Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Sylvester Clark]

Not really SC. The common estimation is 70 plus years after Jesus.

Wikipedia says 90-110 AD as the general estimate for date the Gospel of John was written. The Introduction to the Gospel of John in the ESV estimates 85 AD. Generally, Jesus is thought to have died in 30 or 33 AD. Doing some basic math, that puts us at between 52 and 80 years. Of course there are estimates that fall outside that range, I was just generalizing.

An independent source is someone like Josephus. No dependency. It is not really necessary, but I am only bringing it up because you said so. But that's not a problem. You can leave it.

In what way is Josephus qualitatively more independent than the New Testament texts? Of course he's Jewish instead of Christian so his biases would be different, but what qualitative difference is there? What makes him "Independent," but not the New Testament authors. I already explained what I meant by independent, but to clarify, I mean written separately from each other, by different authors, using different sources, (some of their sources are the same and some different) some of whom are eyewitnesses.

Not a single person, who ever met Jesus, ever wrote anything in the Bible. Maybe that's a topic for a new thread.

That's a strong claim. It's definitely one opinion on the issue, but how can you claim to know that with certainty? I realize many scholars would believe that the traditional authors of the books are not the real authors, but is there agreement across the board on any of the books?

 

[firedragon]

Wikipedia says 90-110 AD as the general estimate for date the Gospel of John was written.

But you said the common consensus is 50 years from Jesus. Every one knows that's quite right. Even you proved its not quite right.

In what way is Josephus qualitatively more independent than the New Testament texts?

Because he is not a Christian. He is not vested. Independent.

That's a strong claim. It's definitely one opinion on the issue, but how can you claim to know that with certainty? I realize many scholars would believe that the traditional authors of the books are not the real authors, but is there agreement across the board on any of the books?

Yes.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans family United aware claim a reasoned human advice.

Conscious.
Spiritual.
Family human earned.

Evil consciousness of human thinkers.

The subject bible versus occult science.

State I'm aware they said today consciously that life would be sacrificed by historic science occult owners. Once again.

Fifty years of age life eradication genetics. A warning.
Most ethnic DNA not Arian eradicated.

The warning.

Warnings. The occult researchers. The occult machine causes. Occult self idealism. Motivation of a group.

Transmitters. Radiation effect. Radio waves. Another human awAre warning.

Machine to machine transmitting an ancient technology.

Arian thinker supreme living by human generated life is sex. Living in an environment ice snow. Remaining white. As DNA reasoning.

Yet summer a one of the cross does not support white skinned Arian humans it burns your skin.

Ethnics DNA say lucky DNA adapted. We are the superior family unity world DNA scattering. Emigration migration shared community.

Ice snow cold country climate Arian is a human idealised self conscious superiority claim from reading bible texts about why cold saved life on the cross of four seasons never made you a superior human being.

Ice was newly formed the saviour of all life.
What false preaching is.

Self Idealises false Bible readings.

Then claims why I am the DNA superior race.

Fake.

 

[Sylvester Clark]

But you said the common consensus is 50 years from Jesus. Every one knows that's quite right. Even you proved its not quite right.



Because he is not a Christian. He is not vested. Independent.



Yes.

Ok. Thanks

 

[IndigoChild5559]

...and using that scripture I could 100% support an argument that repentance is the resurrection. How is that possible if there is only one way of looking at it?

Because you cannot read the gospel accounts and not understand that they are presenting a literal resurrection. You just can't. It's not a matter of interpretation in this case.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Because you cannot read the gospel accounts and not understand that they are presenting a literal resurrection. You just can't. It's not a matter of interpretation in this case.

There are many, many examples of where the NT books cannot be taken literally, leading to the conclusion that their substance lies not in the plots but in arguments about how to interpret the law and specifically what to do about the Roman crisis. These are the substance that matter, and the plot is a medium.

