• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Kfox

Well-Known Member
There are infinitely many proofs for Jesus's existence, and almost none of them are unanimously refuted. On the other hand, all disproofs of Jesus's existence are unanimously refuted. Hence, only one option remains:
Jesus is unanimously proven.

I don't think the problem is as to whether Jesus existed or not, but if he was who people say he was, or did what people say he did.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I don't think the problem is as to whether Jesus existed or not, but if he was who people say he was, or did what people say he did.

Atheist can not blaspheme Jesus without referring to the Bible. The Bible says, that Jesus is God. Hence, atheist can not refer to Bible to blaspheme Jesus. But that is not possible, because the very first description of Jesus Christ was given by Bible.

Jesus is not God, or
Jesus is God and is also a relentless liar.

Blaspheme.

What conjecture?

abc conjecture - Wikipedia
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Bible says, that Jesus is God.
Nowhere in the NT does Jesus say "I am God" ─ if that's wrong, quote me the part where Jesus says that.

And as I pointed out, all five versions of Jesus say they're NOT God. Since you make it plain you don't read your NT, here are some examples of Jesus saying that:

Paul:
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Philippians 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;
[...] 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;

Matthew 20:23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

Luke 18:18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “[...] I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

John 14:6 “No one comes to the Father but by me.” (Incompatible with the triune concept,)

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 [...] I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

And elsewhere:

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

1 John 4:12 No man has ever seen God; [...]

So having acquainted yourself with what according to the NT Jesus said, do you think Jesus was telling the truth, or do you think Jesus was indeed God so that these examples show he was a persistent and deliberate liar and deceiver, and that his ministry was based on this false foundation?
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Nowhere in the NT does Jesus say "I am God" ─ if that's wrong, quote me the part where Jesus says that.
The Bible does not interpret itself. Each fact needs interpretation. Bible is one huge fact. For example, there is written in Bible, that God inflicts unimaginable evil to sinners. No! God is not source of evil spirit!
 
Last edited:

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
There are infinitely many proofs for Jesus's existence, and almost none of them are unanimously refuted. On the other hand, all disproofs of Jesus's existence are unanimously refuted. Hence, only one option remains:
Jesus is unanimously proven.


The existence of a human named Jesus seems to have evidence. Does that mean that Jesus did miracles?

Lets say that I present you with a magic rock. I can prove that it is a rock. Does that prove that it is magic?
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Kind of like the black swan problem. It is pretty easy to prove the existence of white swans but impossible to disprove the existence of black swans. Unless one happens to be omniscient it would be impractical to even make such a claim.
Claims, even written claims are not reliable proofs. You got something else?
An infinite number you say. That is an awful lot. You must have something there that is more than a claim.

Gets out can of spray paint.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Atheist can not blaspheme Jesus without referring to the Bible. The Bible says, that Jesus is God. Hence, atheist can not refer to Bible to blaspheme Jesus. But that is not possible, because the very first description of Jesus Christ was given by Bible.



Blaspheme.



abc conjecture - Wikipedia

Trinity: Father (God), son (Jesus), and holy spirit (Christ) are all the same, according to Catholics.

Many parts of the bible disagree, and insist that Jesus is the son of God, and only God is God.

John 10:30: "The Father and I are one." Notice that is Jesus saying that He (Jesus) and God are the same. This is not what God said.

Mark 14:61-64: "Are you the messiah, the Son of the Blessed One? Jesus: "I am."

John 14 (also John 10): Jesus: "I am in the Father and the Father is in me."

Matt 11:27

The apostles were humans. How can be believe that humans got the ideas right?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
1. Nobody has seen the Teapot.
2. Hence, Teapot is not visible.
3. But it is known, that it is Teapot, not an Elon Mask's space car.
4. Hence, somebody has seen the Teapot.
5. Hence, it is visible.
6. We came to contradiction,
7. Hence, there are no teapots.

I've seen the teapot.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Bible does not interpret itself. Each fact needs interpretation. Bible is one huge fact. For example, there is written in Bible, that God inflicts unimaginable evil to sinners. No! God is not source of evil spirit!
Feel free to write your own bible.

But next time please just say so and save me the trouble of quoting the real one to you.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Blaspheme. Please respect member of RF.
You said the bible means what you want it to say, didn't you? You certainly haven't agreed that it says what I showed you it says.

So if I believed in blasphemy ─ which I don't, since it has no other purpose than to silence people you can't silence by reasoned argument ─ then I'd say you were closer to blasphemy than I am.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You have no right to change the Christian Creed of faith: Nicene Creed - Wikipedia
According to the Creed, the Jesus Christ is God.
Everyone has every right to observe what the gospel authors wrote, and to note that ─ as I showed you ─ all five versions of Jesus deny that they're God and never claim to be God.

Let everyone believe what they like, but don't let them make false claims about what the NT actually says.

If you've looked at the history of the church then you'll know that the Trinity doctrine wasn't invented till the 4th century; and that it was invented for the purpose of elevating the principal character in Christianity to God status in response to widespread political pressure to do so; and that it took the form it did so that Christians might avoid the charge of polytheism, which would equate them with the pagans. And that in the Trinity doctrine, the Father is not Jesus or the Ghost, and Jesus is not the Ghost, and the Father is 100% of God, and Jesus is 100% of God, and the Ghost is 100% of God.

And that the churches call the Trinity doctrine "a mystery in the strict sense"; and that their definition of "a mystery in the strict sense" is something "that cannot be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason once it has been revealed". And reading that, it has instantly occurred to you that synonyms for "mystery in the strict sense" include "a nonsense" and "something incoherent".

And no doubt it has also occurred to you that if instead Christianity acknowledged that it had three gods (Father, Son, Ghost) and not one, then their theology would no longer be incoherent on the point.
 
Last edited:
Top