Evidence for God from Science

There is so much evidence for Jesus both from a historical and contemporary perspective. There is not only evidence for his existence, but his resurrection, near death experiences where people have encountered him including atheists, the way he fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, the Shroud of Turin, the Bible Codes, and testimonies of God's miraculous power touching lives spiritually, physically, financially and emotionally.

Here is a website that contains some very compelling evidence that Jesus is fully God in a relatively brief easy to read form:

http://www.jesusevidence.com

rico7 wrote:There is so much evidence for Jesus both from a historical and contemporary perspective. There is not only evidence for his existence, but his resurrection, near death experiences where people have encountered him including atheists, the way he fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, the Shroud of Turin, the Bible Codes, and testimonies of God's miraculous power touching lives spiritually, physically, financially and emotionally.

Here is a website that contains some very compelling evidence that Jesus is fully God in a relatively brief easy to read form:

http://www.jesusevidence.com

Not that we mind a Site giving Testimony for Jesus we would ask if you could involve yourself in the Dialogue instead of just promoting your site. You have posted on 2 other threads (that I have seen) promoting the Site.

Thanks

bizzt wrote: Not that we mind a Site giving Testimony for Jesus we would ask if you could involve yourself in the Dialogue instead of just promoting your site. You have posted on 2 other threads (that I have seen) promoting the Site.

Thanks

I am sorry I haven't been contributing more so far, but would really like to as this is an exceptional forum. What would be interesting is hearing testimonies of how people came to Jesus. Did they need some sort of evidence or did they just experience that inner knowing with the release of faith through the Holy Spirit's touch on a person's heart?

rico7 wrote:

bizzt wrote: Not that we mind a Site giving Testimony for Jesus we would ask if you could involve yourself in the Dialogue instead of just promoting your site. You have posted on 2 other threads (that I have seen) promoting the Site.

Thanks

I am sorry I haven't been contributing more so far, but would really like to as this is an exceptional forum. What would be interesting is hearing testimonies of how people came to Jesus. Did they need some sort of evidence or did they just experience that inner knowing with the release of faith through the Holy Spirit's touch on a person's heart?

No problem about the Contribution. It was the promotion of your site in all 3 posts that you did. Now that I know you are not spamming the board it is all better http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=589

There are 6 pages of Testimonies

Hi there,

I was pondering the other day about the existence of Jesus as I was browsing through some atheist websites (as you do lol). I noticed one website that was proclaiming Jesus was a myth. They were running a competition for anyone who could show evidence for Jesus from within 60 years or so of Jesus' death and resurrection. I can't remember what the prize was sorry.

It got me thinking though and one thought popped into my head that I don't think I've ever read or heard about before in my atheist witnessing travels. If Jesus were a myth, wouldn't there be a plethora of evidence dating back to within 60 years after Jesus' death stating quite loudly, "JESUS IS A MYTH, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY JESUS, I NEVER SAW HIM, JESUS IS A MYTH!!!" ?

Would this be good evidence that yes it's very very likely then that the Jesus mentioned in the New Testament was actually a real walking, talking, singing human being? Much more likely than Him being a myth surely? I could elaborate on this but I think if this is a good argument than those that know more about the issue might want to respond to my idea here.

Cheers
Jad

ps. This is my first post. I hope I made it one worth reading.

Welcome Jad. Yes, the argument cuts both ways, doesn't it?

Anyway, the Gospels are contemporary literature from Jesus time, but always seem to get discounted as evidence since the dating claims are about 70-200 years after His life. There is at least some credible speculation about early manuscripts dating to 50 AD, but it's hard to know for sure.

Jad wrote:Hi there,

I was pondering the other day about the existence of Jesus as I was browsing through some atheist websites (as you do lol). I noticed one website that was proclaiming Jesus was a myth. They were running a competition for anyone who could show evidence for Jesus from within 60 years or so of Jesus' death and resurrection. I can't remember what the prize was sorry.

It got me thinking though and one thought popped into my head that I don't think I've ever read or heard about before in my atheist witnessing travels. If Jesus were a myth, wouldn't there be a plethora of evidence dating back to within 60 years after Jesus' death stating quite loudly, "JESUS IS A MYTH, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY JESUS, I NEVER SAW HIM, JESUS IS A MYTH!!!" ?

Would this be good evidence that yes it's very very likely then that the Jesus mentioned in the New Testament was actually a real walking, talking, singing human being? Much more likely than Him being a myth surely? I could elaborate on this but I think if this is a good argument than those that know more about the issue might want to respond to my idea here.

