Jesus existed therefore God

[FarWanderer]

Absolutely there is a lot hanging on whether Jesus existed or not... When studying the evidence, if they actually take the subject seriously, His existence itself is testimony to God... It is hard to get around it without seriously deluding yourself... This is probably why some people flat out deny His existence, like Dr. Richard Carrier for example. He is so convinced that the Gospels have such a deeper meaning then the surface, that it has to be a myth... He builds his entire argument on that focus... But that is the claim of the Gospels.. That the message Jesus brought indeed has a deeper message, that he fulfilled a destiny of God to establish that deeper message...

If we allow Jesus to be historical. His existence itself, his trail, his death, is a fulfillment of a divine plan... And being the fact that it is irrational to deny that there is a huge magnitude of historical evidence, so much so that no fictional person ever has had this amount of evidence. Period...

Jesus existence itself establishes an All Powerful, and All Knowing God exists. And therefor give evidence to the Resurrection.

Bold added by me.

Question for debate: If the statement Jesus existed is true, does that necessarily establish that an all powerful, all knowing God exists?

[Tart]

Ya, so let me refer you to this video... Will you watch it and tell me your thoughts? Thanks.

[youtube][/youtube]

I only needed to watch a very small portion of this video to immediately see the problem here. In this video these people are assuming that every word of the Gospels is the TRUTH.

Right there is an immediate problem.

Where did you determine these people believe every word in the Bible?

For example, in the video they claim that it is prophesied that the messiah will become the King of Jerusalem and ride into the city on a donkey.

First off Jesus NEVER became the King of Jerusalem. So the prophesy fails for Jesus right there, but for some reason they totally ignore this obvious failing.

Sorry, Christianity believes Jesus was a King. If you wish to interpret the evidence differently, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions on the matter, but this is an invalid point for any believing Christian.

Instead they point to the fact that the Gospel Rumors have Jesus riding into the city on a donkey.

Well, duh?

The authors who wrote the Gospels clearly had these previous prophesies right at their fingertips because they often even proclaim when they felt that prophesy was being fulfilled.

So did the "real historical Jesus" really ride a donkey into the city?

Who would know? All we have are Gospel Rumors that claim he rode a donkey. But for all we know the authors of the Gospel Rumors made that up in an effort to try to make Jesus appear to have fulfilled prophesies.

So you need to be REAL CAREFUL not to be taken in by claims of fulfilled prophesies that cannot even be shown to have actually happened.

Ok, so you believe there was blatant prophecy that wasnt fulfilled. And prophecies that were forged...

Do you think that is a coherent explanation of the evidence? That (obviously) the disciples made up Jesus riding on a donkey, but accidentally missed Jesus being a king (that is, according to your understanding)?

That is a coherent explanation? According to you?

...Or what?

Not only that, but Jesus NEVER became the King of Jerusalem. Therefore, even if he rode a donkey into the city this hardly fulfills this prophecy anyway.

The promised Messiah was supposed to become the King of Jerusalem. Jesus never even remotely came close to becoming the King of Jerusalem.

So to claim that Jesus was the promised messiah from the Old Testament is nothing short of utterly ridiculous.

Strange the disciples left these aspects out of their attempt to forge prophecy...


Do you actually have a coherent explanation for the evidence?

[Goat]

Ok, so the topic is on the subject of fulfillment of a Messiah... Perhaps your right that Jesus life alone, when taking nothing else in consideration, isnt evidence of anything other then a man named Jesus lived...

But what if this was part of a divine plan? That the life of Jesus was shown to be aligned with a destiny, revealed by God, as a Messiah?

Lets not separate the life of Jesus, from the fulfillment of a Messiah. That is the entire point of the topic...

Well, part of the problem if you are look at evidence that a person named Jesus existed is that 1) Jesus was a common name, 2) There were many inerrant preachers at the time, and 3) Pilate crucified over 20,000 people. There is undoubtedly at least a few people that matched all three of those criteria..

Ok, so you are claiming multiple people met these requirements... Can you give any evidence of any other Jesus, then the one in the Gospels? Say, being crucified? Or any other Jesus, who preached? Back during similar time periods? Like what you are claiming.

But, throw in the 'of Nazareth.. if you look at the archeological evidence, there is no evidence that ANY town was called Nazareth in that time period. The current town of Nazareth looks like it was renamed in the 4th century, probably about the time that they started getting Religious tourists into the area from Rome. Out of the extra biblical references to jests, the only one in the first century was Josephus, and it was shown that it has been modified so much that it can not be shown to be anything but a total addition. the ones during the earlier part of the second century can only show that Christians existed.

There is not enough information to show that there was a person behind the stories. Even the bible stories are 3rd or 4th hand.

Surely there is enough information to show Jesus of the Gospels could have existed... If you want i can refer you to the historical evidence i wrote in another thread?

But i think we should only make claims we know are true... So can you answer my questions above? And also give me evidence Nazareth never existed till the 4th century?

Like for example, if we look at Wikipedia, it says:

Nazareth
Founded 2200 BC (Early settlement)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth
Why is that wrong?

Well, there was some ruins there.. but apparently, it was not inhabited during the time frame of Jesus except by about 10 houses, and it was not KNOWN as Nazareth.

You got a village that was renamed in the 4th century.



Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) " in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area " records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

Ok, let only say things that are true. You are saying:
"You got a village that was renamed in the 4th century."

How do you know it was renamed in the 4th century? Who named it? What evidence do you have?

Note* the town of Nazareth is in the Gospels, a first century reference... What exactly are you suggesting? Some kind of, untold conspiracy?

(please source your evidence... Thanks)

We know it was renamed because there was zero references to it before the 4th century, aside from the bible. Every solitary external reference to it other than the bible was after the 4th century. The description of Nazareth in the bible had it big enough to have a synagogue, which would have given it enough importance to be mentioned.

In fact, the earliest reference appears to be Sextus Africanus, but we actually only have that as a claim from Eurisubus, since that writing was lost.

[Divine Insight]

Do you think that is a coherent explanation of the evidence? That (obviously) the disciples made up Jesus riding on a donkey, but accidentally missed Jesus being a king (that is, according to your understanding)?

They didn't miss the part about Jesus being King. Instead they they made up the most absurdly ridiculous claim for that by claiming that a sign was placed above Jesus when he was crucified proclaiming him to be the King of the Jews.

And you're going to fall for that as being prophesy fulfilled?

Sorry if this disappoints you, but I'm nowhere near that gullible.

Do you actually have a coherent explanation for the evidence?

I just gave you a perfectly valid coherent explanation for this ancient religious nonsense.

If you want to continue beating on this dead horse be my guest.

Christian theists aren't merely beating a dead horse, but what they are actually doing is beating on the ground at a spot where a horse had once died many centuries ago.

[Tart]

Do you think that is a coherent explanation of the evidence? That (obviously) the disciples made up Jesus riding on a donkey, but accidentally missed Jesus being a king (that is, according to your understanding)?

They didn't miss the part about Jesus being King. Instead they they made up the most absurdly ridiculous claim for that by claiming that a sign was placed above Jesus when he was crucified proclaiming him to be the King of the Jews.

And you're going to fall for that as being prophesy fulfilled?

Sorry if this disappoints you, but I'm nowhere near that gullible.

Do you actually have a coherent explanation for the evidence?

I just gave you a perfectly valid coherent explanation for this ancient religious nonsense.

If you want to continue beating on this dead horse be my guest.

Christian theists aren't merely beating a dead horse, but what they are actually doing is beating on the ground at a spot where a horse had once died many centuries ago.

Ok so do you believe that was historical? Putting a sign above Jesus head reading king of the kings? Or not?

[Tart]

Ok, so the topic is on the subject of fulfillment of a Messiah... Perhaps your right that Jesus life alone, when taking nothing else in consideration, isnt evidence of anything other then a man named Jesus lived...

But what if this was part of a divine plan? That the life of Jesus was shown to be aligned with a destiny, revealed by God, as a Messiah?

Lets not separate the life of Jesus, from the fulfillment of a Messiah. That is the entire point of the topic...

Well, part of the problem if you are look at evidence that a person named Jesus existed is that 1) Jesus was a common name, 2) There were many inerrant preachers at the time, and 3) Pilate crucified over 20,000 people. There is undoubtedly at least a few people that matched all three of those criteria..

Ok, so you are claiming multiple people met these requirements... Can you give any evidence of any other Jesus, then the one in the Gospels? Say, being crucified? Or any other Jesus, who preached? Back during similar time periods? Like what you are claiming.

But, throw in the 'of Nazareth.. if you look at the archeological evidence, there is no evidence that ANY town was called Nazareth in that time period. The current town of Nazareth looks like it was renamed in the 4th century, probably about the time that they started getting Religious tourists into the area from Rome. Out of the extra biblical references to jests, the only one in the first century was Josephus, and it was shown that it has been modified so much that it can not be shown to be anything but a total addition. the ones during the earlier part of the second century can only show that Christians existed.

There is not enough information to show that there was a person behind the stories. Even the bible stories are 3rd or 4th hand.

Surely there is enough information to show Jesus of the Gospels could have existed... If you want i can refer you to the historical evidence i wrote in another thread?

But i think we should only make claims we know are true... So can you answer my questions above? And also give me evidence Nazareth never existed till the 4th century?

