Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

Why is all the historical proof for Jesus' life, crucifixion and resurrection obvious and proven, and yet people don't believe?

Report as

There is no historical evidence for Jesus aside from the bible, which is not a historical text. The bible is a fictional book for the most part. The fact is, if there was a man named Jesus that performed miracles like raising the dead and curing the blind, there would be many other sources confirming it. There were at least 21 well known historians living around the time and place where/when Jesus was said to be living. Not a single one of them wrote anything about such a person.

Helpful (10) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (6)
Report as
be honest,you never have ever read the Bible nor have you ever finished a book that would ever prove your story, there is plenty of proof of the existence and life of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,read the last chapter of the book of John saying if all the things Jesus did, the books in the world couldn't contain all the healings raising the dead feeding of thousands etc.Read on
Report as
Yes yes adolf, read the bible to prove that the bible is true. I love circular logic
Report as
I have a degree in judeo-Christian theology. I think that qualifies me to speak on matters of a biblical nature.
Report as
I remember reading that Justin Martyr commented on that point in reading one of their writings, and said "I cannot understand why he never mentions him" (Jesus). I think it was Phylo, but the comment indicated the historian was from Nazareth, and Phylo was of Alexandria.
Report as
I hate to point this out to you, Mr judeo-Christian theology degree, but no serious historian or Biblical scholar doubts the existence of Jesus. Even Bart Ehrman, an extremely highly regarded Biblical scholar specializing in manuscript evidence who happens to be an atheist and argues vehemently against Christianity, openly points out that the existence of a first century Palestinian Jew named Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and birthed a following who claimed him as a messiah and believed in His resurrection is an unquestioned fact among scholars. The argument that Jesus never existed is a popular secular myth with no foundation.

What IS debated is whether this Jesus actually did miracles, rose from the dead, and is the son of god. His existence is unquestioned; his divinity is not.

And as a sidenote... theology is the study thought and belief pertaining to god ('theos' meaning god, 'logos' meaning word or principle). It is not the study of historical scholarship or even the study of Biblical exegesis.

...and that's from one who holds a high level graduate degree in divinity, which encompasses all three.
Report as
TEH, it is actually the point that there were most likely about 4-5 Yeshuah-bin-Yosheph's in and around Jerusalem at that time and so yes it is possible that Yeshuah did exist, but on a probable note, no he did not
Report as
Add a comment...

What proof, other than the Bible, is there?

Many people will not simply believe something they are told, it's one of the benefits of human intelligence. Without some kind of sight or direct observation many people are not willing to accept an idea that seems questionable to them.

And simply pointing to 'the world around you' is not necessarily evidence, either, as other faiths have justifications for the same thing.

Helpful (6) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ. He appeared to some Native Americans right after His resurrection and showed himself to them and established his gospel to them. These people were finally destroyed but they left a record of their civilization
Report as
But it's still a book. Is there physical evidence of their existence? Artwork, traditional items, anything?
Report as
Add a comment...

I think you will find many who disagree with the expression "obvious and proven," including myself. The problem is proof. It may be enough for you, but not enough for others..

Helpful (8) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

If it was historically proven all rational people would believe it.

I can't speak for the irrational people who think that The Holocaust didn't happen, that the CIA murdered JFK, or that the US government was behind 9/11.

Helpful (6) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
Sometimes exceptions happen ;)
Report as
Sometimes they do, Silver.
BTW did you know that you're a day older than me? I was born on April 6.
Report as
Add a comment...

Spiritual blinders. Pray to have them removed and the Holy Spirit convict them.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
Convict them?
Report as
Yes. Noone can come unless the Spirit calls them. The Holy Spirit convicts the sinner to come to Jesus?
Report as
Do you mean -convince-?
Report as
No He convicts sinners.
He convinces Christians of righteousness
Report as
Oh. That's very exclusive. If the Holy Spirit wants to convict them, I wonder why folks bother converting.
Report as
Add a comment...

Sorry, Pablo. Jesus' existence and exploits are neither obvious nor proven. No facts support Biblical claims, which rely on faith, which itself is a form of hope or wishful thinking. One wonders why no corroborating accounts exist from Jesus lifetime.

Helpful (6) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Because it isn't proven in the least.

There is not one shred of contemporary evidence for Jesus' existence, much less crucifixion or resurrection. Not a peep from the Romans, arguably the best record keepers of the ancient world. Nothing from the Jews, and nothing from the dozens of historians and scholars in and around Jerusalem at the time. Funny, since there is contemporary evidence for Pilate, John the Baptist, and several dozen other claimed Messiah figures of the time- but no Jesus.
Nothing was written about him until decades later by people trying to secure tithes for an offshoot of Essene Judaism.

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
Even that reference in Josephus seems to have been inserted at a much later date.
Report as
Yes- theologians and church officials of the fourth century were aware it was a third century insertion, and even knew the name of the monk who did it.
Report as
It just continues to amaze me what people accept as true.
Report as
I actually think it was Eusebius that inserted it.
Report as
Correct! Funny thing is that people cite it now when all church officials and scholars of the time knew it was fraudulent.
Report as
Add a comment...

In all the research I have done, I have not found one single solitary bit of evidence for the existence of Jesus. He supposedly held a huge concert(sermon) where he passed around a couple of fishes and loaves of bread. Yet NOT one historian thought a gathering of thousands of people was worth recording. That's like no one mentioning or reporting that Martin Luther marched on Washington DC and gave a speech.in front of thousands.

So if you have seen some credible evidence, I'd love to see it

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Theologian Justin martyr records that records of Jesus' birth existed in his day. That is one of many. people only believe what they want.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
Or what they are TAUGHT to believe, disiple?
Report as
Ah, here say. So reliable. Oh wait- it isn't. And if that were the case the church would actually know when he would have been born, yet they don't.
Report as
Strange, There is actually no "record" of Justin Martyrs birth or death (only estimations), so why would he have a record of Jesus birth or death?
Report as
Double here say. Even better.
Report as
Add a comment...

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ. He showed himself to some of the ancient inhabitance there after His resurrection and established His gospel among them. About 400 years they were destroyed but left a record of it. More proof He existed.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (11)
Report as
Book of Mormon is proof that people will believe anything without credible evidence.
Report as
You realize that is nowhere near historical evidence?
Report as
I don't believe it, I know it's true !
Report as
Prove it.
Report as
Just pick up a book and read it. At the end there is a challenge to prove it right.
Report as
Considering how the Book of Mormon was 'delivered' to a 24 yr old white man, it becomes curious how these accounts of native American encounters came about.
Report as
Exactly. And unfortunately that little tale started near my city. They really come out in force trying to convert people around the Hill Cumorrah pageant.


And that "challenge" is ridiculous at best. Sorry, but when you make historical claims you need to back them up with credible historical evidence.
Report as
Laughable. Really, I actually laughed when I read this. Joeseph Smith was a charleton.
Report as
When a claim is made, such as that made Joseph Smith and those who adhere to his teachings, the burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is not for the person on the receiving end to prove the claim is wrong. Given the claim that Abraham Lincoln existed, one could present evidence that he didn't existed because no one alive has seen him. But the proof that he did exist (his writing and speeches are historical record corroborated by various, impartial, and unrelated sources) that makes the claim valid.
Report as
Thez Joseph was 14 years old not 24. I will keep my beliefs. Thank you. Nothing would convince me otherwise.
Report as
The closed minded ness of people who admit they'd never change their beliefs no matter what evidence is shown them always astounds me.
Report as
Add a comment...

There are those who deny the Holocaust. My point, there are some who no amount of evidence will suffice. They will always yell lie! God bless.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (13)
Report as
There is a massive difference between Holocaust denial and stating the fact that there is no contemporary historical evidence Jesus existed.
Report as
Again, it is used to illustrate a point. Even with all the evidence we have for the Holocaust to be true, there are those who say it never happened. All the evidence, is simply dismissed as a lie. Well, if that is the stance that we are going to take, calling each other liars, then there is no point carrying on with the discussion. I can not simply call evolution a lie, because I don't like how it fits into my world view (this is a hypothetical, I actual subscribe to the theory of evolution as a viable means to answering how God did/ does it). Historians, atheist and Christian alike, acknowledge that Jesus was on this earth. They only disagree with who He was/ is. God bless kitten.
Report as
A great number of historians and biblical scholars also doubt he was a real person. All admit there is no contemporary evidence.
Report as
Thanks kitten, I acknowledge that the individuals I spoke of can be found in all facets of life. Again God bless.
Report as
And again, there is a large difference between denial of evidence as Holocaust deniers do and acknowledging there is no proper evidence as in the question of Jesus.
Report as
I believe we are now talking about reality. In the Holocaust deniers' reality, there is no evidence that supports the claim that the Holocaust took place. Does this mean there was no Holocaust, of course not. I believe that to those who deny Jesus, as even being a man who lived on this earth, the lack of evidence is real to them. Does this mean Jesus didn't exist, of course not. Does this mean there is no evidence for either one, of course not. If in ones reality there is no evidence, then no amount of evidence will suffice (for either claim). They must be willing to accept the evidence into their reality, if they do not then it/ He never happened. God bless.
Report as
No, there actually isn't a single shred of contemporary evidence he existed.

Even the historians that accept his existence admit that they are going by accounts that are third- hand from decades after the fact.

If you had any evidence he existed from the time he supposedly lived, you'd be famous.
Report as
One must first be willing to accept that there can be evidence before that individual will be able to acknowledge that evidence. Just as in my example, I am sure your claim is real to you. God bless.
Report as
Oh please. For historical veracity, the claim of existence should be contemporary- as in from the time he supposedly existed. The fact that none of the dozens of historians and scholars in and around the area at the time never mentioned him and neither did the Jews or the Romans makes the claim sketchy to begin with; particularly since over a dozen other claimed Messiahs and figures like John the Baptist WERE. The first mentions of Jesus weren't until decades later by people pushing an offshoot of Essene Judaism. That's not historical high ground.
Report as
I suppose, this is were I am to offer up counter arguments, that you have already dismissed; Evidence that can not exist in your reality. I am not here to judge, I am not even attempting to change your mind. I will let the questioner decide if he/she accepts the evidence. The question was why do people deny Jesus. You argue there is no evidence. I say that people deny the evidence, explaining how the lack of evidence is real to those individuals, and used a historical topic as evidence that this does happen. I acknowledge, to you, there is no evidence. I really don't know what more you are looking for? God bless.
Report as
Well, your offensive comparison to freaking Holocaust denier crazies aside, the point is that this isn't a subjective claim of mine. Even historians who believe Jesus was a real person admit there is no primary evidence of such. Thus, it is not a matter if evidence denial but a matter of whether a person is willing to accept third-hand accounts from decades after the fact as SUFFICIENT evidence.
Report as
As offensive as we find the Holocaust deniers to be, please remember that a followers of Jesus can be offended as well. Just as you see them as being wrong, so do the followers of Jesus see those who deny Him. As for primary sources, feel free to check this out this site:
http://people.usd.edu/~khackeme/guides/primarysources.html
But, with all that aside, there is evidence that supports the claim Jesus lived, at the very least, as a man. You don't have to accept it, but that doesn't mean it is not there. God bless.
Report as
As I was reading your answer to to the question about atheism, I notice your comment to J. Holocaust deniers and deniers of Jesus are not the ones being compared. The ones being compared are the ones believing in the Holocaust and the ones believing in Jesus. We, believers in the Holocaust, are sensitive to those who deny. It was a means for you to understand where a believer in Jesus is coming from, but apparently I have failed in my attempt to create empathy in you. God bless.
Report as
Add a comment...

The best evidence that Jesus even existed is the fact that the story is so full of obvious fabrications, designed to shoe-horn it into old testament prophesy. It can be argued that if Jesus was entirely a fictional character, then he could have been written to fit perfectly. So the story might well be based on a real person.

But it can also be argued that the writers of the bible knew very little of the old testament that the story had to be changed at a later date to make sure it was consistent. It isn't even certain that the old testament was the same back then.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

We live in a fallen world and "the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel" (2 Corinthians 4:4). As history moves forward, many will move further away from sound biblical doctrine. "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons" (1Timothy 4:1). There are plenty of false teachers to keep the lost blinded and aid them in their flight from God (Matthew 24:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:3; 1 John 4:1). The sad truth is that most people do not see the Bible as the absolute authority anymore. As God's Word continues to be marginalized, unbelief will continue to increase around the world.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (6)
Report as
People don't see the bible as an absolute authority any more because we have advanced enough as a society and are educated enough as a whole to see its obvious flaws.
Report as
So repetitive to read yet another condescending diatribe of how unbelievers don't get the message. We get it alright, but something I refer to as the expansion of human intelligence, makes that message less and less plausible.
Report as
Thank you, Strawberry. You and I know He lived and lives, and God speaks to us through His word. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God. Same as it always has been, isn't it?
Report as
It's foolishness because it's foolishness. It's not even an original story- older mythologies of the region had that tale first.
Report as
Nonsense. Not only have many of us had close brushes with death and never appealed to any gods( I myself nearly died in a car accident many years ago), but the atheists in our military would be more than somewhat offended by that insinuation. There are even some here on Ask who have served and will tell you it's nonsense.

That phrase is one theists invented to make themselves feel better about their beliefs.
It's also obvious you used it because you have no argument and nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.
Report as
Amen, Strawberrygirl !
Report as
Add a comment...
wickedpissah

You need to look up the words "obvious" and "proven."
Apparently, you're not quite clear what those two words mean.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Because people are stupid

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
How very insightful.
Report as
Add a comment...

Because they are blinded to the truth.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

The time of Jesus Christ's supposed advent and the subsequent century are among the best documented times in history by reputable scholars of Rome and Judea. And at this time there is supposedly a man born of a virgin who walked on water, healed lepers, fed multitudes with veritable table scraps, changed water into wine, and even raised a man from the dead. His teachings supposedly spread like wild-fire and attracted throngs of people from hither and yon to the extent that those in power in Judea became so fearful of him that they conspired to have him executed. His death was supposedly accompanied by earthquakes, the blotting out of the sun, the rising of the dead to walk among the living, as well as his own resurrection. Given all of this, you would think that some of the Roman historians of the time would have made some mention of him, his followers, or related events, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Matthew, Mark, and Luke we're all historians. The 3 were all witnesses
Report as
Add a comment...

Well, it's important to recognize that in 70 A.D, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. With being said, we should not be surprised then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus. Sadly, some Christians have removed alot of credibilty for the existence of Jesus by adopting and adding alot of mythical ideas to his story. Also, his simple teachings became lost in the metaphysical fog of Paul's theology. We have absolutely no teaching of Jesus in the Gospels to prove his divinity or the claim that he came to die on the cross to redeem mankind from a mythical Original Sin. So, realistically there is too much evidence showing Jesus the Christ did exist.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

You, sir, ought to learn the meanings of the words "historical", "proof", "obvious" and "proven" as understood in the English language first, before inscribing those words at whim.

Remember that, "history" does not equal designed imposition; solemnity is not "proof"; obscurity is not "obvious" and a lie "proven" through forgery is never credible.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Jesus life and crucifixion are historical fact, it's the immaculate conception , who he really was,and his resurrection that some have a problem with.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches