There is no proof that Jesus existed

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2018, 05:55 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Actually, it reads as if Adam never interacted with the animals before, IMO.

When god saw Adam alone he did not say "I will bring him a helper",  instead he said "I will make a helper".  Then it says he made the animals.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2018, 09:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  It does not depend on the translation.  It depends on the context.  Even the NIV version makes it clear if you look at more than just one verse

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”  19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals, but for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found.

1.  Adam was alone.  
2.  God said "I will make a helper".  
3.  God made all the animals

You do realize had in this context means "having done previously" don't you?

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2018, 09:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do realize had in this context means "having done previously" don't you?

Yes.  It is called the "past perfect tense".  Clearly God had to create the animals previous to bringing them to Adam, but he still created Adam before the animals.  

The word "will" creates what is called the "simple future tense".  So when God says "I will make him a helper" that means it has not happened yet.

1.  God sees Adam alone.
2.  God says "I will make him a helper"
3.  After God makes animals he brings them to Adam.

[Belsnickel]

It's interesting, this little back and forth caused me to look at some different translations. There are some where it is much less ambiguously written that the animals were made after Adam. I had never noticed that.

[Beaker]

(07-13-2018, 05:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Makes sense I suppose. Still kinda makes you say hhhhmmmmmm...

That's why we're still trying to figure out how they got here.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2018, 10:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  It is called the "past perfect tense".  Clearly God had to create the animals previous to bringing them to Adam, but he still created Adam before the animals.  

The word "will" creates what is called the "simple future tense".  So when God says "I will make him a helper" that means it has not happened yet.

1.  God sees Adam alone.
2.  God says "I will make him a helper"
3.  After God makes animals he brings them to Adam.

..and Adam named none of the animals mate; so God did not make one of them his helper. So yeah, God will make one of the animals his helper if he selects one that is compatible. None were so he had to go to plan B. 

BTW, you just watched a show on grammar didn't you?

[Devils Advocate]

(07-13-2018, 01:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Hence, why I also linked the footnotes. Wiki is only a poor source when the information in the wiki is not sourced. The statement I posted had 3 separate footnotes. That's a good source.

Soooooooooooooooo, a source doesn't count because it says the same thing? Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds?
"The New York Times just said Obama thinks gay marriage should be legal."
"Well, that's exactly what Obama said last night." 
"Clearly, the New York Times is just echoing Obama and can not be considered an independent source nor can it be considered proof of what Obama says."

Has it not occurred to you that maybe the reason he's supposedly "echoing" the gospels is because the gospels ARE authentic?

What's your proof of the "many people" that claimed to be the Messiah around the time of Jesus?



Doesn't mention Jesus by name, true, but he mentions "Chrisus" who suffered the "extreme penalty" (death) under the hands of Pontius Pilate. There's only one person who claimed to be the Messiah that was put to death under Pilate. Hint: his name is Jesus.

1]The sources from wiki, save one that I could find, all come from a religious background. PHD’s & very smart people & I’m sure they’ve done due diligence, but they are searching for confirmation. One of those sources even has the title;Jesus & His Contemporaries. I may be presumptuous here, because I didn’t even bother to look into that one, but it’s beyond irrefutable that there are no contemporary historians that mention Jesus. I mean, if you insist that I go through each source, I will but I suspect I’ll find more of the same.

2]Citing the Gospels, is not an independent source. I’ll concede(for the sake of argument and time) that historians agree Tacitus is authentic but let’s not conclude that the Gospels are.

3]Tacitus doesn’t mention Jesus or Messiah, only Christos/Christus. Further, in the passage he incorrectly labels Pilate as a Procurator.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-13-2018, 11:21 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: 1]The sources from wiki, save one that I could find, all come from a religious background. PHD’s & very smart people & I’m sure they’ve done due diligence, but they are searching for confirmation. One of those sources even has the title;Jesus & His Contemporaries. I may be presumptuous here, because I didn’t even bother to look into that one, but it’s beyond irrefutable that there are no contemporary historians that mention Jesus. I mean, if you insist that I go through each source, I will but I suspect I’ll find more of the same.

False. You have the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant "non-blblical contemporary historians, which you are also incorrect about. You have the aforementioned Tacitus and there's also Pliny the Younger and Josephus (who, like Tacitus, may have not been alive during the time Jesus lived, they were close enough in time that they would have known if there was no such human being). There's also Mara bar Serapion and the Babylonian Talmud.

Now, sure, you have reasons to doubt the authenticty of all those references, but you can NOT factually claim that there is no non-Biblical evidence of Jesus' existence.