How Do You Know Washington was the first President of the United States?
Why, you may ask, am I asking this question in reference to “The Faith”? There is likely no one living today, who has any knowledge about the history of the United States, who would question that George Washington was indeed the first president of the U.S. but why do they not question this? Was anyone living today there? How can they be certain he was actually the first president or any president or that he even existed at all. Maybe it’s all an elaborate hoax to make us all feel better about our founders since we hold a man of such, almost mythological, character and stature in such great esteem.
So again, where’s the proof? The proof is in the documentation. It is in what was written not only by him but by those who were a witness to his life and times. Another relevant point in the question of proof is testimony handed down from one generation to another. Certainly, word of mouth testimony can become convoluted over time as to the particulars but generally not as to the existence and that is when we must examine the documentation and compare the documented testimony of the witnesses. I would say any lawyer worth his or her salt, would easily, in a court of law, before a judge and jury, be able to prove, not beyond an reasonable doubt but beyond a shadow of doubt that George Washington was indeed the first president of the United States and that, unlike many cases today, there would be very few if any of the general public who would question that outcome.
Let’s consider a few other historical figures such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Plato and many others. I don’t know of anyone who really questions the historical existence of these individuals or the authenticity of their writings and yet, for example, there are only ten ancient manuscript copies of Caesar’s Gallic War which, the earliest manuscript was written about 1000 years after the event allegedly took place! ( More info from a post here on Plato and others. I love the reply of a skeptic below the post, it’s halarious. It’s an amazing defiance of logic.)
Now let’s consider the ancient manuscript evidence for the accounts of the life of Jesus and that which is called the New Testament by main stream Christianity. To date there are around 4000 ancient copies dating to as early as 125 A.D. It really boggles the mind how the so called skeptics can justify their double standard when it comes to determining what is and what is not to be considered real history. I have stated many times in discussions with naysayers, that it is not for the lack of evidence that they reject the Bible as an accurate history of the events of those times but it because of it’s message they reject it. There is more than adequate evidence to convince an honest skeptic but most are not honest as they are hypocrites who don’t apply the same standard of evidence to other historical events and persons as they do to the books and letters contained in the Bible.
It is quite amazing to watch as people who, under most instances are capable of sound reasoning and logic, completely throw reason and logic out the window when it comes to the Bible and it’s message. Unfortunately due to mainstream Protestant Denominationalism’s and Catholicism’s own misunderstanding of the Bible and inability to follow the instruction of the Apostle Paul to, rightly divide the Word of Truth, a proper understanding of the Bible and it’s message has been greatly convoluted. Non the less there is no excuse for individuals to not do their own due diligence in seeking the truth. After all it’s their own souls that hangs in the balance.