Page 31 of 43
Re: Proofs That Jesus Existed
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:58 pm
by winningedge101
1. Christians claim atheists deny Jesus existence because they are sinners.
2. Atheists are sinners.
3. Therefore Jesus exists.
----------------------------------
1. Jesus is mentioned in the Bible.
2. Jesus is mentioned outside the Bible.
3. Therefore Jesus exists.
Re: Proofs That Jesus Existed
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:03 pm
by winningedge101
So far nobody has debunked my argument so it appears that Jesus did in fact exist so the burden of proof is now on you guys.
1. Christians claim atheists deny Jesus existence because they are sinners.
2. Atheists are sinners.
3. Therefore Jesus exists.
----------------------------------
1. Jesus is mentioned in the Bible.
2. Jesus is mentioned outside the Bible.
3. Therefore Jesus exists.
Re: Proofs That Jesus Existed
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:43 am
by arnoldo
1.
John 20:29 claims I will be blessed even if I haven't seen Jesus.
2. I am blessed in the mighty name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
3. Therefore Jesus exists.
Re: Proofs That Jesus Existed
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:01 am
by Kunigunde Kreuzerin
1. Theophilus of Antioch was an early Christian and claimed that "we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God".
2. Theophilus of Antioch was also a Trinitarian and claimed that the trinity is "God, his Word (Logos) and his Wisdom (Sophia)".
3. What? No mention of a Jesus or a Christ?
4. Maybe ... mmh ... or
5. Whatever!
6. Therefore, Jesus existed.
Re: Proofs That Jesus Existed
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:54 am
by rakovsky
Crossan takes the view that Jesus existed because 2nd c. pagan opponents of the Christians made lots of arguments against Christianity, but not the argument that he did not exist.
The idea that there was a 1st c. Moralistic Faith healer and teacher who started the movement as claimed is not particularly incredulous, only the supernatural stories ascried to him.
Re: Proofs That Jesus Existed
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:58 am
by rakovsky
Peter Kirby wrote:ARGUMENT FROM ROMANS
(1) Romans thought Jesus existed.
(2) Romans criticized Christianity.
(3) Therefore, Jesus existed.
This sounds a bit like Crossan's idea except he adds that Romans did not make this criticism in the detailed list, eg. By Celsus.
Re: Proofs That Jesus Existed
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:28 pm
by JoeWallack
ARGUMENT FROM COPYING OF THE NAME "JESUS" -
Many Jesuses?
1) Christians subsequent to Paul copied the name "Jesus" from the name Jesus in Paul's writings
2) Paul copied the name "Jesus" from the name Jesus used by people that Paul knew or had heard of.
3) 1) and 2) project back in time Ad Nazorean.
4) 1) 2) and 3) must go back to someone named Jesus.
5) The starters of all Jewish Messianic movements existed.
6) Therefore, Jesus existed.
ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:18 am
by JoeWallack
ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
1) Paul is generally considered the best evidence that Jesus existed.
2) The next best evidence is generally considered the Synoptic Gospels.
3) Justin Martyr is the first good evidence that the Synoptic Gospels existed.
4) Justin Martyr is silent regarding Paul.
5) Therefore, Jesus existed.
Re: Proofs That Jesus Existed
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:40 pm
by hakeem
There is no story that Paul was an eyewitness of an historical Jesus.
In Acts, it is claimed Saul/Paul heard the voice of a non-historical resurrected and ascended Jesus while Saul/Paul was blind.
In writings attributed to Paul it is claimed Paul was the last to see the resurrected Jesus [the Lord from heaven]
No-one ever saw anyone alive after they were dead.
1 Corinthians 15:15
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
The so-called Pauline Epistles are the worst writings to support an HJ argument.
The character called Paul was invented as a "witness" in an attempt to historicise the non-historical resurrection.
Re: Feminist proofs that Jesus existed
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:07 pm
by hakeem
spin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:52 am
A.
[1] In the ancient male dominated narrative context, women are only mentioned when they have to be mentioned.
[2] The only reason the women at the tomb were mentioned is that they had to be mentioned.
[3] The only reason they had to have been mentioned is because they alone witnessed the empty tomb after burial.
[4] Their witness of Jesus and his emptied tomb has to have been real.
[5] Therefore Jesus must have existed.
B.
[1] Women have a better grasp on reality than men.
[2] The gospels say that several women knew Jesus (including his mother).
[3] If they said they knew him, who are men to disagree?
[4] Therefore Jesus existed.
C.
[1] Jesus is just a man (according to Mary Magdalene).
[2] Despite this many women accept his existence.
[3] This is a bitter fact for feminists (who ask why he had the operation).
[4] Therefore Jesus existed.
Spin, your post is logically barren.
Based on your post if Women say Jesus resurrected therefore Jesus did resurrect.
If women at the tomb spoke to an angel from heaven then angel from heaven was at the tomb.
In the Gospels it says a woman was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost therefore the Holy Ghost did exist.
LUKE 1
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
It is mind-boggling that some do not understand that ancient fables contain non-historical female characters.