Cheers
Jad

ps. This is my first post. I hope I made it one worth reading.

It is much easier to remain ignorant to the facts and details and deny the existence of something, then it is to bother examining the evidence for something one does not want to believe anyway. Only with those who deny Jesus' existence there is the problem you highlight. I once heard a story about students in a philosophy class all being given a written test. The story, whether or not actually true, went something like this:

• It was test time for students in a philosophy class. When all the students were seated, the professor of the class grabbed a chair and placed it at the front of the classroom. He then said to the students, "Now, I want you all to write an essay about why this chair does not exist." After handing multiple sheets of paper to the students the professor sat down behind his desk and the students began writing out their arguments. Many spent over hour writing out their response about how the chair at the front of the classroom did not exist. Some two even three hours. However, one student got up after only a few seconds and handed in his paper at the front. When the class re-grouped the following week the professor handed back the papers with the results marked on them. Many of the student barely passed, while others were failed. No one appeared to have scored well with their responses, that is, all except one student. The student who handed his paper in after only a few seconds received top marks. When the professor asked this particular student to read out his response only two words were read: "What chair?"

You see, to even begin talking about the chair is to concede its existence. You point out very well that we should expect there to be a record of confusion over Jesus' existence from those who disagreed with the Apostles and Christians. Funnily enough we instead have written in the Talmud by opponents:

• On the eve of Passover Jesus was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover. Ulla retorted: Do you suppose he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, "Neither shall thou spare nor shall thou conceal him?" With Jesus, however, it was different, for he was connected with the government. (Sanhedrin 43a)

Opponents at the time did not say, "What Jesus?", "I have no idea of this Jesus which Christians proclaim", "Which Jesus hung on the eve of Passover?", "I have never heard of the person you speak of!" No. Instead the responses concede Jesus' existence, even that such a person performed what appeared miraculous (sorcery). The responses given concede Jesus' existence in talking about him, saying he practiced sorcery and was put to death.

Many who wish Jesus to be a myth are willingly ignorant to the historical writings which talk of Jesus. They do not want to even bother looking at them, for if they did, then they would then have to deal with this person in history which Christianity hails as God. Such a thought is no doubt repulsive to such people call Jesus a myth. If Jesus were really a myth however, then we should expect historical evidence in favour of such claims. Writings like you say, "JESUS IS A MYTH, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY JESUS, I NEVER SAW HIM, JESUS IS A MYTH!!!" Yet, Jesus' existence as someone who performed the miraculous, albeit attributed to sorcery, is instead at least one particular response from opponents.

Hello August and Kurieuo!

So sorry for the very late response. I forgot which website I posted this message on and I've only just found it now, 2 months later lol.
Anyway I firstly want to thank both you guys for responding to my post with what you did. Kurieuo your detailed response and amusing story was great. I loved all of it!

Now during the last couple of months I've actually been asked by the owner of a well known atheist website to post an article defending my faith. He does not want to edit it or change it in any way, he is simply interested in what I have to say and thinks all his readers should hear it as well. We get along quite well and he offered me this wonderful opportunity because he thinks I'm a lot less loony than most of the Christians he has encountered on his website lol. So I've been frantically trying to put something together for him to post online.

So if you or anyone else reading this know of some great arguments please do share. This website has been of great help to me already and again I thank you so much for it! It's so great in fact that I thought why not impose again hehe.
The article he wants me to write he made suggestions of topics like 'why Christianity must continue' and 'why it's good for society'. These are quite broad spectrum's to discuss in fine detail so what I've done is broken it up into sections like 'Does God exist?', 'Morals', 'Faith', 'So why Jesus and not Allah or something other than the God of the Bible?' and 'The Problem of Evil'.

I figured being a blog I will get responses and plenty of them so to categorize it into sections I thought might be easier for those wanting to respond. What to put in these sections is still in the working hehe but again if you think you can help out I won't say no. Any suggestions for that matter, even a different approach to the whole article or even other or more subjects to discuss is more than welcome. I want to share this article to atheistic minded people in a way they can understand and I want to do it right.

Anyway thanks again for your time and patience

God Bless
Jad

Hi Jad,

I think apologetics for the reasoning behind why we believe are a great study. I think these things help to increase our faith. But most significantly: "Faith comes by Hearing, And Hearing by the Word of God."

But it is doubtful that anyone would be convinced by them. It is very unlikely that you can logic a person into believing the Gospel.

I think the most compelling arguments are our testimony and our witness along with scripture.

