Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

Buckyball

Student
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
29
You don't have to convince me he was the Son of God, or that he could perform miracles. Even atheists can believe Jesus existed; I'm sure many do.

So, convince me. I am John Doe, and I have seen NO evidence that Jesus ever even existed. Being a rational man, I don't believe Jesus existed due to lack of any evidence , though I admit it is possible... many men have existed, this is not an extraordinary claim.

However, I, John Doe, see no reason to believe he existed at all.

So, give me reason to believe Jesus existed. Simple, right?
 
You don't have to convince me he was the Son of God, or that he could perform miracles. Even atheists can believe Jesus existed; I'm sure many do.
No one could.
Jesus would not be a person you could single out from a crowd.
Remember Judas, who betrayed Jesus? What did he do? He identified to the authorities which one he was so they would know who to arrest.
Apart from the miracles there is no way to identify Jesus.
Only by performing miracles can someone prove that Jesus is real.
I would meet with you and you would tell me what you needed to have changed about how you are living that God would find unacceptable and you need some special help to overcome that particular problem.
I would pray and lay hands on you and then you would later find that you somehow were able to get over that mental hurdle that you were tripping on before. Then you would think to yourself, Jesus did this.
 
No one could.
Jesus would not be a person you could single out from a crowd.
Remember Judas, who betrayed Jesus? What did he do? He identified to the authorities which one he was so they would know who to arrest.
Apart from the miracles there is no way to identify Jesus.
Only by performing miracles can someone prove that Jesus is real.
I would meet with you and you would tell me what you needed to have changed about how you are living that God would find unacceptable and you need some special help to overcome that particular problem.
I would pray and lay hands on you and then you would later find that you somehow were able to get over that mental hurdle that you were tripping on before. Then you would think to yourself, Jesus did this.

For this claim to be valid you would first need to establish that the Natural Laws that govern the universe are somehow pliable. The Loaves and Fishes Myth clearly contradicts the Law of Conservation of Matter. Walking on water violates buoyancy. Water into Wine violates so many laws it's hard to know where to start. Unless you can prove these things are possible we can dismiss the Bible as nothing more than a fairy story.
 
For this claim to be valid you would first need to establish that the Natural Laws that govern the universe are somehow pliable. The Loaves and Fishes Myth clearly contradicts the Law of Conservation of Matter. Walking on water violates buoyancy. Water into Wine violates so many laws it's hard to know where to start. Unless you can prove these things are possible we can dismiss the Bible as nothing more than a fairy story.
That's a false argument, if this is so, then that is so.
 
Last edited:
No one could.
Jesus would not be a person you could single out from a crowd.
Remember Judas, who betrayed Jesus? What did he do? He identified to the authorities which one he was so they would know who to arrest.
Apart from the miracles there is no way to identify Jesus.
Only by performing miracles can someone prove that Jesus is real.
I would meet with you and you would tell me what you needed to have changed about how you are living that God would find unacceptable and you need some special help to overcome that particular problem.
I would pray and lay hands on you and then you would later find that you somehow were able to get over that mental hurdle that you were tripping on before. Then you would think to yourself, Jesus did this.

Prayer and the laying on of hands are hardly unique to the Christian faith.
In any case, the OP's talking about the historical Jesus, not a celestial being.
 
Remember, Ethnikos, that this thread is about Jesus' existence. Your above statement is about as tight a circular reasoning as one could imagine.
I already said it can't be done.
I was telling what could be done.
 
Prayer and the laying on of hands are hardly unique to the Christian faith.
In any case, the OP's talking about the historical Jesus, not a celestial being.
Saying, "In the name of Jesus" at the end of the prayer would be.
 
That's a false argument, if this is so, then that is so.

Edit to add: did you have a list of answers already make up for various responses you may get and just copy and pasted one that seemed to fit the best?

No it's not a false argument. If the act in the story is not possible then the story can't be true. Without evidence that it's possible for a person to walk on water we need not concern ourselves with whether or not the myth of walking on water is true. We know about buoyancy. We know if you try to stand on water in your bare feet unaided by any device you will sink. If there's some evidence that this can happen present it and we can look at the myth again.
 
I don't know if he existed, nor do I care, nor do I think it would make a difference. Even if proven to have existed, he'd be nothing more than a fraud, and if not that, a nutjob with delusions. People can be convinced of almost anything today, think back 2000 years ago when people were even more superstitious.
 
So, give me reason to believe Jesus existed. Simple, right?

Seems the original poster is not available at the moment to clarify.
I could say why I think a historical Jesus could have existed.
That would be from reading Josephus who was chopped up a bit in the Apostolic Fathers thread. The High Priest was one John Hyracanus and he had an Idumean general, Antipater. He was of the Hasmonean dynasty that comes from the family of Judas Maccabeus. He(John) was pronounced king of the Jews four times by either the Roman Emperor, a future emperor, or the general of the Roman army. He was gifted with supernatural powers (being the Messiah priest/king) such as the ability to see things out of range of normal vision, could foretell future events, and heal people by touching them. His dynasty had a problem in his future son in-law, Herod, who was the son of Antipater. He decided to systematically eliminate possible ascenders to the throne, to take it for himself.
Jesus as told in Luke, was of the high priestly order of Levites through his mother's family. He may have somehow been of the proper lineage to be a priest himself. By the time he would have been old enough to, the position had been co-opted by the Caiaphas dynasty of high priests who retained it through political influence. There is a break in it when Pilate would have arrived, for one year, of the position being held by an otherwise totally obscure person. Then it went right back into the Caiaphas line. Rightfully, the high priesthood would be a lifelong appointment so whoever that person was, may have still considered himself the rightful messiah. Of course he would have wanted that identity kept secret to prevent premature assassination.
Once he started his ministry, he began to exhibit those miraculous powers that his predecessor had and saw his future disciple praying under a fig tree trying to decide if he was going to join up.
So the point of all this is that there may well could have been such a person. It seems reasonable to me that given the circumstances, his followers would have really been thrilled to be let into his secret. Also, speaking of Iscariot, who may have been a priest himself, you see him making deals with the head temple priests. The thirty pieces being from the book of the prophet the annual pay for being the shepherd of Israel. It may have been a deal to have Judas become some sort of important priest.
 
Last edited:
There's no extra Biblical evidence for the view that Jesus did any miracles what so ever. Moreover absent proof that such miracles can even happen we still don't need to consider the truth of the fairy story that is the Bible.

It's very easy to believe that Jesus was a cult leader who got jammed up by the Romans and got turned into a public art project because he was too stupid to un**** himself. The fact the Romans got out the 2x4's, the nails and a post hole digger in now way establishes anything supernatural.
 
There's no extra Biblical evidence for the view that Jesus did any miracles what so ever. Moreover absent proof that such miracles can even happen we still don't need to consider the truth of the fairy story that is the Bible.

It's very easy to believe that Jesus was a cult leader who got jammed up by the Romans and got turned into a public art project because he was too stupid to un**** himself. The fact the Romans got out the 2x4's, the nails and a post hole digger in now way establishes anything supernatural.
The model was already there, in pretty current history, where his disciples could look at Jesus and see him as being a continuation of the line of Messiahs.
 
I'm actually interested in what this thread will bring up too
All the arguments I've heard for an actual person being the source of the stories (Josephus, Tacitus, ...) are either controversial and disputed with as much vigor as they are proposed.
I'm inclined to think there is no actual evidence (and it is not possible) so I'll say probably didn't exist, and doesn't matter for the miracle claims anyway.
 
Saying, "In the name of Jesus" at the end of the prayer would be.

How would saying "In the name of Jesus" be proof of Jesus's historical existence?



...I could say why I think a historical Jesus could have existed....
Jesus as told in Luke, was of the high priestly order of Levites through his mother's family. ...
Once he started his ministry, he began to exhibit those miraculous powers that his predecessor had and saw his future disciple praying under a fig tree trying to decide if he was going to join up....
So the point of all this is that there may well could have been such a person.
Because you consider Luke to be a source for Jesus' historical existence?
 
The model was already there, in pretty current history, where his disciples could look at Jesus and see him as being a continuation of the line of Messiahs.

Why isn't it more likely that the evidence of the continuation of the line was added well after the fact to bolster the bona fides of the new cult?
 
*snip*
so I'll say probably didn't exist, and doesn't matter for the miracle claims anyway.
In my scenario, the miracles are important to point out the similarity between the new messiah, and his predecessor.
 
In my scenario, the miracles are important to point out the similarity between the new messiah, and his predecessor.

You believe in the reality of the miracles performed by Jesus as reported in the NT?
 
How would saying "In the name of Jesus" be proof of Jesus's historical existence?
Because you consider Luke to be a source for Jesus' historical existence?
Saying, Jesus, in a prayer would differentiate a Christian prayer from one of a different belief system.
Luke goes way out of its way to create the High Priest, the Temple, and Jesus.
So there is a code. Luke and Josephus, maybe the same person, tie in the two books and you win the prize, who knows but someone felt it was important whether any of it is historical or not, I suppose.
 
Why isn't it more likely that the evidence of the continuation of the line was added well after the fact to bolster the bona fides of the new cult?
have you ever heard of any of this before?
I never have. Josephus is very difficult to follow in places. Years ago, when I was about thirty, my mind was very sharp and I could sit there and work it all out and keep everything straight, where I find the same stories today rather difficult close to impossible. At one time, it just seemed obvious to me but it is not something well known. There is a whole bunch of other evidence that adds to it, my big theory but it is getting into all the controversial parts.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom