• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did Jesus Exist?

Iacchus said:
No, I'm saying that it is possible to understand God as a fact if you could understand "why" you know 1 + 1 = 2.

Well, I know that 1 + 1 = 2 because:

By definition natural numbers are the smallest set of numbers that fullfill the following axioms:

1. Zero is a number
2. If x is a number, then its successor f(x) is a number
3. Zero is not the successor of any number
4. If x and y are different numbers, then f(x) and f(y) are different numbers.

So this is definition. Furthermore, by definition, the successor f(0) of zero is denoted by 1 and the successor f(1) is denoted by 2.

Next, the addition of two natural numbers is defined inductively using the following two rules:

(a) for all x, x + 0 = x; and
(b) for all x and y and z, if x + y = z, then x + f(x) = f(z).

Given the above three definitions we get:

(1) f(0) + 0 = f(0) (a)
(2) f(0) + f(0) = f(f(0)) (b)

Since the shorthand notation for f(0) is 1 and the shorthand for f(f(0)) = f(1) = 2, we can write (2) as 1 + 1 = 2.

But I still don't understand God.
 
Iacchus said:
No, I'm saying that it is possible to understand God as a fact if you could understand "why" you know 1 + 1 = 2.

First, I respect you believe.
2- Why? You make statements then offer no supporting facts or logical conclusion.
3- one can not understand something as a fact until you offer fact it is real. 1+1=2 is a fact God is a belief. So it is easy to examine and understand 1+1=2 but not God.
For your statement here to be valid you need first prove God or it is no more valid the removing god from your statement and inserting Santa.
4- I understand 1+1=2 because provable causes and conditions behind it such as health, parents, teacher etc. These are factual and traceable, God would be a belief but could not be called factual.
 
Iacchus said:
I'm afraid you must have mistaken me for someone else. What you believe is entirely up to you. I am not responsible for that.

Tired old "happy happy, fact-free-fun" attitude noted.

Yet it's been claimed that Jesus was God Himself in the flesh. If so, then any notion of a supreme being would suffice don't you think?

Not when Jesus said it didn't. Your understanding had to match his own; if Jesus had meant to come out with this tired old "all Gods are one, we are all God" hippy ****, he'd have said so. He didn't. He specifically stated salvation was through him personally, and nothing else.

And as I understand, the heathen are received into heaven just as easily as (so-called) Christians are. The only criteria being that they believe in some form of supreme being and, have lived moral lives.

You don't understand at all. Try again.

How do you know he hasn't come back? ;)

*yawns*

Tired, tired old arguments... Despite the fact that I've already pointed out that many other religions claim God has sent a different prophet more recently, a number of other religions have also claimed Jesys personally has returned too... The Seventh Day Adventists for one, quite a few times in fact. And they all end up making the same idiotic arguments as you inevitably will; they all violate their own prophecies of what occurs when Jesus returns, and make up some "He's here, just not visibly so" wibble.

So... do you have anything else to add to the evidence that if Jesus had met you, he'd have branded you a despicable heretic for your misrepresentations of his ideas ,and that you will burn in hell when you die for taking his name in vain? And before you post more pathetic smilies, why not read 1inChrists threads... Hell isn't a fun place, you know! You really don't want to go there at all, so kindly stop with this new age blasphemy of yours, for your own sake...
 
The existence of God is rather independent of the existence of Jesus, so this sort of discussion is a bit of a sidetrack, unless the argument is:

God really exists.
God really is Jesus.
Therefore Jesus really exists.

Having said that, I think LW et. al. are missing the point on the 1+1=2 argument. 1+1=2 by definition, and that is not true about God, with apologies to St. Anselm, whose argument fails.

However, how did you become aware that 1+1=2? Iacchus seems to be saying that the reality of things can be directly comprehended. So, if I have direct comprehension of the reality that 1+1=2, then I could have a direct comprehension of other true things, like the existence of God. It isn't the fact of 1+1=2 that is significant, it is our awareness of that fact.

But, for better or for worse, Iacchus's argument is ultimately useless as a demonstration. (Do you agree Iacchus? I suspect you do.) It is useless as a demonstration because it relies on internal knowledge, which cannot be transferred to someone else. You may have internal knowledge that God exists, but you can't transfer that knowledge. This is different from 1+1=2, which is true whether or not you have knowledge of it, and is demonstrable whether or not you have knowledge of it.

Meanwhile, back to Jesus.

It seems that we have a few different sources for the reality of the man, Jesus.

We have the Gospels., and I'll throw in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as a separate case.
We have the Gnostic gospels.
We have Josephus.
We have the Mandaean texts.
We have historical records of Christian persecution as early as AD 64.
We have the rest of the new testament.

None of thes documents are verifiable as to accuracy or to the time frame of their creation. However, we can say with certainty that events happened very fast after Jesus' supposed death. Not one, but two, religions were started up with him as a central figure. (One for, one against) An awful lot of people said he was real. Could that have happened with no historical reality associated with Jesus, and with John the Baptist?

I suppose so, but it strkes me as much more likely that these were real people who grew into legends.
 
P.S.A. said:
Hell isn't a fun place, you know!
Been there, done that.


You really don't want to go there at all, so kindly stop with this new age blasphemy of yours, for your own sake...
I'm sure I could do much worse. ;)
 
LW said:
Well, I know that 1 + 1 = 2 because:

By definition natural numbers are the smallest set of numbers that fullfill the following axioms:

1. Zero is a number
2. If x is a number, then its successor f(x) is a number
3. Zero is not the successor of any number
4. If x and y are different numbers, then f(x) and f(y) are different numbers.

So this is definition. Furthermore, by definition, the successor f(0) of zero is denoted by 1 and the successor f(1) is denoted by 2.

Next, the addition of two natural numbers is defined inductively using the following two rules:

(a) for all x, x + 0 = x; and
(b) for all x and y and z, if x + y = z, then x + f(x) = f(z).

Given the above three definitions we get:

(1) f(0) + 0 = f(0) (a)
(2) f(0) + f(0) = f(f(0)) (b)

Since the shorthand notation for f(0) is 1 and the shorthand for f(f(0)) = f(1) = 2, we can write (2) as 1 + 1 = 2.

But I still don't understand God.
We're speaking of the process of self-actualization here, if that's the correct choice of words? It may in fact take a lifetime to come to the realization of who God is. Of course there's nothing that says it has to, it all depends on where you're at in your search.
 
Iacchus said:
We're speaking of the process of self-actualization here, if that's the correct choice of words? It may in fact take a lifetime to come to the realization of who God is. Of course there's nothing that says it has to, it all depends on where you're at in your search.

The first step would be to find if God is not "who" God is.
 
Meadmaker said:
However, how did you become aware that 1+1=2? Iacchus seems to be saying that the reality of things can be directly comprehended. So, if I have direct comprehension of the reality that 1+1=2, then I could have a direct comprehension of other true things, like the existence of God. It isn't the fact of 1+1=2 that is significant, it is our awareness of that fact.
Yes, this is essentially correct. That, in fact, this is the only way it can work. Or else what have you accepted, besides nothing?


But, for better or for worse, Iacchus's argument is ultimately useless as a demonstration. (Do you agree Iacchus? I suspect you do.) It is useless as a demonstration because it relies on internal knowledge, which cannot be transferred to someone else. You may have internal knowledge that God exists, but you can't transfer that knowledge. This is different from 1+1=2, which is true whether or not you have knowledge of it, and is demonstrable whether or not you have knowledge of it.
No, as I mentioned above, it begins with the realization of 1 + 1 = 2. Certainly one wouldn't expect to go out and solve the theory of relativity just after realizing 1 + 1 = 2 ... albeit you've taken the first and most important step.
 
Pahansiri said:
The first step would be to find if God is not "who" God is.
Well if He does exist, He must be benevolent enough to allow for our existence, wouldn't you think? ;) Can you honestly conceive of God -- besides the many who claim to come in His name that is -- directly interferring with our lives? If not, then why do we continue to ask, "Well, where is God?" You see it's more of a riddle and, unless we've done something seriously wrong to jeopardize that, we don't need someone to come along and bang us over the head with it. So, we shouldn't be afraid to approach God in that sense. The last thing we should be expected to give up is our common sense.
 
Iacchus said:
Well if He does exist, He must be benevolent enough to allow for our existence, wouldn't you think? ;) Can you honestly conceive of God -- besides the many who claim to come in His name that is -- directly interferring with our lives? If not, then why do we continue to ask, "Well, where is God?" You see it's more of a riddle and, unless we've done something seriously wrong to jeopardize that, we don't need someone to come along and bang us over the head with it. So, we shouldn't be afraid to approach God in that sense. The last thing we should be expected to give up is our common sense.

Greetings


Well if He does exist, He must be benevolent enough to allow for our existence, wouldn't you think?

Not a logical question as if “he” did not “allow” us to exist we would not know.

May I ask do you allow your children to exist?

also guess you would have to ask people like the 24,000 children who will starve to death today how they feel about his benevolence.


Can you honestly conceive of God –

No… Lol Kidding, sure I can if it is fact, I will believe anything that is a fact.

Can you honestly conceive of there not being a God?

besides the many who claim to come in His name that is -- directly interferring with our lives?

Do you believe to give a child food is interfering? I call it fathering.


If not, then why do we continue to ask, "Well, where is God?"


Come on you are a smart guy you know only people who believe in a God ask that in a non sarcastic way.. Come on.


You see it's more of a riddle and, unless we've done something seriously wrong to jeopardize that, we don't need someone to come along and bang us over the head with it. So, we shouldn't be afraid to approach God in that sense.

Replace God with Santa Clause and you have the same irrelevant statement. Prove God and we can talk about your statement carrying any weight.

The last thing we should be expected to give up is our common sense.

I have not that is why I see no proof of a God, your “common sense” seems to be blinded by a pre-conceived belief, a deep burning desire that their be a God.
 
Iacchus said:
Well if He does exist, He must be benevolent enough to allow for our existence, wouldn't you think? ;)

It is not clear that this was necessarily an act of benevolence. To bring a child into a cruel world, which it is for many, and abandon it there, which appears to be the case for all of those who lack the internal experience of God, is not benevolence it is negligent child abuse.

Can you honestly conceive of God -- besides the many who claim to come in His name that is -- directly interferring with our lives?

I have no problem conceiving of that at all. Such direct interference is described in the Bible, many times, so I am by no means the only one who can conceive of this. In fact, take direct inetference by God out of the Bible and it's a really dull read which I doubt would have attracted many followers. Can you conceive of how uncompelling the story of a God who existed but never actually directly interacted with human beings would be to most people?

The last thing we should be expected to give up is our common sense

Perhaps, but it is the first thing we should give up. It is just another name for intuition and interferes terribly with rational thought.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Thanks for clearing that up, 1inCh. That solves everything.

That's what I'm here for, to spread the truth of God and hopefully bring people to Christ so they won't have to experience eternal pain.
 
1inChrist said:
That's what I'm here for, to spread the truth of God and hopefully bring people to Christ so they won't have to experience eternal pain.
You're doing a bang-up job. I'm sure Jesus will give you a big smooch when you get to Heaven.
 
Greetings 1inChrist

Matthew 10:28:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in HELL.

Fear God???

Please consider the following.

Do you believe? “1 John 4:8] ...God is love.”
And “[1 Cor 13:5] Love...keeps no record of wrongs.”
And
“..Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;...it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;...it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right...Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...LOVE NEVER FAILS; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues,they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away...[1Cor 13:4-8]”
and “[1John 4:18.8] There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love.”””

Then if you do you must agree
1) it is clear”he” keeps no record of wrongs and does not judge.
2) “he” is not a “jealous” God.
3) “he” has no ego and can not demand to or wish to be worshiped or placed before any other
4) “he” does NOT “insist on his own way”
5) Does not want to be feared in any way.
6) And “he”does not punish.

Seems clear and to not believe what I have pointed out that your Bible says means perhaps you do not believe the Bible which you see as the word of God.
 
1inChrist said:
Yes Jesus existed. Read the Bible.

To employ the traditional rebuttal:
Yes Santa existed. Read "The Night Before Christmas."

By the way, it's good to see that you are still mocking Christ's exhortation to proselytise by making no real effort to engage the heathen on a level he can understand. Lip-service is no service at all.
 
Throg said:
It is not clear that this was necessarily an act of benevolence. To bring a child into a cruel world, which it is for many, and abandon it there, which appears to be the case for all of those who lack the internal experience of God, is not benevolence it is negligent child abuse.


This is always a tough question. Christians like to assert that existence is such a gift, but I have yet to see how you can say that existence is better than non-existence. I don't seem to recall being all that unhappy before I was born.



I have no problem conceiving of that at all. Such direct interference is described in the Bible, many times, so I am by no means the only one who can conceive of this. In fact, take direct inetference by God out of the Bible and it's a really dull read which I doubt would have attracted many followers. Can you conceive of how uncompelling the story of a God who existed but never actually directly interacted with human beings would be to most people?

Yeah, without that, all you'd have would be...preachers?
 

Back
Top Bottom