There are four canonized gospels for most Christians today, all ancient. The first in every bible sold is Matthew which begins with a genealogy adjusted to make Jesus of the 42nd generation, purposely making the genealogy of Matthew mismatch that in Luke chapter 3. It is precisely a non-literal genealogy Matthew begins with. Readers are expected to pick up on this special change to 42 generations, indicating the nature of the work is non literal. Lewis Carol picks up on this, making reference to it in his works as does Douglas Adams. Matthew stresses the importance that Jesus comes through 3 x 14 generations, yet none of the other gospels care about this. It is not literally important how many generations there are but that Israel has suffered enough. What is important is the idea that the suffering of Israel is for a purpose and is not a judgment against the people. One argument put forward is that suffering may not indicate impurity or a mistake but that the suffering may be for the benefit of the world. Son of man --> son of man. Jesus is the Son of Man in the story, and Israel is the Son of man in the prophets. Therefore the concept is what matters more than plot. Everything indicates the gospels are not meant to be bread and butter, plain books to be read by masses of non Jewish people.

From there Matthew just keeps on going completely off of the expected path of a literal author. He uses the term 'Fulfill' in an ironic manner exactly the opposite of 'Fulfill'; and he does this ten times not just once or twice. If Matthew were literal this would just be nonsense; but what he's doing is drawing a connection between the Son of man in the prophets and his character, Jesus. That's Matthew, and it is the most obviously non-literal followed by John, then Luke, then Mark in order of most obvious non-literalness. I have only touched on the beginning of problems for claiming a literal NT set.

The gospels directly contradict the Torah (most will recognize as the Mosaic Law) when Jesus says to believe in himself because of miracles. This absolutely cannot be literal. Deuteronomy forbids this, unless I am mistaken in reading Deuteronomy 13. A prophet is judged on his words, not on his miracles. Deuteronomy is already canonized well before CE 0, and Jesus quotes from it in the gospels. In it Moses commands Israelites to challenge every prophet, especially ones that do miracles, not to trust miracle workers. Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy in the gospels. When he says to accept him because of his miracles he must either be joking or not literally speaking, because its not allowed for Jews to do that.

Judas Iscariot is a major sign of non-literalness. The death of Judas Iscariot (the betrayer of Jesus) is described as a suicide in Matthew 27:5, but in Acts 1:18 its described as a spontaneous death. He falls over, and his guts spill out. They are the same death, yet they are described very differently. Matthew's description is very significant, because in his version Judas is hung on a tree of his own volition, publicly cursing himself. In Acts this does not happen, yet Judas death still indicates he was wrong to betray. That point was it was wrong to betray, not the specific manner in which Judas died. There are two endings but that same concept, and what was it that Judas represented? He was Iscariot (or a sicarri). He was a member of the Jewish assassins who were willing to kill Romans, opposing Roman government. The authors are suggesting not very subtly that this is a betrayal of Israel and that Israel should remain at peace with Rome and submit.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Thank you very much for explaining this. It helps me understand where you're coming from. Your belief in these things didn't come from a rational analysis of the objective evidence; it came from a personal experience you had, a feeling of love you experienced while reading the Bible. I can understand why that would be so powerful emotionally.

Here's a question. Do you think our hearts should be aligned with our heads, or our heads with our hearts?

 

[paarsurrey]

Number 2 .....
Jesus son of the father, so loved by the people that after his conviction for rioting, causing one death, Pilate knew that Jerusalem could be torn apart by insurrection if he was executed, so Pilate released him to Joseph of Arimathea to travel North to the ports of Tyre/Sidon and in to exile. Jesus saw his mates in Galilee when he passed through.

1. The Cornish say that Jesus went there.
2. Others maintain that he went to Gaul with Magdalene.
3. Others say that he went to India.

Christians dated not remove this report from early accounts, may be frightened of what God might do...? So they left the account in the gospels, hidden in plain sight ..... the name Jesus was removed from earliest accounts and the rest, son of the father, was left in Eastern Aramaic, which Romans would not realise. BARABBA

Please provide the sources for studying them. Right?

Regards

 

[oldbadger]

Please provide the sources for studying them. Right?

Regards

It's basic history plus bible and other reports, paarsurrey.

1. Read how Jesus met with all the disciples in Galilee at Gennesaret after that last week.
2. Enter 'Jesus and Kashmir' in to your search engine to read articles about Jesus going to Kashmir afterwards, and even being buried there.
3. Enter 'Jesus and Cornwall' in to your search engine to read links about that.
Enter 'Jesus and Magdalene, Gaul' in to your search engine to read links about that.
4. Enter 'Phoenicians and Cornwall' or 'Phoenicians and tin' in to your search engine to read links about how the Phoenicians traded with Cornwall during the bronze age...... out of Tyre and Sidon.

