• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Case for Christ

Realitywins said:
But you and your ilk always make much of how many deluded people there are following your myth. Non-believers, ie rational people, need no such re-assurance.
Click to expand...

Unless they're shareholders and the product is declining in sales and the company profits are taking a hit. Then they probably care if fewer people are believing the myth that buying x product will make you happier or more good looking people attracted to you.
 
The existence of Jesus isn't really a debate among most Historians. There are too many historical documents talking about his existence.
 
DashingAmerican said:
The existence of Jesus isn't really a debate among most Historians. There are too many historical documents talking about his existence.
Click to expand...

"Talking" about existence is not evidence of existence.
 
Realitywins said:
Agreed. But for much of it we have physical evidence. For the mythical mane we have none.
Click to expand...

So it could be that this man is part of the history that we have no physical evidence. :shrug:
 
<alt>doxygen said:
The comments are enlightening. It seems that the rebuttal book used an argument framed in theology. Ehrman's book is from a historical perspective, not a theological one. That would not seem a valid way to go about disproving Ehrman's work.
Click to expand...

From what I remember Ehrman does get into some theology but it's been a long time and I don't remember how all of the arguments went. One of them was centered around Matthew 24:30 when Jesus said: "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory." I think Ehrman was trying to say that such a thing never happened, but his critic said that Jesus was invoking Old Testament apocalyptic imagery. I think that's how it went.
 
ataraxia said:
Yeah. Actually, that's the consensus of most serious Biblical scholars today.
Click to expand...

It is? Well, it's a good thing for you that it's only the "serious" Bible scholars who believe this.
 
Cephus said:
It's not pop culture, it's scholarship. And I've read it, along with everything else Ehrman has written, along with tons of Christian apologetics as well. I read everything. Well, not Game of Thrones because I don't care.
Click to expand...

Really? What "Christian apologetics"?
 
Cephus said:
It's not pop culture, it's scholarship. And I've read it, along with everything else Ehrman has written, along with tons of Christian apologetics as well. I read everything. Well, not Game of Thrones because I don't care.
Click to expand...

By the way, you and I have very different ideas of what "scholarship" is. If you had told me you have read everything by Geerhardus Vos I'd have been impressed.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I've read it. He didn't prove Christ existed.

You'll have to do better than that.

A more interesting topic would be 'Did the supernatural events described in the bible and attributed to Christ really happen?", since whether there was actually a historical figure named Jesus Christ or not (and it's likely there was), those are the things central to the veracity of what most people consider to be the case for Christ.
Click to expand...

You say he didn't prove Christ existed.

You'll have to do better than that. Let's hear it.
 
Realitywins said:
The faithful are forever bringing up Josephus, Eusebius and Tacitus, ignorant of or unwilling to admit to the fact such references were interpolations or forgeries added by later xian apologists attempting to put flesh on their imaginary man. Even the Catholic church finally admitted these were forgeries.
Click to expand...

To borrow from Tranngisnir, you'll have to do better than that.



It should also be noted, even of they weren't forgeries, they were written long after the time and so the very best one could say for them would be that they were not only merely hear-say, but hear-say far removed for the alleged events and thus completely unreliable
Click to expand...
:mrgreen:

Your great, great, great, great, great, grandfather did not exist!
Do you tell your parents they're full of crap when they try to tell you about your ancestors?
Is that your stance?
 
MrWonka said:
Even if you believe all of this. The existence of a person who called himself Jesus and claimed to be the son of god, does nothing to prove that he actually was the son of god.

If Jesus did exist, he was likely just a normal cult leader. He was no different than David Koresh. His followers simply concocted a ridiculous story about his resurrection to help expand their cult into a religion.
Click to expand...


Actually, He's not only the Son of God. I believe that He is God.

Again....you'll have to do better than just give your opinion.
Now you're saying the Bible is not reliable! You'll have to check out the evidences given for the Bible. Without that.....your opinion aren't worth anything at all. It will all be based on pure ignorance.


