Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2012, 11:35 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(30-10-2012 10:34 AM)Free Wrote:  Supposedly?

That does not work, since anyone can say he "supposedly" existed at any given time.
No, not really. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 12:27 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(30-10-2012 11:35 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(30-10-2012 10:34 AM)Free Wrote:  Supposedly?

That does not work, since anyone can say he "supposedly" existed at any given time.
No, not really. Drinking Beverage

Why can't they?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2012, 06:42 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
[Image: Jesus+Christ+Toast.jpg]

QED. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
31-10-2012, 06:54 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(30-10-2012 12:27 PM)Free Wrote:  Why can't they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_..._estimates

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2012, 05:30 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(31-10-2012 06:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(30-10-2012 12:27 PM)Free Wrote:  Why can't they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_..._estimates

But, for an atheist to accept that as being true, it's an admission to the existence of Jesus. We can't say one thing is true about the man, while another thing is not.

If we say he existed around AD 33 by using that link, then we are already admitting he existed period.

No matter how you slice an dice it, the logic doesn't work because it just isn't there.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2012, 05:47 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(31-10-2012 05:30 PM)Free Wrote:  
(31-10-2012 06:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_..._estimates

But, for an atheist to accept that as being true, it's an admission to the existence of Jesus. We can't say one thing is true about the man, while another thing is not.

If we say he existed around AD 33 by using that link, then we are already admitting he existed period.

No matter how you slice an dice it, the logic doesn't work because it just isn't there.
One can admit he existed without admitting he was the Son of God.

Ever heard of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree?

If we admit that George Washington is real, must we admit he cut down the cherry tree and told the truth about it?

The thinking that just because one fact might be true about a man doesn't make all the facts true about a man. That's called a Composition Fallacy.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
01-11-2012, 09:03 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(31-10-2012 05:47 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(31-10-2012 05:30 PM)Free Wrote:  But, for an atheist to accept that as being true, it's an admission to the existence of Jesus. We can't say one thing is true about the man, while another thing is not.

If we say he existed around AD 33 by using that link, then we are already admitting he existed period.

No matter how you slice an dice it, the logic doesn't work because it just isn't there.
One can admit he existed without admitting he was the Son of God.

But that is not the issue here. The issue, according to this thread, is whether or not there is any proof to the existence of Jesus, and not if he was the Son of God.

After all, we are atheists, and since we have already determined that God does not exist, then it only follows the Jesus could not be the son of something that does not exist.

That's a given.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 11:35 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
I posted this in support of A2...let's see if they approve it for posting.
__________
Hello,

I, like A2, am an atheist. I think I have been--in the very least I have been sceptical--my entire life. The question he has posed is a completely valid one, and I can't seem to find any relevant or convincing arguments here that answer it.

What I want to know is how you can have so much faith in a Bronze Age superstition. Why aren't you compelled by the Icelandic Sagas to believe in Odin or Thor? About as much writing exists about Zeus, Hera, Heracles as there does about Jesus and Yahweh. So why are you so willing to put your 'faith' in what you were told by humans about a book written by humans? It seems to me it isn't 'god' you have faith in, but other human beings. Why is it so unreasonable for people like A2 and I to demand more than that? To not make decisions based on the words of others with no substantiating proof? I trust verifiable, repeatable, and visible evidence before I trust anything. Historical sources are never deemed completely reliable, but they are always ALWAYS read with that bias in mind.

As to Alexander; yes, the earliest remaining sources describing him and his campaign are hundreds of years after his lifetime. There are many disagreements in the sources about particular events (Ie, if he cut the Gordian knot or if he pulled the holding pin) but there is no doubt in scholarship that he was a real man. That he lived, and that he really did lead a campaign across the Mediterranean. I accept these basic, verifiable facts because--while the sources are not as old as we would like--there are countless accounts. None of them first hand, but they don't have to be. To substantiate his existence we only need one or two sources--separated by great geographical distance--to make an educated assumption that the person in question was real. More importantly, Alexander left behind a legacy and material evidence of his existence--the Hellenistic world was not an illusion-- that is not difficult to verify, and Macedonia did keep a record of their Kings. But it is impossible to make any solid statement of fact about the specifics of his campaign because we simply cannot verify that the testimonies of Plutarch, Quintus, Diodorus, Pliny, Arrian, Cleitarchus, Justin, Valerius, or Aelian (to name only a few) are completely factually accurate. But we aren't making that claim, are we?

The fact that theists struggle to come up with even one such account - Josephus- whose validity is HIGHLY in question, when I can name nine such accounts of Alexander makes them not even in the same arena to be compared. We can prove Alexander existed, and even if you can prove conclusively that Jesus existed, you can't prove anything else about him because the records simply don't exist. We don't claim anything extraordinary or supernatural about Alexander, but you want to claim all kinds of things about Jesus when you can't even verify he was a real man to any satisfiable degree.

My Blog
[Image: 1z5qgiq.png]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 12:37 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(31-10-2012 05:30 PM)Free Wrote:  But, for an atheist to accept that as being true, it's an admission to the existence of Jesus. We can't say one thing is true about the man, while another thing is not.

If we say he existed around AD 33 by using that link, then we are already admitting he existed period.

No matter how you slice an dice it, the logic doesn't work because it just isn't there.
That's still plain wrong. I don't need to acknowledge the existence of Jesus in order to determine whether or not the methods used to figure out the time in which he supposedly lived are accurate and valid.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 12:46 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 12:52 PM by Free.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 12:37 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(31-10-2012 05:30 PM)Free Wrote:  But, for an atheist to accept that as being true, it's an admission to the existence of Jesus. We can't say one thing is true about the man, while another thing is not.

If we say he existed around AD 33 by using that link, then we are already admitting he existed period.

No matter how you slice an dice it, the logic doesn't work because it just isn't there.
That's still plain wrong. I don't need to acknowledge the existence of Jesus in order to determine whether or not the methods used to figure out the time in which he supposedly lived are accurate and valid.

It's quite logically simple.

It doesn't matter whether or not you think the methods are valid or not. What matters is your "agreement'" with the scholars as to dating of Jesus' supposed existence. This acknowledgement on your part- or anyone's part- is an admission in itself to the "existence" of Jesus.

The thing you are not understanding is that the scholars are virtually ALL in agreement that Jesus EXISTED around AD 33. It's a matter of what they AGREE on, and not their methods. If you are agreeing with THEM, then it's an admission of the existence of Jesus.

You cannot say, "I agree with the scholars that Jesus existed around AD33" and then say, "Jesus did not exist."

It's a logical contradiction.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: