On the existence of Christ

TITL

OO this thread sounds like fun! I've never argued with a real atheist before, I usually let others do the talking. Anyway..

Christs' existence was documented by many Roman and Jewish citizens at that time. Flavius Josephus (I'm no good at linking a word like dzheremi, so here's the full link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus) was a Jewish historian who reported quite a few things during the first century. Unlike Islam and Buddhism, Christians don't depend on an individual claim. Christ was seen by many, crucified by many, and resurrected in front of many. Who else saw the "angel" appear to Mohammed? :P

Christ claimed that He was sinless. No one else could dare say those words about themselves, because it's so easy to prove otherwise. No one proved Him otherwise. It was impossible.

The miracles He performed confirm His existence as well. It couldn't have been a lie since it was witnessed by both believers and unbelievers. The miracles still exist today. There's no scientific evidence or magic leeways as to how a blind person can see. His resurrection was also witnessed by unbelievers and recorded by many.

The Bible does not contradict itself. It is historical and scientific. Christ fulfilled all the prophecies. He was born in a manger, He died on the Cross, He was resurrected. Explain that, you atheists.

Ioannes

Yes I am using archaelogical evidence. We must remember that just because Christ inevitably existed does not mean we can prove His divinity. For people of faith this book serves to strengthen their foundation by reinforcing their faith, and give them the ability to answer these questions atheists have, instead of atheists playing off our ignorance, which enables them to say just about anything and get away with it.

I do not want to ruin the book because there is much more to it than just a few historical sources. We have to keep in mind that we have to speak in a language they understand, evidence, reason, and logic. I am finishing up the written rough draft, will hopefully finish the editing and start typing up the typed rough draft tonight, God willing!

Remnkemi

Ioannes,

I personally believe trying to prove Christ exists through the Bible or through archeological evidence is futile. Atheists don't believe in the Bible to begin with and archeological evidence (or any physical evidence) completely relies on interpretation which relies on a mutual acceptance of fundamental facts. Again atheists don't have a mutual acceptance of fundamental facts, as I'll show below.

I think the only way to convince an atheist that Christ exists is to use their own arguements in reverse. This approach relies on understanding your atheist audience before you compile an argument for the existence of God. It's been my experience that atheists chose not to believe in God because a belief in God is equated to a belief in the Tooth fairy or Santa Clause. To them, it is a childish imagination story (like an invisible friend) that one must realize is a fabrication if one is to mature.

To which I would answer that no faith in God is farcicle, foolish and absurd, while faith in God is completely reasonable, justifiable and real. The atheist has it backwards.

Lack of faith in God is nothing more than a personal, psychological mask. It is the disease of the ego, the clash of the subconscious that Jeung speaks about, that believes it (the ego) is immortal, divine, and superior than any other being, thought or entity. The subconscious of an atheist convinces himself that God can't exist because it would be secondary to the real God. While all along the subconscious does not dwell in reality. If you think about it, it is divine irony. The subconcious of a child convinces him that an invisible friend speaks to him, The subconcisous becomes a god, able to see and speak to metaphysical objects and direct and cause an imaginary world. Yet, it is the same subconscious that convinces an atheist God doesn't exist using the same non-phsyical, non-logical process that created an imaginary friend. This is why it is absurd and comical to believe that God doesn't exist.

Now one can argue that I didn't actually prove God existed. I only proved non-belief in God, which the atheist holds as his god, is absurd. This is true. If I wanted to actually prove God existed, I would recite all volumes of Thomas Aquinas' Contra Gentiles (Against the Nations). He uses math, physics, rhetoric and logic to prove the Christian God exists. (All to prove that the God of Islam, the nation he is proving is foolish, cannot be the real God).

I'm anxious to hear what you think, Ioannes.
George

Ioannes

Remnkemi, The existence of Christ can most certainly be proven, I think you misunderstand what I mean. I do not think His divinity can be proven by evidence, only His existence. The archaeological and historical evidence corroborate one another, there are non-Christian sources that attest to the fact of Christ's existence, the early church fathers, and of course the Gospels. There are many atheists who do believe Christ existed, at the very least as a historical figure and nothing more.

Remnkemi

Ioannes, I think you misunderstoond what I meant. Of course the existence of God can be proven. That is why I said I would recite Thomas Aquinas' work. What I was trying to show is that a direct argument may not be as effective as indirect argument. It is the indirect argument that atheist usually utilize to prove God doesn't exist. So to indirectly prove God does exist is to debunk the atheist's indirect argument. Ideally, a direct argument for Christ's existence should be effective. And I guess you're right that many atheist believe in the historical existence of Christ. But the fundamental argument of the atheist is that God doesn't exist and Jesus Christ is nothing more than the boogy man. Here the indirect argument I gave will refute such claims.

Hezekiel

[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=11507.msg138790#msg138790 date=1306856246]
Yes I am using archaelogical evidence. We must remember that just because Christ inevitably existed does not mean we can prove His divinity.


If atheists do not have problems with the historical existance of Jesus,how do they explain the empty tomb or the glorious resurrection? The non-christian sources do mention that Christ appeared alive to his followers after his death.

ilovesaintmark

There is no such thing as an atheist.

They are in a struggle with their inner being.  They are trying to suppress the inner self from reaching out to the God that created it.

No matter how much they verbalize outwardly that they are atheist, they are know deep down there is a God.

Jesus Christ exists historically even for the non-Christian and "atheist".

Christ the Son of the Living God is eternally existent for the Christian.

Remnkemi

[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=11507.msg138799#msg138799 date=1306871740]
There is no such thing as an atheist.

They are in a struggle with their inner being.  They are trying to suppress the inner self from reaching out to the God that created it.

Thank you ilsm. That's exactly what I meant when I said, (atheism) is a personal psychological mask. An indirect proof to the existence of God is to prove atheism is wrong. You took it a step further and said atheism doesn't exist. Both seem appropriate when dealing with self-proclaimed atheists.

ilovesaintmark

I have developed my own categorization of the "atheists":

Category (1):  arrogant; 'I am god'.

Category (2):  blaming God for some misfortune.

Category (3):  trying to justify an immorality or lascivious lifestyle by ignoring the presence of God.

Their anxiety and struggle is that the soul keeps shouting at them that they are wrong.  This is why they get so angry when they
argue their points.

I like talking to 'atheists'.  I don't try to talk about the Bible.  I don't try to prove anything about God.  I tend to help them create doubts about their notions and hypotheses.

I believe in the diamond cutters approach in splitting or cutting a diamond, ie, find a weak point, even very small, tap a little, and the whole thing falls apart.

George_Mina_Awad

Interestingly enough, Oxford just came out with a study (I couldn't find many details on how it was conducted though) that shows that belief in the afterlife is not necessarily learned, but instinctive. That is, nature, not nurture.

NOW FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE THIS MUST MAKE SENSE BECAUSE MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO BLAHBLAHBLAH HAPPENED SO WE STILL DON'T NEED GOD AND BLAHBLAHBLAH.

-__-