The Case for Christ

[DashingAmerican]

Nobody is claiming that those historical figures were magic.

He was talking about whether or not Jesus existed at all, not whether or not he was magical.

 

[DashingAmerican]

yes, a pigs could fly if they had wings.

So, you're ok with believing that other historical figures existed without evidence, but not Jesus. Pigs indeed.

 

[zyzygy]

He was talking about whether or not Jesus existed at all, not whether or not he was magical.

My misunderstanding. A historical Jesus is possible.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, even if Christianity became a small cult on earth it would not make its basic propositions false.

OK. But the claim was being made that Christianity had to be true because so many people in the world today adhere to it. So I am glad that we have settled that the truth or falseness of a proposition has nothing to do with how many people believe it.

 

[Cephus]

He was talking about whether or not Jesus existed at all, not whether or not he was magical.

You'd have to define what you mean by Jesus. The magic man-god in the Bible? That certainly never existed, there isn't a shred of evidence of any kind that he did. Some Jewish mystic teacher who lived around 2000 years ago and upon whom the mantle of godhood was posthumously draped? That's a possibility. But Christians want the former and won't accept the latter and the former is ridiculous and the latter is the only likely alternative. So we always come to an impasse.

 

[Cephus]

OK. But the claim was being made that Christianity had to be true because so many people in the world today adhere to it. So I am glad that we have settled that the truth or falseness of a proposition has nothing to do with how many people believe it.

Santa Claus must be real because so many children believe in him! Hallelujah, Santa is real!

 

[DashingAmerican]

You'd have to define what you mean by Jesus. The magic man-god in the Bible? That certainly never existed, there isn't a shred of evidence of any kind that he did. Some Jewish mystic teacher who lived around 2000 years ago and upon whom the mantle of godhood was posthumously draped? That's a possibility. But Christians want the former and won't accept the latter and the former is ridiculous and the latter is the only likely alternative. So we always come to an impasse.

Possibly, but we assume a lot of things are true that we cannot prove.

 

[Cephus]

Possibly, but we assume a lot of things are true that we cannot prove.

We assume them based on logic and reason and the most rational explanation, if we do so at all. That is not the case with Jesus. This is hyperactive emotionalism, full stop.

 

[DashingAmerican]

We assume them based on logic and reason and the most rational explanation, if we do so at all. That is not the case with Jesus. This is hyperactive emotionalism, full stop.

No more so than the big bang theory.

 

[Vox]

The title is taken from the popular book by Lee Strobel, who'd done an investigative research to prove Jesus Christ was simply myth.....and yet, the opposite happened. He ended up proving Jesus Christ existed.

This thread will prove that Jesus Christ did exist.


There are historical documents that made mention of Christ. One such document came from Tacitus, a Roman historian.

This is an excerpt from a very long article.



Tacitus and Jesus. Christ Myth refuted. Did Jesus exist?




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

No. Jesus existed......."Christ" is a fictional creation. One must separate the two to understand all this.

The story referenced is the creation of a fraud called Saul/Paul of Tarsus......a talented and ambitious fraud who cobbled together some old Pagan myths, added them into the many stories about a radical Pharisee rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth, and came up with a new religion that he sold to the Gentiles quite successfully--gaining wealth and power for himself and a Gentile disciple named Luke.

All Christian tradition comes from the imaginative storytelling and writings of these two and their followers.

Most Christians......befuddled and bewitched by romantic stories of supernatural powers--have no idea that their entire religion rests solely on the testimony of these two men.......Saul and Luke--and their Gentile followers.

One man, Saul......actually started the whole charade.

He was in league with the Romans and ended his days in his own home in Rome, still preaching his fantasy.

Read Hyam Maccoby.

His "Mythmaker" on Saul/Paul is a masterpiece........using Jewish writings to destroy the house of cards that Saul/Paul built.

 

[Logicman]

.."Christ" is a fictional creation. One must separate the two to understand all this.

The story referenced is the creation of a fraud called Saul/Paul of Tarsus......a talented and ambitious fraud who cobbled together some old Pagan myths, added them into the many stories about a radical Pharisee rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth, and came up with a new religion that he sold to the Gentiles quite successfully--gaining wealth and power for himself and a Gentile disciple named Luke.

All Christian tradition comes from the imaginative storytelling and writings of these two and their followers.

Got any evidence to back up those wild claims?

 

[Logicman]

My favorite is "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". Got it. I understand. That's a reason that I'm agnostic.

Now, make your case for Christianity, since with all of the religions out there, you think that makes the most sense.

For me, as it stands, I'd pick a watered down Buddhism or go with Deism if I had to choose. I can do without the magic and mythology.

Can you show me when and where science has EVER shown that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist? If you can't, then on what objective basis do rule out the supernatural?

I mean, you have your own miracles you have to believe in to make your agnosticism fly. For starters there's the whole universe suddenly appearing out of nothing. Then there's the mathematically improbable idea of abiogenesis. Finally, can you name the specific hominid that is man's immediate, direct-line ancestor, and show the conclusive DNA evidence to back that up?

Also, do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Christ or Christianity is a myth? It's easy to make the claim, but I've yet to see anyone put up credible evidence to support that myth claim.

 

[Logicman]

He's saying that the NT proves itself and all other accounts (though he doesn't name them) are inferior. There is no proof of the miraculous nature of Jesus or supernatural events described in the the NT except those in the NT.

Show us the scientific criteria for 'proving' the supernatural? If you can't, then how can you claim there is no 'proof' of Jesus' miracles?

It's also virtually impossible to 'prove' non-material events from ancient history. For instance, outside of 'hearsay' historical reporting, where's the scientific proof that Julius Caesar was assassinated?

I had better hope for that guy. Circular logic is pathetic.

Edit : it's not logic. I won't even deem it reasoning.

I've already linked you to a mammoth work that documents contemporary miracles. You apparently weren't interested.

I also asked you to read, "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel. So far there's no indication you've read that either.

No offense, but it appears that you haven't done your due diligence on these issues, and on the New Testament.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Can you show me when and where science has EVER shown that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist? If you can't, then on what objective basis do rule out the supernatural?

As has been explained to you many times, science does not concern itself with the supernatural or god.

The quantity 'god' cannot be falsified or quantified and it not testible or even agreed upon in defintion. That you would continue to pretend otherwise simply demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty and/or incomptence.

I mean, you have your own miracles you have to believe in to make your agnosticism fly. For starters there's the whole universe suddenly appearing out of nothing. Then there's the mathematically improbable idea of abiogenesis. Finally, can you name the specific hominid that is man's immediate, direct-line ancestor, and show the conclusive DNA evidence to back that up?

A. Those are not 'miracles' in the common, religious meanings of the term. That's you dishonestly attributing them as miracles to agnostics. IOW, you're lying.
B. No one is necessarily stating that the universe 'suddenly appeared out of nothing'. Another lie.
C. You don't undestand mathematics, nor can you demonstrate that it's mathematically improbable. Another lie.
D. Why do you pretend to be a Christian?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Show us the scientific criteria for 'proving' the supernatural? If you can't, then how can you claim there is no 'proof' of Jesus' miracles?

It's also virtually impossible to 'prove' non-material events from ancient history. For instance, outside of 'hearsay' historical reporting, where's the scientific proof that Julius Caesar was assassinated?



I've already linked you to a mammoth work that documents contemporary miracles. You apparently weren't interested.

I also asked you to read, "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel. So far there's no indication you've read that either.

No offense, but it appears that you haven't done your due diligence on these issues, and on the New Testament.

Wow. The pathological dishonesty continues unabated.

"The Case for Christ" is laughable to anyone rational, as you'd know if you would actually read the book.

No offense, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Again.

 

[Logicman]

As has been explained to you many times, science does not concern itself with the supernatural or god.

Then why do you people always want to see "proof" (a scientific concept) of Jesus or his miracles? Answer the question?

And why do you post your sophomoric rants when you haven't a clue what you're talking about?

 

[Logicman]

Wow. The pathological dishonesty continues unabated.

"The Case for Christ" is laughable to anyone rational

You've obviously have never read it, so what would you REALLY KNOW ABOUT IT?

You embarrass yourself with your self-serving nonsense.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Then why do you people always want to see "proof" (a scientific concept) of Jesus or his miracles? Answer the question?

I dont' see that they do. But then, you are famously dishonest and your question is irrelevant to what I posted.

And why do you post your sophomoric rants when you haven't a clue what you're talking about?

I know exactly what I'm talking about. You cannot rationally rebut or even address what I said.

What are you so afraid of?

And why do you pretend to be a Christian?

You have an odd, deep-seated fear of questions, and that's really not all that surprising.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

You've obviously have never read it, so what would you REALLY KNOW ABOUT IT?

You embarrass yourself with your self-serving nonsense.

\

Unlike you, I've actually read it and don't have to lie about it.

As was posted earlier here: "The Case for Christ" consists of interviews with 13 Evangelical Christian Scholars. No non-Christians, or even non-Evangelicals. All arguments against Jesus existing are brought up by the Evangelicals and are either strawmen, or the answers don'e actually address the arguments against."

Why are you trying to talk about a book you haven't read and wouldn't understand in any case?

 

[Logicman]

I dont' see that they do.

Then you were blind when the skeptic posted this earlier in Post #150: "There is no proof of the miraculous nature of Jesus or supernatural events described in the the NT..."

So save your worthless rants for someone uneducated enough to buy into them. Cause your pooch won't hunt.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Then you were blind when the skeptic posted this earlier in Post #150: "There is no proof of the miraculous nature of Jesus or supernatural events described in the the NT..."

So save your worthless rants for someone uneducated enough to buy into them. Cause your pooch won't hunt.

LOL! So now 'you people' has been distilled down to one poster? Your dishonesty is on full display here. Nice!

Tell me, why do you pretend to be a Christian and why do run in abject fear from what's posted to you?

Try and be honest this time when you answer. The power of Christ compels you!

 

[Logicman]

\

Unlike you, I've actually read it and don't have to lie about it.

As was posted earlier here: "The Case for Christ" consists of interviews with 13 Evangelical Christian Scholars. No non-Christians, or even non-Evangelicals. All arguments against Jesus existing are brought up by the Evangelicals and are either strawmen, or the answers don'e actually address the arguments against."

Why are you trying to talk about a book you haven't read and wouldn't understand in any case?

So, all evangelical scholars are liars and morons, according to you? That's stupid.

Nonetheless, show me one argument from the book that was incorrect or false? Name the page #. If you can't you have zero evidence. I have the book. I've read it. Now make your case or dummy up.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

So, all evangelical scholars are liars and morons, according to you? That's stupid.

Where did I say that? I quoted something about only 13 of them. You seem to really be struggling with basic English tonight. That's funny! Why lie like that? What does the bible say about lies?

Nonetheless, show me one argument from the book that was incorrect or false? Name the page #. If you can't you have zero evidence. I have the book. I've read it. Now make your case or dummy up.

I accept your admission that your a liar and you haven't read the book, you poor thing.

Odd that you would keep digging when you're in such a deep hole already.

 

[Logicman]

Where did I say that? I quoted something about only 13 of them. You seem to really be struggling with basic English tonight. That's funny! Why lie like that? What does the bible say about lies?

I accept your admission that your a liar and you haven't read the book, you poor thing.

Odd that you would keep digging when you're in such a deep hole already.

So, with all your bravado and barking, you can't offer up even one example of a false argument or claim in the Case for Christ, even though you claim to have read it.

That's par for the course with you. All hat and no cattle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVmeeYwEiQw

LOL!

 

[Tanngrisnir]

So, with all your bravado and barking, you can't offer up even one example of a false argument or claim in the Case for Christ, even though you claim to have read it.

That's par for the course with you. All hat and no cattle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVmeeYwEiQw

LOL!

So, with all your grandstanding and bloviating, you still cannot address what I originally posted about why your claims are specious and laughably dishonest. Typical.

Unlike you, I've read the book and understand why it's so easily debunked.

Here, dig in, you coward. I'm not going to waste time typing all this out.

https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/04/06/case-and-problem-case-christ

You lack the intellectual horsepower and honesty to even begin to approach that.

Again: what does the bible say about lies and why does that frighten you so? Hint: trick question