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.

"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

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.

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!

This is a channeled answer from the 72 Angels of the Tree of Life and we want the people to know that reality exists only in the mind of the individual and each individual's reality is different. What one person perceives as real may not be real to another person and this is why there are so many opinions on the subject of God and Jesus. God does exist and He is the Creator of all there is. Man is created from a spark of the God energy and all men are created equal because all men come from the same source which is that spark of God energy. Jesus was a real man and lived in a world of simplicity and poverty. He had the ability to channel the word of God Most High and he passed down these ideas and words to the common man. The Bible is an account of the history of man but there are many sections in the Bible which are only an allegory and not to be believed literally. The only way an individual can know the truth is by what he feels inside of him and this is where the concept of faith comes in. Faith is the ability to believe a concept without the actual physical proof before one's eyes. The belief in God is an act of faith because there is no real physical proof that God exists even though there are many accounts of people speaking with God. Jesus was a historical figure and is talked about throughout history. When one has faith in the existence of God then he knows that God exists and that he is one with God Most High. Man and God Most High share a common energy and this can only be believed by faith but it is true. The 72 Angels of the Tree of Life are energy bodies who are here to help mankind. We are messengers of God Most High of the Universe and we are doing His work on earth through working with certain people like Carol in Israel who has the ability to channel our energies to help others. We are telling you that God exists and is an all knowing and all loving entity even though some people find it difficult to believe. God created everything that exists and when a person dies his soul passes out of his physical body and continues on its journey to become one again with the God energy. It does not matter if people do not believe that God and Jesus do not exist because they are on a level of development that prevents them from believing. We do not have to have the full consensus of everyone where this is concerned. Those who feel God in their hearts and that the teachings of Jesus are valid can fill themselves with love and continue their spiritual development. People need to know that religion is just a vehicle to bring man closer to God but that God has no religion. Faith and belief in the Almighty are what will being people on earth closer to the love and acceptance of the God energy and one day there will be peace on earth.

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.

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.

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."

If you ever had a doubt, look at a newborn baby and tell me that God is not real.

It is called FAITH! I could go on about the metaphysical, "How do we know anything?". I could get dogmatic like many of the louder Christians do. (No offense, but Christians seem to really like spreading The Word and trying to convert others.) I could fall back on faulty logic and circular reasoning. But in the end, it all boils down to faith. Since everyone else here is on a pulpit though, I may as well add my two cents here. We have no way of proving that they don't exist. We have historical evidence that there was a Jewish carpenter about 2000 years ago, though some of the stories about him may be exaggerated. And if God didn't exist, humanity would have to invent Him (or reasonable equivalent) for our own sanity. Therefore either God and Jesus are real, or they are close enough to real that it makes little/no practical difference unless you use your belief in their existence as a basis for believing in your own superiority.

It was all a conspiracy thought up by the church of England in order to scare people into supporting them (with the whole idea of the evil receiving retribution, going to hell, etc) because essentially it was the church that controlled the country, not the king and i guess people are still naive enough to believe that crap

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

When some look at the sunrise they see a sunrise. When I see a sunrise I see thousands of holies, praising Jah in all her glory. Your reality is different than my reality. There is nothing wrong with this. Truth is so relative, that it's absolute in it's relativity.

Challenge Him, He will dare to reveal Himself. I did and found Him.

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).

There is no scientific proof for a religious belief. There are two realms of truth. One is the truth of sciences like mathematics. In this realm (the truth of science) we have to deal with absolutism. Two plus two is four, this is an absolute truth. In Africa, Australia, or Asia it will be the same, whether some one agrees or not the result of that formula will be the same. If someone does not understand it, the result does not change. The other realm of truth is idealism or ideology. In this area (the truth of idealism) we have to deal with relativism. Idealism means “the belief that your ideals can be achieved, often when this does not seem likely to others”. Every person is an idealist in some situations or area’s of his life. Because the ideals lay in the future we cannot speak about absolutism. Religious ideals are not physical, material and scientific. Philosophy, theology, and even culture can be studied and understood in the context of relativism. What I mean is that: Sciences = Absolutism Idealism = Relativism

There is no tangible proof of God. However, God said we would know He existed by viewing creation; that somewhere inside us we would understand He is. Historical records include the reality of Jesus; that He lived and died. The dispute is over whether or not He rose from the dead.

