There is no proof that God exists

[Gregg]

I think both sides are talking past each other.

Fresno is asking for proof that God exists.
Gregg - you are coming at this from your perspective that Jesus is God. However, that is not proof of God. That is more along the lines of "how God manifested himself". For sake of this argument using standard apologetics wont suffice as Fresno is not asking for you to prove that Jesus is God. You first have to establish that there is a God before you can define that God as Jesus.

Do I?

Jesus claims to be the Son of God. If He is correct He would be proof of God. How do we know He is correct? Would prophesying His own death and resurrection and then carrying it out be considered good evidence if it were true?

What would Fresno have to see and hear that would make him shout Jesus in the town square? That pales in comparison to what Peter and the 11 saw and heard.

[Steve 2.0]

Do I?

Jesus claims to be the Son of God. If He is correct He would be proof of God. How do we know He is correct? Would prophesying His own death and resurrection and then carrying it out be considered good evidence if it were true?

What would Fresno have to see and hear that would make him shout Jesus in the town square? That pales in comparison to what Peter and the 11 saw and heard.

Sorry, Jesus is not proof of God. We're not even really sure Jesus ever existed.

[Ken]

Sorry, Jesus is not proof of God.

Maybe you didn't read Gregg's post well. His point was factual. If Jesus is the Son of God as he claims, then obviously there is a God. I'm not sure why that is even in question.

We're not even really sure Jesus ever existed.

Prove it

[Gregg]

Sorry, Jesus is not proof of God. We're not even really sure Jesus ever existed.

Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. One a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels regarding Jesus the man. These are independent historical sources.

There is enough non-Biblical historical evidence that most scholars believe that the man Jesus existed.

[Steve 2.0]

Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. One a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels regarding Jesus the man. These are independent historical sources.

There is enough non-Biblical historical evidence that most scholars believe that the man Jesus existed.

Okay, that's still a long way from him being divine.

[Gregg]

Okay, that's still a long way from him being divine.

Agreed.

[Steve 2.0]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.3e300c745e80

[Gregg]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.3e300c745e80

Lot's of holes, bait and switch. Why would he include Paul in the discussion of Jesus the man? Even I would not do that. He brushed over Tacitus and Josephus mixing some truth with lies. If he did his homework and was not intellectually lazy (or worse) he would have needed to address this in much greater detail.

He is an avowed atheist with an agenda. Seems like he is looking at self promotion and his 15 minutes of fame. He is an officially ordained Dudeist Priest which many in here will enjoy.

[baldgriff]

Hey - The Dude abides!!

[Gregg]

I like this one:

In the temporary absence of a Roman governor between Festus’s death and governor Albinus’s arrival in 62 C.E., the high priest Ananus instigated James’s execution. Josephus described it:

Being therefore this kind of person [i.e., a heartless Sadducee], Ananus, thinking that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus had died and Albinus was still on his way, called a meeting [literally, “sanhedrin”] of judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah … James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned.13

James is otherwise a barely noticed, minor figure in Josephus’s lengthy tome. The sole reason for referring to James at all was that his death resulted in Ananus losing his position as high priest. James (Jacob) was a common Jewish name at this time. Many men named James are mentioned in Josephus’s works, so Josephus needed to specify which one he meant. The common custom of simply giving the father’s name (James, son of Joseph) would not work here, because James’s father’s name was also very common. Therefore Josephus identified this James by reference to his famous brother Jesus. But James’s brother Jesus (Yehoshua) also had a very common name. Josephus mentions at least 12 other men named Jesus.14 Therefore Josephus specified which Jesus he was referring to by adding the phrase “who is called Messiah,” or, since he was writing in Greek, Christos.15 This phrase was necessary to identify clearly first Jesus and, via Jesus, James, the subject of the discussion. This extraneous reference to Jesus would have made no sense if Jesus had not been a real person.

[onejayhawk]

Sorry, Jesus is not proof of God. We're not even really sure Jesus ever existed.

This is not true. Jesus is as established as almost any middle eastern figure of the Roman era. Extra-Biblical sources, such as the Hebrew historian Josephus, record portions of his life where he crossed paths with the ruling elite.

There is a well known biblical story about the beheading of John the Baptizer. It is common to insert the name of Herod's stepdaughter, Salome, though the name is nowhere in the Bible. It comes from Josephus. Likewise, Josephus records Jesus' trial and execution. There is also a reference to Jesus in relation to his brother, James. The history of antiquities is built from scraps and fragments. By the standards of professional historians, Jesus' life is a fact. Importantly, the search for Jesus body is also an historical fact.

J

[Sour Masher]

This is not true. Jesus is as established as almost any middle eastern figure of the Roman era. Extra-Biblical sources, such as the Hebrew historian Josephus, record portions of his life where he crossed paths with the ruling elite.

There is a well known biblical story about the beheading of John the Baptizer. It is common to insert the name of Herod's stepdaughter, Salome, though the name is nowhere in the Bible. It comes from Josephus. Likewise, Josephus records Jesus' trial and execution. There is also a reference to Jesus in relation to his brother, James. The history of antiquities is built from scraps and fragments. By the standards of professional historians, Jesus' life is a fact.

J

Not as solid as the scientific standards that prove global warming is real, but I agree with you on this, nonetheless .

But as has been repeated, the fact that he existed doesn't tell us who he really was or what he really did, or whether he really was the one and only son of the one true God.

[onejayhawk]

Not as solid as the scientific standards that prove global warming is real, but I agree with you on this, nonetheless .

But as has been repeated, the fact that he existed doesn't tell us who he really was or what he really did, or whether he really was the one and only son of the one true God.

As I amended while you were typing this, the search for Jesus body is also an established event. It was a critical point in CS Lewis' conversion when he heard an atheist Professor of History admit that the resurrection story held water.

J

[Gregg]

But as has been repeated, the fact that he existed doesn't tell us who he really was or what he really did, or whether he really was the one and only son of the one true God.

That is true.

So now we have Jesus really existed.

Either He was or He wasn't the Son of God.

Some in here have stated they like Jesus the man. What would an atheist or agnostic like about Jesus the man?

[Gregg]

There is also a reference to Jesus in relation to his brother, James.

J

Really?! Did you even read my last post #220?

Just kidding. Do you have a particular reference that you like for the searching of the body? I would like to read it.