Jesus is the Proof that God Exists

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Arne Saknussemm, Jan 17, 2014.

  1. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    There has been an awful lot of speculation these last few thousand years as to whether God does in fact exist. Now, I now nearly all our brothers and sisters here at SciForums fancy themselves scientifically minded, and that's just dandy, indeed it rather helps a lot. I wish to recommend Lee Strobel's The Case For Christ an exhaustive look into the matter of whether there really was such a person as Yeshua bar Yosef (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) and if he were indeed who he said he was. Mr. Strobel was/is a hard-nosed Chicago crime reporter who gained fame with his scoop that the Ford Pinto was a death trap, resulting in the Ford Motor Company's being the first legal corporate person to ever be tried for murder. A very skeptical fellow is Lee Strobel. When his wife turned to Christ, he turned his journalist's skills to blowing the lid off the whole 'Christ scam', only to find that he couldn't.

    Obviously, I admire his work, and it got me thinking: all this endless search for proof of God's existence... well. if Christ is who he says he was, the Son of God, and God the Father in a form we could deal with (and the Holy Spirit) is that not indisputable evidence?

    Now before anyone posts a reply that leans toward the negative, I beg them to thoroughly familiarize themselves with this book.

    Thanks, and God Bless.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    It's me again. I cannot actually post links because I am still new, but for those of you who can't wait for Strobel's book to make its way to you via Amazon.com - here's a place you can watch a documentary that pretty much follows the book: //topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-case-for-christ/
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    If Christ is was who he says he was, the Son of God, then he'd need to define God and prove his existence. Do believe everything that humans tell you or just the dead ones?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Olinguito Registered Member

    Messages:
    73
    Absolutely not. Anybody can claim to be anything they like without substantiating their claim. I might claim that I was a descendant of Alexander the Great – if I merely told you that without presenting any genealogical evidence, would you believe me? It is not enough for Jesus to have said who he was – he should have backed his claim as well. (And if he had he might have convinced the chief priests and Pharisees and probably wouldn’t have been crucified after all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  9. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Jesus defined God as a loving and forgiving father. He mostly took the character of God the Father as a given (He was the Father), and chose instead to extrapolate on the Kingdom of God. As for proving His existence, that's my question. Doesn't a man who can walk on water, feed thousands on very little, heal the crippled and insane, cure lepers, raise people from the dead, invoke voices from heaven that claim He is the Son, and turn everything the religious authorities had been saying for thousands of years on its head, so that it made far more sense prove that he is who he claims to be? He performed these miracles as signs - to prove his claims. He said that to see him was to see the Father.

    And no, I don't believe everything that humans tell me; and you are mistaken to say that Jesus is dead. Far from it!
     
  10. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Actually you certainly are a descendant of Alexander, (just how great he was is a whole other matter for debate) albeit not a direct descendant. And, know what, cousin? I am also Alexander's descendant. See this article: //.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/12/AR2006081200607// it's about our beloved sister Brooke Shields. To tell you the truth, I had a hard time swallowing the concept presented in this article, but a Math PhD. pal of mine sat me down and showed me that Mohammed and Charlemagne are great grand uncles of mine. Welcome to the family, kid.

    And as I wrote in my recent post above, it seems Jesus (not a relative, by the way, as he never married) did substantiate his claims. Please refer to the well known non-fiction writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Among the chief priests he convinced were Nicodemus (I think) and Joseph of Arimathea, who respected Jesus enough to see that his body was properly buried (though that didn't last but three days! ha ha!). Among the Pharisees he convinced were Saul of Tarsus (Saint Paul) who went from being a vehement and deadly persecutor of Christians to their chief proponent (the phrase 'seeing the light') derives from his experience on the road to Damascus. No, he didn't convince every one. There are always skeptics, as you well know from participating on this forum.

    Oh, and here's the really wild part: he intended to be crucified. Our Father felt, and Jesus came to agree, that the sacrifice of a pure and sinless miracle worker, and a true son would redeem the sins of mankind past, present and future.

    Um, does any of this sound familiar?
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2014
  11. TheHun Registered Member

    Messages:
    91
    First of all, Strobel is not a skeptical fellow, at all. He is a creationist, enough said on that topic.