I know God is real because he talks with me. He tells me what to do, sometimes I don't listen and that generally leads to trouble. (Not his fault mine)

Many people wanted proof, and they got them, barely alive, plus my dad knows a few people who had went to heaven AND HELL and came back, heres the web site http://www.spiritlessons.com/ though it looks strange, look at every single video, they are all free heres wat my dad said: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7): "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Here are some men and women who mocked God: ------------------------------------------------ JOHN LENNON: John Lennon during his interview with an American Magazine, said: "Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, Today we are more famous than Him" (1966). Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times. ----------------------------------------------- TANCREDO NEVES (President of Brazil): During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency. Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died. ----------------------------------------------- CAZUZA (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet): During a show in Canecão ( Rio de Janeiro ), whilst smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said:"God, that's for you." He died at the age of 32 of AIDS in a horrible manner. ------------------------------------------------ THE MAN WHO BUILT TITANIC: After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be. With an ironic tone he said: "Not even God can sink it" The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic. ------------------------------------------------ MARILYN MONROE: She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show. He is a preacher and Evangelist and the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her. After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said: "I don't need your Jesus" A week later, she was found dead in her apartment. ------------------------------------------------ BON SCOTT: The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang: "Don't stop me, I'm going down all the way, wow the highway to hell". On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his vomit. ------------------------------------------------ CAMPINAS/SP IN 2005 In Campinas, Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend.The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter - holding her hand, who was already seated in the car: "MY DAUGHTER, GO WITH GOD AND MAY HE PROTECT YOU", She responded: ONLY IF HE (GOD) TRAVELS IN THE BOOT(trunk), CAUSE INSIDE HERE IT'S ALREADY FULL" Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the boot was intact. The police said there was no way the boot could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the boot was a crate of eggs, none was broken. ---------------------------------------------------------- Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other name that was given so much authority as the name of Jesus. Many have died, but only Jesus died and rose again, and he is still alive. JESUS!!! P.S: If it was a joke, you could have sent it to everyone. So are you going to have courage to send this?. I have done my part, Jesus said "If you get embarrassed about me, I will also get embarrassed about you before my father." What benefit does it have, if a man gains the whole world but loses his soul? What can man give in exchange of his soul? (Mathew 16:26) May the Lord bless and keep you...May His face shine upon you... Numbers 6:24-26

there is no way of knowing. It's better to doubt than to belive blindly

It was proven he didn't on a great episode of the simpsons...lol.

I believe he is real. I don't need to prove it. It isn't my goal to convince you that he exists, you either believe he does, or you don't.

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.

Tom Cruise could scientifically proove it. I would'nt be sitting close to him on any sofas though.

Simplely...you don't. Nobody will ever no for sure. It will always remain a mystery.

Faith

Let me ask you this: do you believe that Julisu Caesar was real. The answer is: yes. Why: because he is in history. But do you know that the earliest manuscripts we have of Caesar's Gallic War are from the Middle Ages, over 1000 years after the originals. Jesus was a near contemporary (give or take 100 years). The manuscripts telling us of his existence are within 30 years of the originals and from then on there is so much manuscript evidence that it dwarfs that of any other historical personage. SO, if we can establish that, then Jesus is real. Did he say the things he did about himself? Yes, he did. Once more, the manuscript evidence, from an era when witnesses to the events were still alive and could have contradicted it (but didn't) and corroborating evidence from contemporary/near-contemporary non-Belivers (Mar-Serapion, Jewish docs- not Josephus!, Tacitus, graffiti in Pompeii etc etc etc) we have to believe that what we have in the NT is an accurate recording of what he said and did. Jesus said :"I and the Father are one." He knew God was real...so God is.

This to me sounds very stupid in my opinion but the only way you can know that they exsist is if you believe in them. Or you can wait till scientists have eventually found jesus's body or DNA or noahs ark - or atlantis or anything in the bible that could be found!

one word : "faith"

I maintain a cautious skepticism about this. I'm drawn between my need to believe in something that all humans have and my sense of general logic. I'm not going to tell you that God is real, because I really don't know. But I'll say that Jesus was real, but I don't believe in him.

He's all around. Everything living thing was created by Him.

They aren't real... Before you down rate my answer just here me out!!! I think that God and Jesus are just a fairy tale made up so that people weren't afraid to die. Becacuse back then people beleived in all sorts of weird things(Like Dragons and witches and so on.._), but the only reason why we know they aren't true is because scientists have discovered that it is false. The only reason why we don't know if there is a god is because no scientist has ever been able to die then come back to life and say that there was. Also if there was a god, why would the bible say that all gays goto hell? They aren't doing anything wrong, they just love one another and don't find themselves attracted to the same sex...its not like their killing innocent people.. Also I have heard that in different versions of the bible it has once said that all blacks goto hell, but then they changed it. (not surprizeing) If there was a god why would he sit back and watch people kill and rape each other? Personally it just doesn't make sense And also the whole Adam and Eve thing concerns me. They are drawn as two beautiful poeple...but in reality if there was an adam and eve....they would be cavemen. Science has also shown that the first living things on earth were tiny little organisms, that evolved into fish, wish evolved into little lizard things and so on... And i think cavemen looked alot like monkeys so they most likely evolved from monkeys...and we evolved from cave men...if all other animals evolved from one another...why would humans be ANY DIFFERENT? and ALSO if Adam and Eve existsed when the earth was first created THEN WHY ARE THERE NO REALLY OLD HUMAN FOSSILS FROM BACK THEN OR EVEN WHEN DINOSAURS CAME AROUND!??!?! WHY? BECAUSE GOD DOES NOT EXIST THATS WHY!!!!!! mmk but anyways im pretty sure there is no god..but i do think that SOMTHING happens when you die...well at least i like to think that... its kind of depressing to beleive that when you die your sole no longer exists so you don't have a mind or anything your just gone... Thats why I'd like to think that wehn you die your just in a coma forever with a bunch of whacked out sh*t like in monkeybone!!! for those of you how are still stuck on the whole "God does exist" thing..answer me this if god created earth, then what hell created god? think long and hard because I'm pretty sure your never going to find an asnwer...

To find out if Jesus and God are real just turn on radio station (in the LA,CA area) it is KFI-AM 640 from 12-3pm M-F and you will hear "GOD" herself talking. As for Jesus I guess she also thinks of herself as him too.

You don't, It's up to you yourself to believe whether or not god and jesus exist. It's faith and belief.

You don't. Nobody does. This issue is about faith. The difference between faith and knowing is that one needs proof and the other doesn't. It's in your heart.

Ever read 'Lord of the Flies'?

You can be reasonably confident that Jesus was an historical figure who lived, preached and died in Palestine around 2000 years ago. You can't be sure of everything he said because he never wrote down a thing himself (not that has been recorded). All we have is what other people said he said. You can't KNOW God is real, any more than you can't know he isn't. Or any more than you can know any of the thousands upon thousands of recognised gods are or are not real. You can believe. You can hope. You can assume. but you can't know.

Like bbumgarner said " you can't know he's real, u just gotta beleve

It's called FAITH, if you haven't got it, my hope is you can find it!

You can't. It's true that most historians and whatnot believe that Jesus of Nazareth DID exist, but that doesn't prove anything about what people believe about him. You either choose to, or you don't. No one is ever going to prove to you he's the Messiah. It just won't happen.

According to my religion and my beliefs, yes he is.

i believe so but it is impossible to prove.

"God" resides in all of us. It's our Spirit.

What does it mean for something to be "real"?

Yes, he is, though many will say they disagree...however, I believe that Jesus proves he is.

Well, rate me down if you will, but i dont think so. I dont really think about all that. We're here livin this life, what all the to do about the next one? Either it will be there or it wont.

Yes - because I feel it in my heart

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.

Yes he is what made this earth. We couldn't possibly have so much order in life if he wasn't. Everything working together- animals, plants- all of that couldn't have come from nothing. He is very real.

Yes! And His name is with a capital "G"

No body knows. Maybe.

God is not real. God keeps it real.

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.

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.

He's all around. Everything that has life exemplifies His name.

its called Faith.

If you mean our Abba Father in Heaven, then YES He is real. I can't wait to meet Him one day. In His grasp, <:))))<>< "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:21 Edit: Again, more trolls not liking my opinion or my beliefs. Boy is my prayer list growing, or probably, just one troll-but either way God knows who you are.

I am pretty sure that he isn't. It just doesn't seem possible to me. But we'll never know for sure until our death. I he isn't real, then we won't know it, unfortunately, because we'll be totally dead and spirit-less.

I have no doubt in my heart and mind that he isn't. If you have faith then you believe, and if you believe then you have faith. God will always be real, i know you can't see him, but he shows himself in many ways.

I believe in a Supreme Creator.

No one can answer this. Everyone has there own beliefs. Christians from the same denomination have different beliefs, let alone every other religion. It is really something for you to decide.

He is in my religion. Then again, I'm Jewish. Considering what's happened to us Jews in the past 2500 years or so, I'd say he wasn't really there. ...Just my opinion.

Yes.

You can't prove that God is real. But you can't prove that he isn't real. So, it's a matter of whether or not he feels real to you.

i have always wondered that ..so im still going to belive in science.

Jesus was a real historical figure in history, just like Churchill or Elvis. He is mentioned in external Christian sources such as Josephus and Tacitus. One of His big claimes was that He claimed to be God in the flesh. Is He who He claimed to be? The best place in my experience is to read a gospel, (the gospel of Mark is a good place to start). People say it is biased, but, well, everything is biased and the question is whether the content is true or not. Have a read yourself, think about it and draw your own conclusions

I only believe in..... Robots....

If you're asking this question then you don't have enough faith. Faith, really, is anyone's only proof that God, Jesus' divity, or anything of that nature exists. That's from a religious standpoint. If you think about it scientifically. God is simply an abstract construction of the human psyche. And since he is just in the mind, God cannot exists in real life. However, God, in the realm of science, is also a metaphor for taht which created all existance starting at the point known as Time zero (at the very beggining of time). Unlike what some people think, scientists DO believe in God as there is still no scientific explanation why 'exitence' itself exists so they have no choice but to believe in an omnipotent being. Basically it all boils down to what YOU believe.

I won't waste my time trying to convince anyone that God does or does not exist. I can only tell you that based on my own life and experiences that I came to a place where I was compelled to suspend my disbelief that something more powerful and far wiser than myself exists in the universe. I believe because I can no longer disbelieve. My evidence was not meant for anyone but me.

Depends on what you believe.

You have written this under religion in general, and will get a variety of answers, some saying that God is real, and some saying He is not. You will probably come out none the wiser. Now, had you asked this under Christianity, I could have given you my beliefs, without being set upon by the ravenous wolves (lol). If you would like my answer, specifically as regards to my Christian beliefs, just tell me and I will do so. (BTW I say yes, in short)

Yes in my heart I do

It depends on your definition of God, but it seems to me that the more precisely you define it (or describe it, or attribute qualities to it), the less likely it will be that your definition corresponds to reality. And the more likely that it is just a reflection of your own wishful thinking. The most popular conceptions of God, with their distinctly human qualities, are almost certainly man-made. Historically, many conceptions of God have existed. What are the chances that any particular one of them happened to get it right? The definition that seems most believable to me is God = reality (but I choose just to call it reality).

No, he/she/it's a fairy tale.

Yes, He is. =)

i think he is as real as you want him to be cause if you don't believe than he just cant exist.

Yes, because of my beliefs and great faith I feel his presence around me, and he has always answered me in our own special way of communicating. He has never failed me, not even once!

YES :-) Your here right? :-)

Only in the pigment of your imagination.

Your here arent you? :-)

look all around you. If they were not real we would not be here

You don't know, nobody knows, all theologists have to go on is religous text and doctrine. Many of the miracles declared in the bible can be explained by science. There is not hard evidence that proves that Jesus was ressurected from the grave, and their is no hard evidence that proves God's existance. You can quote me babble verse after babble verse, but that is all you can do, you cannot make a statement of fact out of a book that was written second hand with no word for word recording or verbatim equipment by illiterate peoples of the time.

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.

If He lives in your heart as your Lord and Personal Saviour. I hope that this helps. -In the service of the Master. Thank you and God bless you!

Ever heard of CS Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel. These are what you call christian apologists. The term "apologetic" comes from the Greek word apologia, which means in defense of; therefore a person involved in Christian or Bible Apologetics is a defender of Christianity An influential Catholic apologist was Saint Thomas Aquinas, who presented five arguments for God's existence in the Summa Theologica. Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (March 15, 1851, Glasgow –April 20, 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist. His discoveries have verified the existance of geographical sites that skeptics said did not exist. Therefore verifying historically the bible is accurate. If you are willing to take the time, like in a court of law, and examine the evidence it would be so overwhelming that you would have to agree with that evidence. The facts, not solely faith determine that God is True. It is not "I believe" and that makes God Real. God is real and that is why I believe. Take the time to search for the truth and make a decision based on facts not on ignorance. The claims that Jesus made are unlike any that any other man has made. He not only made them, but evidentially proved that what he said was true. http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html A QUESTION OF HISTORY After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history. Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven. From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries. The following is a compilation of biographies of archaeologists and associated scholars, who through their research, have become convinced of the veracity of the ancient documents collectively called the Bible. Among them are former critics -- William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, George Ernest Wright, Sir William Ramsay, A. H. Sayce, and Dr. Clifford Wilson – whose views changed as they examined, first-hand, the archaeological evidence. http://www.tektonics.org/testimony/archmony.htm

How do you know? Tell us!

Yes. Believe in him and he will show you just how real he is.

I think he is.

The whole point of Christianity is so that we can have enough faith to beleive that God is real and Jesus is our savior, without it being blatantly apparent. There is no way you could know for sure until after you die... but you have to just believe.

A better question is: Do you BELIEVE he's real?

Nah all religions are fairy tales. No proof. Religion is a way Governments worldwide brainwash retards so there is law & order. Darwins theory is a lot more real. And if your enemy slaps you in the face kick his fucking head in. If a Married Woman offers herself to you fuck the Bitch and enjoy it. Being Gay is no Sin. And Abortion is not Murder. God is a lie.

Yes. -In the Master's service. Thank you and God bless you!

Lots of people are saying yes, but what proof is there? God might exist, I need proof.

YES CAUSE HE IS

True? Well, what god? Allah? Ahura Mazda? Shiva? Kali? Krishna? There are hundreds of thousands of gods. An awful lot of these gods' followers claim theirs is 'the one true god'. So, I guess it depends on what you believe. Personally I think none of them are 'real'...

no, he stole my riding mower

Yes, probably. But most of what you hear about god is false.

Yes

To some of us.

I don't believe that God is an invisible incredibly smart being existing in some other dimension. I think of God not as a being, but as "beingness", the life force that created and sustains us.