There is power in the word of God - even to the person who does not believe in God. If you are led by the Holy Spirit and share the Gospel message and use scripture to do it, the Holy Spirit will touch the person you are sharnig with. I believe that if they are an honest seeker of truth, then they will receive the Gospel, even though they may still have some logical doubts. Then and only then will the Logical statments help their faith grow.

But many great arguments are available in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

meeehhh just tell them to read Lee Strobels Case For Faith, for a Creator, for Christ. . Actually those 3 Books might be a great place for you to start! At least I have found them quite helpful

God Bless

Hi YLTYLT,

Thanks for the replies guys! I understand and agree with most of what you are saying. I think the only person who can convince anyone that Jesus Christ is Lord, is Jesus Christ himself. Therefore my job here is to go out into all the world and preach the gospel. I'm pretty sure it doesn't say to go out there and convince the gospel hehe. But there are many ways of sharing the gospel and it all depends on the person you are witnessing too at the time I think. Or at least it plays a part. Reasoning, rationality, logic and all that are just one of many ways that some people can use to perhaps open the door to Christianity. I believe the atheist searching for truth beyond himself can be shown this door. My new atheist friend I believe is that very kind of person.

I think the most compelling arguments are our testimony and our witness along with scripture

I think in order to get to these compelling arguments we first have to determine what truth is and if scripture holds up to it. The atheist especially needs to know this before he can even enter a conversation with you when you start using scripture.

many great arguments are available in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

I thought this myself but he has read the book and found it full of holes. Having read it myself and just recently listening to the audio book version of it I found that yes in some parts Lewis's writing seems more convincing for the already converted Christians than it does the average atheist. It is still very good though and I think my friend here ignored or simply didn't understand a few parts that perhaps were crucial to some of Lewis's arguments.
Also bizzt I went through Lee Strobel's Case for Christ a while ago and didn't find it all that convincing myself even as a Christian so I couldn't in my right mind share this book with him hehe. Thanks though for your thoughts and input. Muchly appreciated.

Jad wrote:I think in order to get to these compelling arguments we first have to determine what truth is and if scripture holds up to it. The atheist especially needs to know this before he can even enter a conversation with you when you start using scripture.

I understand why someone might think this way. But I have seen more atheists converted to Christianity by scripture than by logic. But if you if you feel Logic is necessary, stick to the logic of "Did the resurrection occur or not?". If it did then it gives credibility to everything else in the Bible. If it did not then Christianity is a lie.

That is really the only thing that you have to convince them.

But I really think that if you will share your testimony and tell how your life has changed (and be real about it) then use:
Romans 1:16
1 Cor 15:1-4
Romans 3:23
Romans 6:23
Romans 10:13
Eph 2:8-9
And then explain what these verses meant to you.

You see, "we are saved by grace through faith..." Eph 2:8, but faith comes by hearing the word of God.(Rom 10:17)
So it is vital to use scripture when sharing. But after you have used scripture if necessary you can go into the logic of did the resurrection happen, But I have seen better results to just tell the person that it is by faith.

For instance I may not really want to tithe, but I live by faith and tithe anyway. Faith is taking the word of God over your own and obeying it, even though our sinful nature wants us to doing something else.
So if someone takes the word of God from Romans 10:13 ("call upon the name of the Lord") and obeys it, if they actualy mean it even though they may have questions, God will work with that seed of faith, because we only need to have faith the size of a mustard seed to move mountains.

As long as you stay on this track you will have better luck.
------------------------------------------

But here is another historical and archaeological source:

ABOUT THE BIBLE AND WORLD HISTORY - World history would be hard to write were it not for the Bible and/or archaeology. Though humanists hate to admit it, historians have nowhere else to turn for written historical information before the year 2200 B.C. but to the Bible and /or the latest archaeological dig.
The Columbia History of the World, edited by John A. Garraty and Peter Gay and published by Harper & Row, is (in the opinion of this author) probably the best secular book written on world history today. Amounting to nearly half a million words, this work, as they put it, covers “everything” of historical importance. Written entirely by Columbia professors (over a five year period), this mammoth work, as they put it, “finds a balanced and judicious distillation of historical knowledge that is the characteristic mark of open minds.” In other words, these professors who put this work together were not ideologists seeking to convert naí¯ve readers to preordained views. They simply stated the facts. Listen closely to what these professionals had to say on the very first page of the very first chapter, called Before History, of their work,

“We know much, and we know nothing. The origin of what is — man, the earth, the universe — is shrouded in a mystery we are no closer to solving than was the chronicler of Genesis. Indeed, our very best current knowledge, lacking the poetic magic of scripture, seems in a way less believable than the account in the Bible or in any of the ancient texts.”

