed, about AD 30. According to Luke iii. I, the

activity of John the Baptist, which immediately preceded the commencement of our Lord's public ministry, is dated in 'the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar'. Now, Tiberius became emperor in August, AD 14, and according to the method of computation current in Syria, which Luke would have followed, his fifteenth year commenced in September or October, AD a7.1 The fourth Gospel mentions three Passovers after this time; the third Passover from that date would be the Passover of AD 30, at which it is probable on other grounds that the crucifixion took place. At this time, too, we know from other sources that Pilate was Roman governor of Judaea, Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee, and Caiaphas was Jewish high priest.

The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this. In this country a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100.4 I should be inclined to date the first three Gospels rather earlier: Mark shortly after AD 60, Luke between 60 and 70, and Matthew shortly after 70. One criterion which has special weight with me is the relation which these writings appear to bear to the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. My view of the matter is that Mark and Luke were written before this event, and Matthew not long afterwards.

But even with the later dates, the situation' encouraging from the historian's point of view, for the first three Gospels were written at a time when man, were alive who could remember the things that Jesus said and did, and some at least would still be alive when the fourth Gospel was written. If it could be determined that the writers of the Gospels used sources of information belonging to an earlier date, then the situation would be still more encouraging. But a more detailed examination of the Gospels will come in a later chapter.

The date of the writing of Acts will depend on the date we affix to the third Gospel, for both are parts of one historical work, and the second part appears to have been written soon after the first. There are strong arguments for dating the twofold work not long after Paul's two years' detention in Rome (AD 60-62)Some scholars, however, consider that the 'former treatise' to which Acts originally formed the sequel was not our present Gospel of Luke but an earlier draft, sometimes called 'ProtoLuke'; this enables them to date Acts in the sixties, while holding that the Gospel of Luke in its final form was rather later.

The dates of the thirteen Pauline Epistles can be fixed partly by internal and partly by external evidence. The day has gone by when the authenticity of these letters could be denied wholesale. There are some writers today who would reject Ephesians; fewer would reject 2 Thessalonians; more would deny that the Pastoral Epistles (I and ~ Timothy and Titus) came in their present form from the hand of Paul.' I accept them all as Pauline, but the remaining eight letters would by themselves be sufficient for our purpose, and it is from these that the main arguments are drawn in our later chapter on 'The Importance of Paul's Evidence'.

Ten of the letters which bear Paul's name belong to the period before the end of his Roman imprisonment.

These ten, in order of writing, may be dated as follows: Galatians, 48; I and 2 Thessalonians, 50; Philippians, 54; I and 2 Corinthians, 54-56; Romans, 57; Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, c. 60. The Pastoral Epistles, in their diction and historical atmosphere, contain signs of later date than the other Pauline Epistles, but this presents less difficulty to those who believe in a second imprisonment of Paul at Rome about the year 64, which was ended by his execution.' The Pastoral Epistle can then be dated c. 63-64, and the changed state of affairs in the Pauline churches to which they bear witness will have been due in part to the opportunity which Paul's earlier Roman imprisonment afforded to his opponents m these churches.

At any rate, the time elapsing between the evangelic events and the writing of most of the New Testament books was, from the standpoint of historical research, satisfactorily short. For in assessing the trustworthiness of ancient historical writings, one of the most important questions is: How soon after the events took place were they recorded ?

3. What is the evidence for their early existence? |

About the middle of the last century it was confidently asserted by a very influential school of thought that some of the most important books of the New Testament,including the Gospels and the Acts, did not exist before the thirties of the second century AD. This conclusion was the result not so much of historical evidence as of philosophical presuppositions. Even then there was sufficient historical evidence to show how unfounded these theories were, as Lightfoot, Tischendorf, Tregelles and others demonstrated m their writings; but the amount of such evidence available in our own day is so much greater and more conclusive that a firstcentury date for most of the New Testament writings cannot reasonably be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.

The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.

There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the wellknown Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early MSS in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae:, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.

Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some goo years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.

But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! In addition to the two excellent MSS of the fourth century mentioned above, which are the earliest of some thousands known to us, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from 100 to 200 years earlier still. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, the existence of which was made public in 1931, consist of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contained most of the New Testament writings. One of these, containing the four Gospels with Acts, belongs to the first half of the third century; another, containing Paul's letters to churches and the Epistle to the Hebrews, was copied at the beginning of the third century; the third, containing Revelation, belongs to the second half of the same century.

A more recent discovery consists of some papyrus fragments dated by papyrological experts not later than AD 150, published in Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other Early Christian Papyri, by H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat (1935). These fragments contain what has been thought by some to be portions of a fifth Gospel having strong affinities with the canonical four; but much more probable is the view expressed in The Times Literary Supplement for 25 April 1935, 'that these fragments were written by someone who had the four Gospels before him and knew them well; that they did not profess to be an independent Gospel; but were paraphrases of the stories and other matter in the Gospels designed for explanation and instruction, a manual to teach people the Gospel stories'.

Earlier still is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John xviii. 31-33, 37 f, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, dated on palaeographical grounds around AD 130, showing that the latest of the four Gospels, which was written, according to tradition, at Ephesus between AD 90 and 100, was circulating in Egypt within about forty years of its composition (if, as is most likely, this papyrus originated in Egypt, where it was acquired in 1917). It must be regarded as being, by half a century, the earliest extant fragment of the New Testament.

A more recently discovered papyrus manuscript of the same Gospel, while not so early as the Rylands papyrus, is incomparably better preserved; this is the Papyrus Bodmer II, whose discovery was announced by the Bodmer Library of Geneva in 1956; it was written about AD 200, and contains the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John with but one lacuna (of twenty two verses), and considerable portions of the last seven chapters.'

Attestation of another kind is provided by allusions to and quotations from the New Testament books in other early writings. The authors known as the Apostolic Fathers wrote chiefly between AD 90 and 160, and in their works we find evidence for their acquaintance with most of the books of the New Testament. In three works whose date is probably round about AD100-the 'Epistle of Barnabas', written perhaps in Alexandria; the Didache, or 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles', produced somewhere in Syria or Palestine; and the letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about AD 96-- find fairly certain quotations from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and possible quotations from other books of the New Testament. In the letters written by Ignatius, bishop of .Antioch, as he journeyed to his martyrdom in Rome in AD 115, there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and Timothy, Titus, and possible allusions to Mark, Luke, Acts, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. His younger contemporary, Polycarp, in a letter to the Philippians (c. 120) quotes from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, I Peter, and I John. And so we might go on through the writers of the second century, amassing increasing evidence of their familiarity with and recognition of the authority of the New Testament writings. So far as the Apostolic Fathers are concerned, the evidence is collected and weighed in a work called The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, recording the findings of a committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology in 1905.

Nor is it only in orthodox Christian writers that we find evidence of this sort. It is evident from the recently discovered writings of the Gnostic school of Valentinus that before the middle of the second century most of the New Testament books were as well known and as fully venerated in that heretical circle as they were in the Catholic Church.'

The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writer' is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism.' This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two dips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists' errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remain' among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice

To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:

'The interval then between the data of original. composition and the earliest extant evidence become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scripture have come down tous substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.'
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc02.htm

Main page:http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

Who was FF Bruce:
He was born in Elgin, Moray and was educated at the University of Aberdeen, Cambridge University and the University of Vienna. After teaching Greek for several years first at the University of Edinburgh and then at the University of Leeds he became head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield in 1947. In 1959 he moved to the University of Manchester where he became professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis. In his career he wrote some thirty-three books and served as editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and the Palestine Exploration Quarterly. He retired from teaching in 1978.

Bruce was a distinguished scholar on the life and ministry of the Apostle Paul, and wrote several studies the best known of which is Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. He also wrote commentaries on several biblical books including Acts of the Apostles, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Bruce was a dedicated member of the Open Plymouth Brethren, though he did not affirm the dispensationalism usually associated with that movement.

Most of his works were scholarly, but he also penned several mainstream works on the Bible that were quite popular. He viewed the New Testament as historically reliable and that the truth claims of Christianity hinged on its being so. To Bruce this did not mean that the Bible was always precise, and this lack of precision could lead to considerable confusion. However, he believed that the passages that were still open to debate were ones that had no substantial bearing on Christian theology and thinking.

He was honoured with two scholarly works by his colleagues and former students, one to mark his sixtieth and the other to mark his seventieth birthday. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy, and served as President of the Society for Old Testament Study, and also as President of the Society for New Testament Study. He is one of a handful of scholars thus recognised by his peers in both fields.

Here is another interesting article:

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

Author2 Date
Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies
Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%

As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the first century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts.
Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first century document.
Below is a chart with some of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts compared to when they were originally penned. Compare these time spans with the next closest which is Homer's Iliad where the closest copy from the original is 500 years later. Undoubtedly, that period of time allows for more textual corruption in its transmission. How much less so for the New Testament documents?

Important
Manuscript
Papyri Contents Date
Original Written
MSS
Date Approx.
Time Span Location
p52
(John Rylands
Fragment)3 John 18:31-33,37-38 circa
96 A.D. circa
125
A.D. 29 yrs John Rylands Library, Manchester, England
P46
(Chester Beatty Papyrus) Rom. 5:17-6:3,5-14; 8:15-25, 27-35, 37-9:32; 10:1-11, 22, 24-33, 35-14:8,9-15:9, 11-33; 16:1-23, 25-27; Heb.; 1 & 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1,9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28 50's-70's circa
200
A.D. Approx.
150 yrs Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin & Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan library
P66
(Bodmer Papyrus) John 1:1-6:11,35-14:26; fragment of 14:29-21:9 70's
circa
200
A.D. Approx.
130 yrs Cologne, Geneva
P67 Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, 25-28 circa
200
A.D. Approx.
130 yrs Barcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc.1

If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.

______________________
1. Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001) p. 256.
2. This chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.
3."Deissmann was convinced that p52 was written well within the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-38) and perhaps even during the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117)" (Footnote #2 found on pg. 39 of The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger, 2nd Ed. 1968, Oxford University Press, NY, NY). Bruce Metzger has authored more than 50 books. He holds two Masters Degrees, a Ph.D. and has been awarded several honorary doctorates. "He is past president of the Society of Biblical Literature, the International Society fo New Testament Studies, an the North American Patristic Society." -- From, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, Zondervan Publishers, 1998, Grand Rapids, MI: pg. 57.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

Jewish sources:
the Talmud (collected between 200 and 500 AD, using much older docs):
The Talmud speaks comparatively little of Jesus. It prefers to give copious instructions as to how to approach "those who believe in Jesus the Nazarene" -- this is the general interpretation of the word Min, which is taken to be an abbreviation of Ma'aminei Jeshûa ha-Notsri. The Talmud speaks of how "the Nazarene Yeshu" performed miracles and deceived the people; he blasphemed the learned who expounded the Torah in the manner of the Pharisees; he had five disciples;41 he said that he had come to destroy the Law, not to fulfil it;42 he was crucified on the eve of the Passover as an inciter of national unrest;43 his disciples healed the sick in his name.44 The gospels are referred to in the Talmud as avôn gilyon or âven gilyon, both of which mean 'sinful writing'. Some Rabbis were of the opinion that they should be burnt; others felt that the name of God ought to be removed before burning.45 Jewish scholars stress that the Talmud's criticism is not usually levelled at the person of Jesus: He is considered a Jew, and even in discussion of his crucifixion it is owned that he was "near to the kingdom of God".46 The Talmud does not doubt that Jesus and his disciples performed miracles, it merely forbids accepting help from the Minim even when one's life is in danger. From the end of the second Christian century onwards this attitude became more and more deeply entrenched.
==============
although an document from a source opposed to christianity, it is interesting that it does support the belief in the miracles and his claims to be God. It is also interesting that these Jewish sources do not doubt his existence.
==================

http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/alex_graffito.htm

shows a caricature of christian worship from 1st century Rome....it acknowledges that Christians believe in the divinity of christ, and in his resurrection.
Comments
- As usual, excellant answer, but you know he has already made up his mind. But I thoroughly enjoyed receiving this knowledge. Thank-you, can't rate you but will come back and rate you when I am allowed. <:))))<><
  
  Report
  
  by sleeppro on April 8th, 2007
- +pts Apparently there are more driveby downratings going on.
  
  Report
  
  by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on September 16th, 2007
- yeah, I notice. I have no doubt that they even read what I wrote (too long for them and too many big words, perhaps). If they did, they might learn something instead of just regurgitating bits of information they heard from the Da Vinci Code movie or on ads for the history channel.
  
  Report
  
  by singwell-is off researching a lot on October 27th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
3 comments | Post one | Permalink
by JORDZ on April 1st, 2007
God is not real. God keeps it real.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Mister Sister on April 1st, 2007
Yes! And His name is with a capital "G"
Comments
- agreed!
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on April 8th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink