Jesus exists, change my mind.in Religion

YeshuaRedeemed

Nathaniel_B

Burden of proof is on you.

Zombieguy1987

If Jesus exists, I'm sure I would've seen him/her by now....

But, because we have no proof he/her doesn't exist

He/her doesn't exist.

George_Horse

Nathaniel_B said:

Burden of proof is on you.

He's right.

MayCaesar

Jesus of Nazareth died over 2,000 years ago, according to historical sciences. His remains probably are still out there (after all, in the ideal conditions remains may be conserved for hundreds millions years in some recognizable shape), so, in a sense, he still exists, indeed.

Erfisflat

MayCaesar said:

Jesus of Nazareth died over 2,000 years ago, according to historical sciences. His remains probably are still out there (after all, in the ideal conditions remains may be conserved for hundreds millions years in some recognizable shape), so, in a sense, he still exists, indeed.

He was there "hundreds millions years" ago, and can attest to this fact.

Pieter

Ouch. I didn't realize this is the way a persuade me debate worked.

Firstly, @Zombieguy1987 the absence of proof, does not qualify for the proof of the opposite. If someone goes missing, there is no proof that he/she was murdered, because without a body, there is no murder. You will agree with me though that the probability of this missing person being murdered remains even though the proof of murder cannot be found. The lack of evidence therefore does not proof the lack of truth.

To those who agree that Jesus existed, but died 2000 ago, I want you to consider this: Jesus dies, and is resurrected. How do I know that? Because not long afterwards, his followers - who saw Him after He was resurrected - are willing to die for witnessing his resurrection. If this was one person, I could agree with you that maybe he/she was a lunatic, but this was not one person, almost all of the 500 people who saw Him alive after He was crucified were killed because they chose to spread the word of what they saw. Why would anyone do that? Why would anyone choose to die because of a lie, unless the lie was indeed the truth?

Joeseph

@Pieter

This claim is made in all kinds of places.  Even William Lane Craig brought it up in his debate with Bart Ehrman when he said the following:

The original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief.

Ehrman’s response sums the situation up very well:

I hear that claim a lot, but having read every Christian source from the first five hundred years of Christianity, I’d like him to tell us what the piece of evidence is that the disciples died for their belief in the resurrection.

Zombieguy1987

Pieter said:

Ouch. I didn't realize this is the way a persuade me debate worked.

Firstly, @Zombieguy1987 the absence of proof, does not qualify for the proof of the opposite. If someone goes missing, there is no proof that he/she was murdered, because without a body, there is no murder. You will agree with me though that the probability of this missing person being murdered remains even though the proof of murder cannot be found. The lack of evidence therefore does not proof the lack of truth.

To those who agree that Jesus existed, but died 2000 ago, I want you to consider this: Jesus dies, and is resurrected. How do I know that? Because not long afterwards, his followers - who saw Him after He was resurrected - are willing to die for witnessing his resurrection. If this was one person, I could agree with you that maybe he/she was a lunatic, but this was not one person, almost all of the 500 people who saw Him alive after He was crucified were killed because they chose to spread the word of what they saw. Why would anyone do that? Why would anyone choose to die because of a lie, unless the lie was indeed the truth?

"Jesus dies, and is resurrected. How do I know that? Because not long afterwards his followers - who saw him after he was resurrected."

Well, can I ask these "500 followers" so I can see if they're not lying?

Because I want ACTUAL proof that Jesus exists, not something that was 2000 years, where evidence can be tampered, or is just lies.

But since there is no proof that can be refuted, I cannot accept your claim that a man who died, who was resurrected, with 500 people as witnesses, and not find any proof, other then the Bible which in it of itself is one giant fallacy 

Kruenpiper

@Zombieguy1987

Well you can't ask these people because they're dead... But you can read their writings both in the New Testament and some which are not cannonized in the Bible, recounting their experiences with Jesus of Nazareth.

Also, I would ask you: prove George Washington or Alexander the Great existed. I'm curious as to your response. 

Because if you can't accept historical documents as basis of historical facts than you live in a present with no substantial past.

Zombieguy1987

@Kruenpiper
"If you can't accept historical documents"

uh huh, right. Go assume that I don't accept history, even though I'm a huge 20th century history buff 

Also you're question to prove George Washington and Alexander The Great existed is a really bad question because WE CAN PROVE their existence, unlike Jeuse because last I heard, a man can't just walk on water, and just come back from the dead. Sounds like something from a movie

Kruenpiper

@Zombieguy1987

You didn't answer any of my questions.

You didn't prove anything. How can we prove they existed? 

Zombieguy1987

@Kruenpiper ;
You ever heard of this magic word called documents?

Because we have documents about Washington's existence (I don't know who Alexander the great is) But Jeuse? The bible 

Evidence

Zombieguy1987 said:

@Kruenpiper ;
You ever heard of this magic word called documents?

Because we have documents about Washington's existence (I don't know who Alexander the great is) But Jeuse? The bible 

@Zombieguy1987 You don't know who Alexander the Great was? Maybe he was a buddy of this Jeuse guy you mentioned!?

Have you seen these abbreviations; 2018 A.D. and/or 500 B.C. ever used?

Today the international standard is to designate years based on a traditional reckoning of the year Jesus was born — the “A.D.” and "B.C." system. "A.D." stands for anno domini, Latin for “in the year of the lord,” and refers specifically to the birth of Jesus Christ. "B.C." stands for "before Christ."

How about these?

A.B.B or B.B.B, ..  like 13.75billion years A.B.B. (After the Big Bang), or a few microseconds BBB (Before the Big Bang)?
Of course not, even BB-Cosmologists wouldn't want to look that, .. umm that far gone!?

Judaism

Wew - as a good Jew, I'm staying out of this one!