Some archaeological finds discussed in the book:
The Adapa Tablets
The Temptation Seal (dated c. 3500 B.C.)
The Adam and Eve Seal (dated c. 3500 B.C.)
The Gilgamesh Tablet (dated c. 2000 B.C.)
The Berossus Tablet (dated c. 300 B.C.)
The Larsa Weld Prism (dated c. 2170 B.C.)
The Sumerian Flood Tablet (dated c. 2000 B.C.)
The Sumerian Kings Tablet (dated c. 2000 B.C.)

This alone is not strong evidence to support Gods existence, but if you read the details that this book discusses it does tend to support the biblical account.

Thanks again for your prompt and detailed reply YLTYLT. You truly are a wealth of information.

Now I understand what you are saying and yes I believe it to be true. My only question is that is something like this only truly believable or open to interpretation to a theist or someone at the very least agnostic. I don't want to say well the only way to find Jesus is through logic and reason; that would limit God to how He communicates to us. Yes of course scripture can convince someone to Christ but only if Christ is involved. If scripture had the power on it's own with just words on a piece of paper to convince people of Jesus then I think we would have a lot more Christians in this world right now. My intension here is not to convince anyone to Christ. I leave that part up to Christ.

Let me put it another way. If I can show the logic of scripture through say relationship to the laws of non-contradiction, to someone with an almost completely rationalistic mind, then I believe I can start to share my faith in Christ through that door. Starting with sharing my testimony on say some sort of emotional level I don't think will open many doors to the common rationalistic atheist. This is what I have experienced anyway. A different approach is needed. If say my personal testimony was a story that started with rationalistic mindsets fed with logic and reason bringing me to a starting point of plausibility of scripture being true, than yes by all means my testimony would be a great place to start. Or one of many great places to start.

What I am trying to say is that everyone is different and it requires a different approach to scripture to share scripture. From my personal experience with atheists quoting scripture as a starting point begs the question 'what makes you think scripture is true?' That's the question I get asked 90% of the time hehe. It's like the Muslim claiming the Qur'an to be true. You ask him why it is true and he will tell you 'because the Qur'an says it is true'. It's not a good answer at all. In fact it is circular. The atheist on the most part thinks this is what the Bible uses to prove itself as well. It think you would agree though that the Bible is founded on a lot more than simply self-evident proofs. There is logic and reason behind it, embedded in it and I think it plays an important role in confirming our faith much more realistically than any other belief system. So the starting point for some atheists I think of sharing scripture needs to come from a different approach then to simply start quoting scripture. Again this is not the case for everyone as your suggestions work just as well I am sure. A believer of an eastern religion for example requires witnessing of a different kind to pure logic and reason. For him it would be more up your ally of what you are trying to say I think.

I am in total agreement that it is vital to use scripture when sharing the faith. I do it all the time, just in different methods. Anyway just thought I'd clear that up if it seamed like I wasn't. Your historical and archaeological information you've shared here is fantastic. Thank you so much. Do you know if there is an eBook version of 'The Columbia History of the World'? I do most of my reading on my PocketPC.

I hope that c

YLTYLT wrote:But here is another historical and archaeological source:

ABOUT THE BIBLE AND WORLD HISTORY - World history would be hard to write were it not for the Bible and/or archaeology. Though humanists hate to admit it, historians have nowhere else to turn for written historical information before the year 2200 B.C. but to the Bible and /or the latest archaeological dig.

I realise these aren't your words, but you have to be careful quoting them. Especially since you've provided another source which contradicts them. You helpfully mention the following sources of written historical information before the year 2,200 BC:

The Temptation Seal (dated c. 3500 B.C.)
The Adam and Eve Seal (dated c. 3500 B.C.)

Fortigurn wrote:

YLTYLT wrote:But here is another historical and archaeological source:

ABOUT THE BIBLE AND WORLD HISTORY - World history would be hard to write were it not for the Bible and/or archaeology. Though humanists hate to admit it, historians have nowhere else to turn for written historical information before the year 2200 B.C. but to the Bible and /or the latest archaeological dig.

I realise these aren't your words, but you have to be careful quoting them. Especially since you've provided another source which contradicts them. You helpfully mention the following sources of written historical information before the year 2,200 BC:

The Temptation Seal (dated c. 3500 B.C.)
The Adam and Eve Seal (dated c. 3500 B.C.)

Thanks,

That is a good question. It may be that the person I quoted from misquoted the book. Or maybe I took the ideas out of context.
I will look into why those dates contradict the other text.