Like for example, if we look at Wikipedia, it says:

Nazareth
Founded 2200 BC (Early settlement)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth
Why is that wrong?

Well, there was some ruins there.. but apparently, it was not inhabited during the time frame of Jesus except by about 10 houses, and it was not KNOWN as Nazareth.

You got a village that was renamed in the 4th century.



Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) " in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area " records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

Ok, let only say things that are true. You are saying:
"You got a village that was renamed in the 4th century."

How do you know it was renamed in the 4th century? Who named it? What evidence do you have?

Note* the town of Nazareth is in the Gospels, a first century reference... What exactly are you suggesting? Some kind of, untold conspiracy?

(please source your evidence... Thanks)

We know it was renamed because there was zero references to it before the 4th century, aside from the bible. Every solitary external reference to it other than the bible was after the 4th century. The description of Nazareth in the bible had it big enough to have a synagogue, which would have given it enough importance to be mentioned.

In fact, the earliest reference appears to be Sextus Africanus, but we actually only have that as a claim from Eurisubus, since that writing was lost.

Ok, and what would bring us to believe that it was renamed in the 4th century? Why cant we believe it existed before your sources referenced it? In fact, that should be a dead give away... right?

The city had to exist before your sources sited it? Unless they talk about it coming into existence or something... Which i dont know, you'd have to quote your source...

Do they talk of Nazareth coming into existence? Or being renamed? Or a place already in existence? Can you quote it?

[Divine Insight]

Ok so do you believe that was historical? Putting a sign above Jesus head reading king of the kings? Or not?

I have absolutely no reason to believe that this actually happened. And we certainly don't have any historical evidence that it did happen.

I highly suspect that this sort of thing was invented by the authors of the Gospels as part of their agenda to try to convince their readers that Jesus was the promised messiah.

Don't forget that these are the same authors who were so desperate to support their claims that they actually have God himself speaking from the clouds to proclaim that Jesus is his Son.

Surely you don't buy into that one?

These authors gave us many clues concerning their desperation to try to make out like Jesus was the prophesied messiah.

And keep in mind Tart, the prophecy didn't say that the messiah would merely be mocked for claiming to be the King of the Jews. The prophecy said that he would actually become the King of Jerusalem. And Jesus most certainly never fulfilled that prophecy or even come remotely close to fulfilling it.

But no, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the Gospel Rumors contain absolute truths. That belief itself is a totally faith-based belief. I see no reason to embrace that idea at all.

I've already told you that the OT God makes no sense. Why should I believe tales that Jesus was the Son of Yahweh when Yahweh already fails as a credible God?

Not only this but Jesus was the exact opposite of Yahweh when it came to moral principles and commandments. So it's not even a consistent paradigm overall.

Why would a God at one point so hate the world that he drowns out all sinners, and then at the next point offer himself up as a sacrificial lamb to offer sinners undeserved amnesty?

Christianity isn't even compatible with the Old Testament God at all.

There's so much wrong with this religion that it would take a book even larger than the Bible to explain what's all wrong with the Biblical Canon.

So trying to historically prove that Jesus was the promised messiah of this religion is a seriously flawed endeavor. If that's what you hope to achieve in this life all I can say is, Good luck with that.

At one point in time I was a Christian and I did try to justify this religion. I found it to be an absolutely impossible task. As far as I'm concerned it's simply impossible to justify Christianity. It simply cannot be done.

And as I had stated before, if you were going to take this up with me on any serious level you would need to start with Genesis 1:1 and work up to Jesus from there. I wouldn't even waste my time with you if you wanted to start with trying to prove that Jesus was the messiah of an already failed theology.

You'd need to justify the entire Old Testament first. And good luck with that as well.

[Goat]

Ok so do you believe that was historical? Putting a sign above Jesus head reading king of the kings? Or not?

I do not. Nor, would putting such a sign up make it so. To be the 'king of kings', he would have had to be anointed in the High Priest. That didn't happen. Therefore, he was not King.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]

[1] And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
[2] Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
[3] And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

Does this sound like Jesus sending two disciples into the village to steal an ass and a colt to you?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 21 by Tart]

Sorry, Christianity believes Jesus was a King. If you wish to interpret the evidence differently, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions on the matter, but this is an invalid point for any believing Christian.

The author of the alleged prophesy was not a Christian. People may believe that Jesus was some sort of king, but he did not become king of Jerusalem. As a believing Christian it would appear that your cognitive biases are at work here.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 11 by Tart]

Lets not separate the life of Jesus, from the fulfillment of a Messiah. That is the entire point of the topic...

Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillment of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus. Given the source of the prophesies, are they not in the best position to make that determination? Why don't they see Jesus as the fulfillment of messianic prophesy?