to be clear Jesus Himself is the rationality of all existence, it's not like it's referring to the words written in the bible when John writes about the Word, but Christ Himself is the Logos, the very grounding for all reason and intelligibility. Jesus holds creation together, all laws of nature, all order, induction, harmony in the universe are an outpouring of His love and Christianity is a religion of the triune God, not of a book.

someone can believe He existed as a human, like kin198 does, based on historical records the same way he would believe emperor Tiberius existed as a human because there is as somewhat similar amount of written sources about each. Kin198's belief that Jesus existed as a human is perfectly logical based on secular evidence, and the overwhelming majority of serious scholars would agree that Jesus Christ existed and was crucified under pontius pilate.

to disqualify the bible as a source for Jesus' historical existence because the many authors at the time also believed Jesus is God is a fallacy, specifically the genetic fallacy. There are numerous secular writers at the time including Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger, especially considering Jesus' relative historical insignificance(He had no military, no conquests, didn't kill anyone, didn't write a word down, yet He completely revolutionized the entire world) if we pretend He isn't God, he is more well known and accounted for than the emperors of the entire known world at that time.

it's ironic to post a meme about needing evidence when you still haven't provided a logical justification for why your 'reason' or the 'laws of logic' are reliable in the first place. you are borrowing the Christian Logos (the grounding for all order and induction) to try and argue against Him. without that grounding, your demand for 'evidence' is just a personal preference, not a logical necessity.

And your beliefs? I'm still waiting on an answer about your outlook on our world absent God. I wager you don't answer that question because of shame, fear, and foolishness. Enlighten us all beyond your shit memes.

That's not what the picture you posted says, it says the exact words I quoted in my last post. Those were the words you attempted to defend initially before pivoting when you realized what the word "proof" means.

Again, this is your exact response when I said those books don't attempt to prove God exists, they assume it.

"That is what attempting to prove something looks like. When you declare the words to be true, list things as historical facts and assume god exists you are in fact attempting to put proof on display.."

This is incorrect, as you have obviously come to realize. Continuing to deny it while moving the goal posts and attacking me is poor behavior. Do better.

I understand everything you've said, those things are dumb and wrong.

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Jan 19 2026 04:58pm

We are all still waiting for your physical proof of this "advanced civilization" outside of time that created you and life as we know it.

Stop trying to, "trust me bro"

I get the part that he only believes in physical jesus but not his word because that's what the bible represents. I just told him he must think jesus is a liar. Which is true from my standpoint also. Because if his word is bullshit the odds of him being real are even less and certainly dont help his case.

I am not necessarily against the possibility of him being a real physical human from the past I am more concerned about the magic claims he makes like creating the universe or raising people from the dead etc. I see the bible as man's attempts to deify a regular person, give him magic powers like kim jung un so that people worship him. A common practice back in those times. For example "Divus Augustus" who was revered as divine figuire. I Determine things proportional to the evidence if jesus has very poor evidence to support his existence coupled with magical powers which never were proven to be real by anyone I am inclined to believe he existed even less.

Like kin you like to boast how popular or how much influece jesus charcter had in the world without addressing the main thesis of this thread. I am not denying that bible is a very popular book or its impact on the world I am questioning if the guy is real or fiction. Its like you are intentionally trying to misunderstand this topic.

Ask yourself - what is real? Does real mean physically measurable as in spectroscopy? If yes, are emotions then not real? Are thoughts not real?

I used the picture directly to support my point of we (the people) in reply to another user. I am clearly talking about people are using the bible not that the bible is using itself trying to prove itself as you are intentionally trying to misrepresent. What its like pretending like you are winning against strawman arguments?

Found a perfect meme of you

your proposed point on deifying for power is incoherent, for hundreds of years Christians including the first apostles, were in hiding, tortured and murdered in the worst ways possible. They did not gain power or money or an army by spreading things they did not believe, they suffered for hundreds of years for what they believed was true. They died not grasping for power by denying their faith, but willingly and peacefully simply unwilling to deny the God they knew they love. They had no power, no lands, no militaries, and preached loving your neighbor and forgiving your enemy, to say it was a power grab and comparing it to the North Korean regime is completely misunderstanding history and the purpose of Christianity. The power (Romans at the time) hated and murdered Christians, unironically called them atheists since they denied the polytheistic gods.

the guy is real, this is not seriously in question, the question is He God. Since God is a personal being with His own Divine Will, He doesn't appear on demand in a way convenient to you so you can measure Him like some law of nature without a mind, and even if He did choose to appear that event alone you could say is a hallucination, similar to how you might claim the 500 people that saw His resurrection were hallucinating or lying.

there is a way to prove God, the same way you actually prove anything at all, through argumentation or the word or intelligibility or reason which is actually grounded in God Himself.

It usually begins this way, is truth real? If not, you are saying 'it is true that truth is not real' which is a direct logical contradiction. Is truth something we can only find using science? If yes, then truth of the meaning of these sentences must be found using the scientific method, which is incoherent. Truth is something not found in the material world (it's not made of matter, you cannot point to a set of atoms and say it is the truth of this very sentence) and it's not simply in my mind, otherwise you must necessarily say my finite mind which began to exist is actually the grounding of the entire universe itself and before I existed the universe did not exist.

So if the truth exists, is not made of matter, and is not simply a social construct or a product of my own mind but has a real ontological identity that is transcendental; what is the explanation for it using a materialistic worldview? There is no sound one, and this applies to many categories of immaterial things that exist, truth, meaning, purpose, rationality, induction or the regularity of the universe(you have no reason to assume in 5 seconds all of the laws of physics will not inverse and the entire universe will collapse, yet the entire scientific inquiry is dependent on induction without a single justification for it), logic, mathematical structures, the mind, and many other immaterial things that exist in the same category as explained above. To have an epistemic justification of these things it requires an entire worldview, and the coherent worldview that grounds all of this perfectly is the Christian worldview, it has perfect coherent explanatory power while the materialistic atheistic worldview must necessarily be polytheistic and non-parsimonious, having countless unrelated eternal conceptual axioms such as 'reason' "just is" and truth *just is* and induction *just is* free will *just is* all simultaneously existing in an unrelated way. It's like it has thousands of "gods" that are unrelated in order to deny the undeniable existence of the one Living God.

Oh, ok... so your argument is now that you didn't make this post claiming that the bible attempts to prove the existence of God?



Wild. Claiming to be misrepresented by direct quotes in context is pretty funny