It's alkl there.... you just have to trawl around to find the reports.

 

[Colt]

It was common for understudies to write for teachers and such in that age. The Gospels were in part dictated by those who had first hand knowledge of Jesus.

 

[PruePhillip]

True, but some rely on faith; on what they've been taught and are familiar with. Others seek empirical evidence to analyse.

Sure, and there's not many geeks as geekier as I am when it comes to science.
But some things need to be experienced, not analysed. When it comes to the
crunch we are experiential creatures - you can't 'explain' having a child, or 'prove'
that someone loves you or 'demonstrate' green is the best color.
It is stated in the bible that if you don't prove your faith, to yourself, and continue
to only accept in faith, then you don't understand.

 

[blü 2]

The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Given an historical Jesus, the story of the resurrection has these problems:

1. Death is the irreversible cessation of the functions of the body that sustain life. If Jesus was dead then he was dead in this sense, and his death was by definition irreversible.

2. Miracles are innately incredible, in that there is not one authenticated example of a miracle. This view is found in the domains of science and of history.

3. Resurrections were part of many cultures ─
* Samuel came back after his death and spoke with Saul (though arguably he was a ghost, not a resurrected body.) 1 Samuel 28
* Elijah raised the Zarephath woman’s son (1 Kings 17:17+).
* Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:32+).
* The man whose dead body touched Elisha’s bones was resurrected (2 Kings 13:21)
* Jesus raised the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:12+).
* Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:41-44).
* Peter raised Tabitha / Dorcas (Acts 9:36-40).
* Matthew describes the faithful dead at large in the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53).

Elsewhere – and this is only a tiny sample – gods Osiris in Egypt and Dionusos in Greece were put to death and came back to life. In Greece, Herakles, son of Zeus, died, was resurrected and became a god. Mortal Asklepios raised Lukourgos, Kapaneos and Tundareos from the dead, and Glaukos, Hippolutos and Orion were resurrected too – as indeed was Asklepios himself. Eurudike (and Scandanavia’s Baldr) nearly made it back. Sumerian Dumuzi and Greek Persephone and Adonis had to spend only half their time in the Underworld

4. There are six NT references to the resurrection (Paul, the four gospels, Acts 1). None of the accounts is ─
contemporary (indeed the first to specify a resurrection is Matthew, written some 50-55 years after the purported event, whereas Mark, a decade earlier, stops at the empty tomb);
by an eyewitness; or
independent.

5. Each of the six accounts contradicts the other five in major ways. (A usual Christian solution has been to create a single account from them, particularly from the gospel four. However, that only creates a seventh account incompatible with the other six.)

6. It's therefore fair to say that the evidence for the resurrection is of extremely poor quality. (You may recall the Ganesha milk-drinking miracles from India not so long ago, videos of which can be found on the net. Despite the fact that videos as evidence are many orders of magnitude better than the NT evidence, they haven't served to persuade impartial onlookers that anything miraculous was involved.)

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But a stronger claim to Jesus' divinity for me is voluntarily accepting suffering.

Not to me, simply because the Romans weren’t exactly asking permission.

 

[Left Coast]

Here's a question. Do you think our hearts should be aligned with our heads, or our heads with our hearts?

I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Are you asking if we should believe things or make decisions based on rational reasons or emotional ones? In that case I'd say reason should take precedence over our emotions. Making decisions or drawing conclusions purely on emotion has a tendency to lead us to believe things and do things that are unreasonable and often has unexpected negative consequences. Emotionally, I'd love to have ice cream for dinner every night. Rationally, I recognize that's not a wise decision for my long-term health.

Part of the problem with many religions is that they make emotional appeals to us to win us over. So instead of making a rational argument for the extraordinary claims they make, they pull on our heart strings and appeal to past hurt, shame, guilt, family issues, promises of future paradise, and so on. All of which is emotionally cathartic and appealing, but does not remotely demonstrate that any of the things they claim about the world are actually true.

Does that help answer your question?

 

[Colt]

Given an historical Jesus, the story of the resurrection has these problems:

1. Death is the irreversible cessation of the functions of the body that sustain life. If Jesus was dead then he was dead in this sense, and his death was by definition irreversible.

2. Miracles are innately incredible, in that there is not one authenticated example of a miracle. This view is found in the domains of science and of history.

3. Resurrections were part of many cultures ─
* Samuel came back after his death and spoke with Saul (though arguably he was a ghost, not a resurrected body.) 1 Samuel 28
* Elijah raised the Zarephath woman’s son (1 Kings 17:17+).
* Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:32+).
* The man whose dead body touched Elisha’s bones was resurrected (2 Kings 13:21)
* Jesus raised the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:12+).
* Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:41-44).
* Peter raised Tabitha / Dorcas (Acts 9:36-40).
* Matthew describes the faithful dead at large in the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53).

Elsewhere – and this is only a tiny sample – gods Osiris in Egypt and Dionusos in Greece were put to death and came back to life. In Greece, Herakles, son of Zeus, died, was resurrected and became a god. Mortal Asklepios raised Lukourgos, Kapaneos and Tundareos from the dead, and Glaukos, Hippolutos and Orion were resurrected too – as indeed was Asklepios himself. Eurudike (and Scandanavia’s Baldr) nearly made it back. Sumerian Dumuzi and Greek Persephone and Adonis had to spend only half their time in the Underworld

4. There are six NT references to the resurrection (Paul, the four gospels, Acts 1). None of the accounts is ─
contemporary (indeed the first to specify a resurrection is Matthew, written some 50-55 years after the purported event, whereas Mark, a decade earlier, stops at the empty tomb);
by an eyewitness; or
independent.

5. Each of the six accounts contradicts the other five in major ways. (A usual Christian solution has been to create a single account from them, particularly from the gospel four. However, that only creates a seventh account incompatible with the other six.)

6. It's therefore fair to say that the evidence for the resurrection is of extremely poor quality. (You may recall the Ganesha milk-drinking miracles from India not so long ago, videos of which can be found on the net. Despite the fact that videos as evidence are many orders of magnitude better than the NT evidence, they haven't served to persuade impartial onlookers that anything miraculous was involved.)

The temporary body of Jesus died, not the spirit of the Son of God who returned in a new form and conversed with his fellows.

That's the problem with Atheists, they think they know everything about all forms of life in the universe. Outside of mans very limited range of senses there could be numerous sorts of living things of a material and a spiritual nature.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Are you asking if we should believe things or make decisions based on rational reasons or emotional ones? In that case I'd say reason should take precedence over our emotions. Making decisions or drawing conclusions purely on emotion has a tendency to lead us to believe things and do things that are unreasonable and often has unexpected negative consequences. Emotionally, I'd love to have ice cream for dinner every night. Rationally, I recognize that's not a wise decision for my long-term health.

Part of the problem with many religions is that they make emotional appeals to us to win us over. So instead of making a rational argument for the extraordinary claims they make, they pull on our heart strings and appeal to past hurt, shame, guilt, family issues, promises of future paradise, and so on. All of which is emotionally cathartic and appealing, but does not remotely demonstrate that any of the things they claim about the world are actually true.

Does that help answer your question?

I guess so. But do you place greater emphasis on reason than you do on faith?

God is love. Can one know love through reason?

To know love, one has to know it in both word and deed. This is what Jesus Christ demonstrated.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are many, many examples of where the NT books cannot be taken literally, leading to the conclusion that their substance lies not in the plots but in arguments about how to interpret the law and specifically what to do about the Roman crisis. These are the substance that matter, and the plot is a medium.

There are four canonized gospels for most Christians today, all ancient. The first in every bible sold is Matthew which begins with a genealogy adjusted to make Jesus of the 42nd generation, purposely making the genealogy of Matthew mismatch that in Luke chapter 3. It is precisely a non-literal genealogy Matthew begins with. Readers are expected to pick up on this special change to 42 generations, indicating the nature of the work is non literal. Lewis Carol picks up on this, making reference to it in his works as does Douglas Adams. Matthew stresses the importance that Jesus comes through 3 x 14 generations, yet none of the other gospels care about this. It is not literally important how many generations there are but that Israel has suffered enough. What is important is the idea that the suffering of Israel is for a purpose and is not a judgment against the people. One argument put forward is that suffering may not indicate impurity or a mistake but that the suffering may be for the benefit of the world. Son of man --> son of man. Jesus is the Son of Man in the story, and Israel is the Son of man in the prophets. Therefore the concept is what matters more than plot. Everything indicates the gospels are not meant to be bread and butter, plain books to be read by masses of non Jewish people.

From there Matthew just keeps on going completely off of the expected path of a literal author. He uses the term 'Fulfill' in an ironic manner exactly the opposite of 'Fulfill'; and he does this ten times not just once or twice. If Matthew were literal this would just be nonsense; but what he's doing is drawing a connection between the Son of man in the prophets and his character, Jesus. That's Matthew, and it is the most obviously non-literal followed by John, then Luke, then Mark in order of most obvious non-literalness. I have only touched on the beginning of problems for claiming a literal NT set.

The gospels directly contradict the Torah (most will recognize as the Mosaic Law) when Jesus says to believe in himself because of miracles. This absolutely cannot be literal. Deuteronomy forbids this, unless I am mistaken in reading Deuteronomy 13. A prophet is judged on his words, not on his miracles. Deuteronomy is already canonized well before CE 0, and Jesus quotes from it in the gospels. In it Moses commands Israelites to challenge every prophet, especially ones that do miracles, not to trust miracle workers. Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy in the gospels. When he says to accept him because of his miracles he must either be joking or not literally speaking, because its not allowed for Jews to do that.

Judas Iscariot is a major sign of non-literalness. The death of Judas Iscariot (the betrayer of Jesus) is described as a suicide in Matthew 27:5, but in Acts 1:18 its described as a spontaneous death. He falls over, and his guts spill out. They are the same death, yet they are described very differently. Matthew's description is very significant, because in his version Judas is hung on a tree of his own volition, publicly cursing himself. In Acts this does not happen, yet Judas death still indicates he was wrong to betray. That point was it was wrong to betray, not the specific manner in which Judas died. There are two endings but that same concept, and what was it that Judas represented? He was Iscariot (or a sicarri). He was a member of the Jewish assassins who were willing to kill Romans, opposing Roman government. The authors are suggesting not very subtly that this is a betrayal of Israel and that Israel should remain at peace with Rome and submit.

Hi Brickjectivity. I do appreciate your very full answer. It gives me a window into your thinking, which really helps, and I feel like I've gotten to know you better. Much of what you said was very interesting to me, even though I cannot agree. I've tucked it away in my mind as one of those minority opinions of the gospels, and will be thinking about it for some time. Here is my immediate response, which of course will not be as good as my response a year from now hahaha.

The gospels are set up to be in part evidence of Jesus. Now, I would agree with you that they are legend. I'm just saying that the authors do not think they are legend, and want the readers to accept them as historical.

For example, Matthew cites many prophecies that Jesus fulfilled as evidence that he is the messiah. The fact that the prophecies are quoted out of context, misquoted, and even made up out of whole cloth does not mean that Matthew is not using them as evidence.

Similarly, the fact that there is a contradiction between the two genealogies is not evidence of figurativeness. It only proves that one or both genealogies are incorrect. It is obvious to me that the genealogies are made up, so it doesn't surprise me that they disagree.

Another example is the way the gospels line up eye witnesses to the resurrection, such as Mary Magdalene meeting Jesus. Perhaps the best account (although both you and I know it to be legend) is the account of Thomas putting his finger into the wounds of Jesus. Can you see how this is presented as evidence that Jesus is bodily resurrected from the dead? This is no figurative account.

In short, we both understand that many of the stories in the gospels are myths and legends that have been attached to the truly remembered life stories of Jesus. Where we differ is that you believe these legends are meant to be read as legends frought with figurative meaning, whereas I see them as believed as history, and presented as evidence of the messiahood of Jesus, including the bodily resurrection.

 

[Left Coast]

I guess so. But do you place greater emphasis on reason than you do on faith?

I do. Faith, in the usual religious context, means believing something without (good) evidence. If you had (good) evidence, you wouldn't need faith. So the problem is, when you throw reason and evidence out the window and appeal to "faith," you open yourself to being convinced of just about anything. Which is not usually a wise way of drawing conclusions.

God is love. Can one know love through reason?

I suppose it depends what we mean by "love." Love is one of those squishy words in English that can mean lots of things. Love that is a feeling can easily lead us to do problematic things. Love as an action, ie being unselfish, compassionate, and so on, I think can very much be understood through reason. Not to say emotions are uninvolved, but they don't steer the ship, so to speak.

To know love, one has to know it in both word and deed. This is what Jesus Christ demonstrated.

That is what stories written by other people about Jesus demonstrate to you, yes I understand. But of course a fictional story can demonstrate love just as much as a real, historical one. Storybooks and movies are full of such examples.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hi Brickjectivity. I do appreciate your very full answer. It gives me a window into your thinking, which really helps, and I feel like I've gotten to know you better. Much of what you said was very interesting to me, even though I cannot agree. I've tucked it away in my mind as one of those minority opinions of the gospels, and will be thinking about it for some time. Here is my immediate response, which of course will not be as good as my response a year from now hahaha.

The gospels are set up to be in part evidence of Jesus. Now, I would agree with you that they are legend. I'm just saying that the authors do not think they are legend, and want the readers to accept them as historical.

For example, Matthew cites many prophecies that Jesus fulfilled as evidence that he is the messiah. The fact that the prophecies are quoted out of context, misquoted, and even made up out of whole cloth does not mean that Matthew is not using them as evidence.

Similarly, the fact that there is a contradiction between the two genealogies is not evidence of figurativeness. It only proves that one or both genealogies are incorrect. It is obvious to me that the genealogies are made up, so it doesn't surprise me that they disagree.

Another example is the way the gospels line up eye witnesses to the resurrection, such as Mary Magdalene meeting Jesus. Perhaps the best account (although both you and I know it to be legend) is the account of Thomas putting his finger into the wounds of Jesus. Can you see how this is presented as evidence that Jesus is bodily resurrected from the dead? This is no figurative account.

In short, we both understand that many of the stories in the gospels are myths and legends that have been attached to the truly remembered life stories of Jesus. Where we differ is that you believe these legends are meant to be read as legends frought with figurative meaning, whereas I see them as believed as history, and presented as evidence of the messiahood of Jesus, including the bodily resurrection.

I was actually going to say sorry for making my post too long, however you graciously gave it your attention. I want to reiterate that I am not rejecting the gospels and do believe that they are conversations about what to do about Rome and the Torah.

The beginnings of Christianity are in some ways obscure, however everyone agrees that it begins as a Jewish movement which uses the sign of the fish as its symbol. What fish? Its probably Jonah's fish, bringing to memory the Jewish story in which Jonah has to forgive a terrible city called Ninevah and preach repentance there to save its citizens from terrible fates. Jonah does not want to do this, runs away from his duty, wishing the Ninevites destroyed. The sign of the fish is about forgiving the people who have overrun Jerusalem, killing and destroying like mindless animals. It is a testament to Judaism which will last for many ages to come that rather than turn in revenge upon Rome and its citizens, Jews rallied themselves (after Titus) and chose to follow what their (your) books say to do wherever they are: pray for and work for the good of the place in which they live. There are exceptions and rebellions but on the whole this is what they do. Thus Christianity appears.

I hope you will think of that as you develop your thoughts about this minority opinion of the gospels.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I do. Faith, in the usual religious context, means believing something without (good) evidence. If you had (good) evidence, you wouldn't need faith. So the problem is, when you throw reason and evidence out the window and appeal to "faith," you open yourself to being convinced of just about anything. Which is not usually a wise way of drawing conclusions.



I suppose it depends what we mean by "love." Love is one of those squishy words in English that can mean lots of things. Love that is a feeling can easily lead us to do problematic things. Love as an action, ie being unselfish, compassionate, and so on, I think can very much be understood through reason. Not to say emotions are uninvolved, but they don't steer the ship, so to speak.



That is what stories written by other people about Jesus demonstrate to you, yes I understand. But of course a fictional story can demonstrate love just as much as a real, historical one. Storybooks and movies are full of such examples.

Romans 10:17. 'So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.'

I suggest you read the New Testament, then the Old Testament. If you do this with an open heart, l believe God will speak to you, as he did to me.

IMO, there is no better evidence of God than his own word!