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?

[Tcg]

Well Jewish people are Messianic Jews as well as non believers... Lets not group them all one way or the other...

Let's not forget those who believe in God and yet are smart enough not to accept the ill fitting claims Christianity has tried to paste most awkwardly onto their religion. So I agree, let's not group them all into one of only two groups as you have attempted.

[Goat]

Ya I think the reason some Jews deny Jesus, is similar to the reasons they denied God in the Old Testament, they are falling away...


And im not quite sure what you mean by Paul inventing Jesus is "God"... Becuase, saying Jesus is "God" isnt really accurate, the "Son of God" would be more aligned with what the first disciples believed... Or they also called Jesus Christ "Lord"... And we have references to these titles in every book in the New Testament (that im aware of)... Not just Paul's like you are suggesting.

Well, you have to look at idioms and how they were used at the time. In the Jewish faith, the term 'Son of God' means someone who was especially righteous. Psalm 2 had David becoming the Son of God when he was anointed to be king. it didn't mean he was god, but he was exulted by God.

And, the Jewish people are quite happy not having Christian beliefs imposed on them.

Well Jewish people are Messianic Jews as well as non believers... Lets not group them all one way or the other...

According to Israeli law, Messaniic Jews are not eligible for the Law of Return. That indicats that legally, they are not considered of the Jewish faith.

[FarWanderer]

Did you get that from any source? Or did you come up with it on your own accord?

Mostly here.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/chr ... aniel.html

[Elijah John]

Ya I think the reason some Jews deny Jesus, is similar to the reasons they denied God in the Old Testament, they are falling away...


And im not quite sure what you mean by Paul inventing Jesus is "God"... Becuase, saying Jesus is "God" isnt really accurate, the "Son of God" would be more aligned with what the first disciples believed... Or they also called Jesus Christ "Lord"... And we have references to these titles in every book in the New Testament (that im aware of)... Not just Paul's like you are suggesting.

Well, you have to look at idioms and how they were used at the time. In the Jewish faith, the term 'Son of God' means someone who was especially righteous. Psalm 2 had David becoming the Son of God when he was anointed to be king. it didn't mean he was god, but he was exulted by God.

And, the Jewish people are quite happy not having Christian beliefs imposed on them.

Well Jewish people are Messianic Jews as well as non believers... Lets not group them all one way or the other...

When a Jew "accepts Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior" they have left the relgion of Judaism. They become Christians, and are no longer Jews. (except perhaps by ethnicity.)

Those who Christians refer to as "Messianic Jews" are not Jews, but for all practical purposes, Christians.

Remember, the first Christians were expelled from the Synagogue for championing Jesus as the Messiah.

Jesus never ushered in the Messianic age so the "2nd coming" was invented.

Otherwise, where in Hebrew Scripture or tradition is it ever stated that the Messiah would need two advents in order to accomplish what the Messiah was supposed to have accomplished the first time around?

[RedEye]

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?

I don't know about the renaming part or who actually did it. What we do know is that Nazareth appears on no maps prior to about this time. Remember that in the gospels Nazareth is identified as a city, not a small village or a hamlet. It was large enough to have a synagogue. We also have Josephus campaigning in Galilee just before the Jewish revolt (a region of only about 30 by 30 miles) and he identifies dozens of cities and towns but he "overlooks" Nazareth completely.

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)

No, no conspiracy. It was Matthew misunderstanding what a Nazarene was when reading the Septuagint (the real meaning is one who seeks the Truth). See Matthew 2:23. Matthew interpreted it as someone who came from a place called Nazareth. In his clumsy attempts to have Jesus fulfilling prophecies (need I mention the "virgin" birth and Jesus riding into Jerusalem on both a donkey and a foal?) he boldly assumed that such a city existed. Paul never mentioned a Nazareth as a hometown for Jesus (or any Earthly place really). Neither did Mark. Matthew invented it along with all of the Jesus birth narrative.

[Goose]

Paul never mentioned a Nazareth as a hometown for Jesus (or any Earthly place really).

This is probably false.

Pauls speech to Agrippa.

So then, I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. " Paul, as recorded by Luke, Acts 26:9

Neither did Mark.

This is patently false.

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. " Mark 1:9

[Goat]

Paul never mentioned a Nazareth as a hometown for Jesus (or any Earthly place really).

This is probably false.

Pauls speech to Agrippa.

So then, I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. " Paul, as recorded by Luke, Acts 26:9

Neither did Mark.

This is patently false.

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. " Mark 1:9

You are missing the point. There is no record of a city of Nazareth outside of the bible until the late 3rd century.. even though it was described as a city, big enough for a synagogue. There is no external evidence outside the bible until the 3rd century.

[Tart]

Ya I think the reason some Jews deny Jesus, is similar to the reasons they denied God in the Old Testament, they are falling away...


And im not quite sure what you mean by Paul inventing Jesus is "God"... Becuase, saying Jesus is "God" isnt really accurate, the "Son of God" would be more aligned with what the first disciples believed... Or they also called Jesus Christ "Lord"... And we have references to these titles in every book in the New Testament (that im aware of)... Not just Paul's like you are suggesting.

Well, you have to look at idioms and how they were used at the time. In the Jewish faith, the term 'Son of God' means someone who was especially righteous. Psalm 2 had David becoming the Son of God when he was anointed to be king. it didn't mean he was god, but he was exulted by God.

And, the Jewish people are quite happy not having Christian beliefs imposed on them.

Well Jewish people are Messianic Jews as well as non believers... Lets not group them all one way or the other...

According to Israeli law, Messaniic Jews are not eligible for the Law of Return. That indicats that legally, they are not considered of the Jewish faith.

Oh i didnt know that, that is interesting.. I believe the dynamics of God at work within the destiny of mankind are played out in our present world... Especially in the middle east within the Abraham religions... Prophecy, like that of the coming of the Messiah that Jesus fulfilled, it still in the works (clearly)... This "Law of Return" is certainly a dynamic of prophetic teachings... At this point, the Jewish fundamental community in Israel would reject Peter as a Jew, Paul and John and James they would claim arent Jews, and ultimately Jesus Himself... This kind of spirit in the Jewish community, they also killed saint Stephen at the Temple in Acts... Very concerning, but also prophesied... Just as prophecies now are playing out, today...

Thought this article was interesting
http://www.appleofhiseye.org/learn/jewi ... -of-return

[RedEye]

Paul never mentioned a Nazareth as a hometown for Jesus (or any Earthly place really).

This is probably false.

Pauls speech to Agrippa.

So then, I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. " Paul, as recorded by Luke, Acts 26:9

That's hearsay. I'm referring to the authentic writings from Paul's own hand. What Acts states about events post-Jesus is often in stark contradiction to the material in the Pauline epistles. Someone (the author of Luke-Acts) was just trying to do a bit of post-hoc harmonization.

Neither did Mark.

This is patently false.

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. " Mark 1:9

That's an obvious interpolation. How do we know? Because Matthew copies large tracts of Mark including the passage containing this verse. See Matthew 3.13 where there is no mention of Nazareth. Someone came along mid-2nd century and tried (crudely) to harmonize Mark with Matthew and Luke by introducing a reference to Nazareth where there had been none before.

[Tart]

Did you get that from any source? Or did you come up with it on your own accord?

Mostly here.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/chr ... aniel.html

Well thats a huge read, which id need more time to invest then i have right now, but ill tell you, right off the bat this looks really bad... Between claims of fiction, misinterpretations, and forgeries, this seems to be throwing mud in whatever means necessary... Right off the bat it does not look like it gives even close to a coherent explanation of the evidence, just a string of doubts at whatever means necessary.... It looks like a bad source... The objections you made also seem to be just poor interpretations, based from here. Based off of 2 different interpretations, and not even on the original Hebrew manuscript. It seems to me if someone is going to make the claims made about "an" and "the", you would need to make those claims on the original Hebrew, and not some interpretation that translates to those words...

just a thought...