The two subjects will overlap.


Is the God of the Bible, the Creator?
Is the Bible, reliable? Can we trust the Bible?
Is it truly God-inspired? How do you know it came from God?


The first argument (proof) given is, The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, along with several evidences to support it. (see posts #706, 707)


The second was Mathematical Probability: Order of Creation (post #770)


The third, Mathematical Probability: The Christ Prophecy (#967)
Click to expand...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/287320-bible-97.html



To compare Jesus with Koresh, is in itself, beyond ridiculous - it's a bright red flag that says you hardly know anything about the arguments for the Bible, or Christ.



"You'll have to do better than that." Looks like that sentence will be repeated to most non-believers here.

Here is the bottom line:
You'll have to refute all those evidences for the Bible, if you're going to argue that the Bible isn't credible.
You'll have to do your homework.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
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
Click to expand...

A real scientist that. Changing his opinion on contrary evidence! How politically incorrect!
 
joG said:
A real scientist that. Changing his opinion on contrary evidence! How politically incorrect!
Click to expand...

Hum. Not a scientist, but a journalist making money through writing. Big difference.
 
tosca1 said:
You say he didn't prove Christ existed.

You'll have to do better than that. Let's hear it.
Click to expand...

You made the assertion in the positive: he proved Christ existed. An unsupported bare assertion. It's not up to me to prove your own point.

You saying that he did won't magically make that statement true. I've read the book. I know he didn't.

Step up to the mic and makie your case.

I know, you can't, but I still have to ask.
 
joG said:
A real scientist that. Changing his opinion on contrary evidence! How politically incorrect!
Click to expand...

Lee Strobel is not a scientist! :lamo


Anyway.... what contrary evidence? You have to do better than that.
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
You made the assertion in the positive: he proved Christ existed. An unsupported bare assertion. It's not up to me to prove your own point.

You saying that he did won't magically make that statement true. I've read the book. I know he didn't.

Step up to the mic and makie your case.

I know, you can't, but I still have to ask.
Click to expand...


Have you read the article? If not, you better read it.

After having read it, if you still can't figure out why I gave him as evidence proving that Christ existed......what more can I say?
 
tosca1 said:
Have you read the article? If not, you better read it.

After having read it, if you still can't figure out why I gave him as evidence proving that Christ existed......what more can I say?
Click to expand...

No, you specifically stated "He ended up proving Jesus Christ existed."

Again: you saying that he did won't magically make it true.

Please substantiate your claim.

Again, I know you can't, but I have to ask.

Here's the mic: step on up.
 
Northern Light said:
Cool, I didn't know about that one.

Seems that faith healing is a timeless quality that people believe in.

Wouldn't it be cool if there were multiple people in the world with the abilities of Jesus? I mean... why not? Why was there only ONE son of god?
Click to expand...

People being thought of as having divine characteristics/abilities was rather common in those days. The Jews were the only monotheists, and even their God has a commandment to, "...have no gods before me..." which implies other gods.
 
it's just me said:
By the way, you and I have very different ideas of what "scholarship" is. If you had told me you have read everything by Geerhardus Vos I'd have been impressed.
Click to expand...

What single work of his would you recommend as a starting point?
 
it's just me said:
From what I remember Ehrman does get into some theology but it's been a long time and I don't remember how all of the arguments went. One of them was centered around Matthew 24:30 when Jesus said: "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory." I think Ehrman was trying to say that such a thing never happened, but his critic said that Jesus was invoking Old Testament apocalyptic imagery. I think that's how it went.
Click to expand...

I'm only 20% done with it at this time, but unless he changes tact later on it sounds like you are describing another book. Ehrman is documenting the history of that age, along with the mindsets, especially re gods and the supernatural, of the various peoples who lived then. It adds a lot of context to the discussion of the time of Jesus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom