Which is a stronger case; Jesus died and resurrected himself...?

Question

or George Washington was the first President of the US?

Do you believe the documentation of these two proposals is of equal quality?

Also, are both proposals equally ordinary?

Answer 1

Wow look at you falling for the either or logical fallacy. Since you'll took the label free thinkers, can we be the deep thinkers.

Answer 2

Brilliant. No sane or rational person could say that both claims have equal strength. But some chrisitans on here might!

Westfallwatergardens: This is NOT an example of the either/or fallacy. In fact, he didn't even make an argument, notice the lack of conclusion? Furhtermore, it doesn't logically follow to say that just because the evidence for Washington is stronger, that Jesus must be false. If he'd have done that, then he'd have comitted the either/or fallacy.

And you call yourself deep, sheesh.

And for all you people who say there is more evidence for Jesus, please, stop embarassing yourselves. We could dig up Washington's grave and find his body. We have reams of documents that were actually written by the man himself (can't say that for jesus can you?). In addition, most of this "evidence" for jesus you claim comes from one source, the New Testament. Non-biblical sources for the historical jesus are actually quite rare.

Rolling Stone: Washington was a Deist. (Deists believe in an impersonal supreme being, the Creator, the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, whatever. They also respect the moral teachings of Jesus. They do NOT however, believe Jesus was God, the son of God, or divine. They do NOT worship Jesus. Therefore, they are not and George Washington was not a christian!)

Answer 3

There are four accounts which you may believe or not believe. Given that, you need to quote correctly: Jesus live, died, and God raised him. That is what you find in all four gospels.

We have all the records regarding George Washington: Where he lived and where he died. We know that Washington was the first president of the United States of America. This requires no belief since we have all the facts.

What I believe will not help you with yours. Trying to find the historical Jesus to compare with the historical George Washington may not be doable since historical methodology has changed over the years.

Is there a case for comparison? I don't think there is.

Answer 4

I don't think it's an either/ or question. It's kind of like asking which is the stronger case, Richard Nixon being President or U.S Grant being President. Due to the era( photos, films, books, TV, radio, etc.etc.) there would be more proof of Nixon being President. But, that doesn't mean that they both were not President. There are simply more artifacts for Nixon than Grant. Washington came along almost 2000 years after Jesus. Washington will have more written about him in American history but I'm sure that Jesus has a lot more books, papers, etc. written about Him.. By the way...Washington believed in God, AKA Jesus.One of the oldest and probably the best selling book ever, the Bible, records a lot about Jesus (other religions such as Muslim, Buddhists, etc. record Jesus too) but I see nothing in the Bible concerning Washington. That doesn't mean he didn't exist just as the case of Grant/Nixon doesn't mean Grant didn't exist. There is simply more recorded one over the other.

Answer 5

The stronger case is the second. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was likely a real person and perhaps even a prophet of his time. However, I do not believe he was divine.. just merely a human who was made that way by others than himself.

Now, good ol George on the other hand has plenty of documentation to prove exactly what and who he was. All one had to do is skip on down to the Library of Congress where they hold nearly 60,000 documents written about him or by him in his own hand.

Answer 6

I haven't completely researched it myself. However, gut instinct would say that there is MORE documentation and historical evidence that Christ was crucified and resurrected than George Washington being first president lived.

While some people might think that crazy. How much actual evidence is there that GW was actually president. Keep in mind here, that if you take into consideration eye-witness accounts and written testimony. It has to work both ways. Can't dismiss historical christian documents or written testimony as "ramblings of a quack" I'm not saying he wasn't. However just saying that as far as physical proof goes. More documentation about Jesus than George.

Answer 7

No equality there. George Washington definitely was our first President.

Answer 8

you besides mght have faith Jesus isn't God, Jesus is nat a Saviour, - how in the international are you able to declare Christianity is a factor of the Islamic faith once you deny all this is Christianity and the God of the Christians? How plenty could Muslims twist words to declare such issues? Do you honestly save a right now face once you're saying this?

Answer 9

b is clearly the stronger case

but to poke some holes in the comparison historical accuracy always gets weaker with the passing of time a better comparison would be the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 Ce or the revolt in Gaul (now France) in the second century against Roman rule.

Answer 10

A person can logically deduce the most credible choice with ease. A belief in a resurrection is preposterous, as it defies even the most basic human logic (as well as basic laws of physics).
Therefore I choose George Washington.