    So you are asking us to just read that book and agree with the guy because once upon a time he was a crime reporter who “found” god? And we should not say anything negative unless we have read the thing? Ok. So now what? Are you implying he actually has credibility here because of who he once was? Is this supposed to be an argument from authority? Then it falls short, he was just a reporter with a lucky break. How does that connect to biblical scholarship? Maybe you should mention that he is an apologist and a pastor that might work better for some.

    What if I still think it’s irrelevant to me what he found out about his religious sentiments? Like all people with something to prove, he found material to do so. It still means nothing other than he managed to reaffirm what he wanted to believe. Seriously, his book is basically an argument for intelligent design. The fact that he interviewed people from for the Discovery Institute and Craig who “discusses” Big Bang theory should entice me or make me want to actually waste the money and time to read that book?

    If there were even the chance that this would be a book based on serious scholarship and a thorough investigation on textual evidence with/and credible sources, I would read it. But the author and his so-called experts are just a bunch of evangelicals who would not know science or fact based research if it bit them in the rear end.

    There is still no proof that Jesus actually existed and here you might want to refer to bishops of the early church, such as Irenaeus and Theophilus who did not think that the Christos was actually a physical being, but understood it to be a manifestation of logos. And if people who lived during the first and/or second century after the events described in the synoptic gospels have either not even heard of a Jesus figure or deny that it was a physical presence, then some evangelical apologist will certainly not manage to sway me that his version of bible myths is any more real than that travesty of creationist science they want to peddle.
     
  12. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    I have no idea if he is a creationist now. It's hardly the point. He is a skeptical fellow, and was formerly skeptical about Jesus.
    He was, and perhaps remains, a man who looks hard at evidence, and reserves judgment until all the evidence is in, as we all should be. You say many things that show I am correct to advise you not to speak before reading or watching the video. Shall I elaborate?
    If you had read it you would know that these gentlemen are all very serious and well trained scholars who have spent their lifetimes studying the Bible. They are not 'a bunch of evangelicals'. Who are you to say whether men with PhDs and knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, history, archaeology and even statistics and mathematics (if I recall) 'would not know science or fact based research'?

    If your baseless assumptions are anything to go by, it would be you who wouldn't know. All you need to do is look into this matter as I have suggested. Instead you choose to make assumptions, and attack.
    You have read way too much into this. I simply meant if a hard-nosed Chicago crime reporter could remain opened-minded enough to see the truth, then perhaps you, the forum reader, could too. He's an apologist and pastor now! And yes, you're right, that might be more convincing to some, if we were preaching to the choir.

    I was not implying that he is credible because of something he once did. I merely meant to point out you may have heard of this man. And by the way, the Ford Pinto story was not just a lucky break. He was in the habit of poring through archives for days, months and years in his capacity as a reporter. All this connects to Biblical scholarship in that such requires research skills, skepticism, playing the devil's advocate... Another assumption you make ("Like all people with something to prove, he found material to do so") is that these people just find what they are looking for. Many of the scholars Strobel interviewed started out as skeptical as he was, and their research (in some cases, years of research) convinced them that Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be.
    How can the fact that God became Man and sacrificed Himself, suffered crucifixion and died for your sins, to pay a debt that Law demands possibly be irrelevant to you? I can't imagine what could be more relevant. Really now!
    Again, he did not want to believe any of this. When his wife chose to believe he at first wanted to divorce her, saying it was not what he had signed up for. I don't recall intelligent design ever being discussed in the book, which again, you would know if...
    (and you would not have to spend a dime, if you look at the video online)
    Either you have paid no attention to what you wrote here, or you don't know what the word 'exist' means. There was much debate in the early church as to whether Jesus was fully divine, or fully human, or half and half. After many accusations of heresy, the official line was that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human. I realize that sounds pretty fishy from a modern, scientific outlook, but there it is.. The early church fathers can hardly be held to objective standards that developed much later in history. So do you mean that if some one or some thing is a manifestation of the Word of God it does not actually exist? That’s woorisome because I believe you and I are manifestations of the logos too.
    I hardly understand this. Of course there were many millions of people in the first two centuries A.D. who had never heard of Jesus. What of it? And if there were those who denied his physical presence, like Irenaeus and Theophilus, as you claim, then they were still believers in Christ. I suppose you mean Theophilus to whom the Luke gospel and the Acts (by the same author) were addressed. Well, wasn't that Luke's whole point then?

    "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." -Luke 1

    You continue:
    My suggestion that you read or watch before you speak still holds true. In any case, you seem adamant on not being convinced of anything, which makes me wonder why you participate in a science forum at all, and then why you would choose to enter a discussion on whether the fact that Jesus existed can be seen as the proof required that there is indeed a Lord in heaven.
    Strobel ,many of the scholars interviewed in The Case for Christ and yes, I, realized the truth of Jesus Christ after much hard going, skepticism and doubt, but always with a commitment to being open-minded and facing the facts no matter where they might lead. Can you do as much, my friend?
     
  13. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    In your first post, you wrote "There has been an awful lot of speculation these last few thousand years as to whether God does in fact exist". Now you seem to be talking about Jesus.

    I don't think that it's possible to prove that the Jesus figure that's portrayed in the New Testament 'gospels' actually corresponds to an historical person. I assume that an historical Jesus probably did exist, but I don't think that any of us can really know that.

    The great majority of the Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem, the people among whom Jesus supposedly performed all these miracles and showed all these 'signs', certainly don't seem to have been convinced. They didn't accept whatever it was that Jesus had been claiming.
     
  14. TheHun Registered Member

    Messages:
    91
    How could you not know about his affiliations and his background and insist that he is a skeptic? And your insistence that the people he interviewed are serious scholars? Did you even look at who they are?

    They are all from the same creationist group and are well known for their diploma mill degrees and their creationist world view. Do you really assume I don’t know what they are just because you insist that an evangelical pastor and creationist apologist is a hard-nosed skeptic according to you? I did look into their background, as a matter of fact I have known about those clowns for quite a while and they are not reputable scholars outside their own little world where they bestow PhDs and other awards on each other. And just because Craig, once upon a time got a degree does not make him any less a religious zealot and creationist nut case either.

    So no, you are not correct about your insistence that these guys are reputable scholars outside their narrow little world. And no, you do not have the right to tell me that I need to watch some ridiculous video before I dare open my mouth. Unlike them, my degrees are from real universities and my publications have been peer reviewed by REAL academics. Besides, spending a lifetime studying the bible is no recommendation. It just means that they are too narrow minded to do any other kind of studying.

    Those are your assumptions and nothing but patronizing attitudes given voice. You know nothing about what I have and have not done in regard to religious studies. I simply stated my opinion about the veracity, reliability and all around legitimacy of the author, his sources and his ever so transparent agenda.

    That kind of one-sided drivel really only works if you are preaching to the choir, the rest of us just laugh at the assumptions and the simplistic and overt agenda driven content of that book. But the video is actually funny. Looking at that dude and his self-important, patronizing attitude is laughable.

    Really what? Listing the guys former achievements and insisting that those guys are serious scholars should make me accept your word that all is as you say? Again, the diploma mills they have created, where they get and give all kinds of degrees to each other—it’s a reciprocal system—and all those videos they do to make themselves look as if they were legitimate do not impress me. As long as they stick to religion, they don’t even bother me. When they start insisting that they have something to say in regard to science and especially evolution, then it gets funny.

    And what about the mythology about suffering and god? That should impress me how again? You can believe what you want, but include me out. I don’t do fairytales and I really don’t see where they are supposed to be relevant to anything outside their confines…like in the real world.

    Boy, you must think I am stupid, if you insist that this was not about ID and creationism. What else did that Craig guy talk, if not his creationist ideas? Just because he talked about the Big Bang, as if it is something out of his god’s cook book does not make it science it is still just another attempt to lure the unwary and scientifically uneducated and indoctrinate them with the usual creationist nonsense.

    Yes, there was much debate in the early church and some of it centered on the idea that the Christ was not a man but merely a concept. Why don’t you stop trying to confuse the issue and actually study what those early bishops believed instead of telling me your version of what they thought? Irenaeus and Theophilus did believe that there was the divine word, but not that your Jesus existed as a man. And don’t try to confuse the issue by going on about “millions of people” either. Who cares what the rest of the world believed. That never was the issue. The point is that those who were actual followers of that new movement originating from Judaism and even more importantly high ranking religious specialist of the time denied that a man like Jesus existed.

    Yeah, that’s cute. “Theophilus” means lover of god and is widely assumed to be a generic term for believers. Nobody knows who Luke addressed this to and the assumption most scholars accept is that he was a ranking Roman officer or official whom Luke wanted to either convert or at least influence.

    Well, my friend, you may admonish me all you want about being quiet unless I agree with you. But, that’s not how this works in the world of academia. You have done nothing to convince me that Strobel is anything but yet another creationist trying to make money off people who want their beliefs reaffirmed. His sources are make-belief scholars who have long ago been debunked. It is just another one-sided argument under the guise of skepticism. He can play that card as long as he wants to, but it is meaningless as it is quite obvious that he is using that merely as a marketing tool.

    And your belief in god is fine for you, but again utterly meaningless to me. I don’t need some invented figurehead to provide my life with meaning. Nor do I need to prove that I am open-minded by pretending that religion is anything else but a mental pacifier for those who choose to use one.

    Being religious is not a sign of open-mindedness. It’s just something you choose to belief. And as patronizing and condescending as you are, you certainly do not make a good advertisement for open-mindedness.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,601
    That's a very good point. If all these alleged miracles recorded in the gospels actually occurred it's doubtful he would have been rejected by the Jews. That along with the fact that in no sense did he fit the bill for who the coming messiah was supposed to be like--a Joshua-like warrior who'd lead the Jews to victory and world superiority. In point of fact the four gospels chosen by the Christian church as authentic were only 4 of around 60 other miraculous accounts which were rejected as being psuedographical accounts. Makes you wonder how those four managed to get vetted in a morass of fables and legends involving Jesus as some magical being performing all sorts of wonders before those honery disbelieving Jews.
     
  16. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Sure, just like people perceived other inexplicable things to be the work of witches in Salem. The inexplicable could have happened without the Jews buying into the explanation. That is not to say they necessarily did happen, only that your reasoning is faulty.
     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,601
    No it isn't. A man who goes around healing people and even raising a man from the dead would quickly be viewed an agent of God. The fact that he wasn't weighs in favor of these miracles being inserted later on to help prove Jesus was the real thing.
     
  18. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Really? Someone who taught what the Jewish rabbis considered heretical would be considered an "agent of God"? It could not possibly be that Jews believe certain criteria must be met to be the real messiah:
    Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred, including the return of Jews to their homeland and the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace and understanding during which "the knowledge of God" fills the earth, and since Jews believe that none of these events occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards, except for the return of many Jews to their homeland in Israel), he is not a candidate for messiah. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism's_view_of_Jesus

    Quit making ignorant bare assertions. Just like you would not accept such seeming miracles, assuming them to be illusion or trickery, their belief system would not allow them to consider Jesus legitimate.
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,601
    No.. Can't you read? I said someone who was healing people and raising the dead would be considered an agent of God. Jesus never called the rabbis heretics. So that's a red herring.

    I already pointed that out--that the Jesus didn't fit the bill for being the Messiah for the Jews. So why are you bringing it up?
     
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,601
    I'm an atheist so no, I don't buy tales of healing and resurrection. But the Jews did, especially back then. Their whole belief system involved agents of God arriving from time to time to work wonders and preach God's message.So no, a man widely reputed to be a healer would not be viewed as a charlatan. He'd be viewed as an agent of God. That's just common sense.
     
  21. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ OP,

    You said Jesus is proof of god, but who says Jesus even existed? Maybe he i just fictional like Harry Potter.

    Aside from the poorly written bible there is no proof Jesus even existed.
     
  22. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Apparently you cannot read. Where did I say anything about Jesus calling the rabbis heretics? I said the rabbis considered Jesus a heretic.

    Because you apparently missed the point that this reason alone is sufficient for them to have dismissed any "miracles" that may have been attributed to Jesus.

    Yet you even repeated the reason rabbinical Jews would not have accepted him as an "agent of God". Their whole belief system makes them more skeptical of messianic claims.
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,601
    LOL! I made the point. How could I have missed it?

    "That along with the fact that in no sense did he fit the bill for who the coming messiah was supposed to be like--a Joshua-like warrior who'd lead the Jews to victory and world superiority."

    Nope. Read it again. I said they wouldn't accept him as the messiah. As a prophet of God or even as Elias who was expected to appear before the messiah being a miracle-worker would clearly have fit that bill.
     

Share This Page