The divinity of the person called Jesus of Nazareth

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:04 pm

We have yet another thread running on the historicity issue (yawn ...) but it's been getting quite a bit of attention.

So, let's have ourselves another thread on the divinity issue ...!

I'm in a state of the mind that assents to the proposition that it's make-believe.

What do we have to demonstrate that it's true ...?

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:32 pm

[Replying to post 95 by Don McIntosh]

I suggest that this latest and woefully predictable series of denials, question-begging assertions, and self-serving generalizations does nothing to advance understanding of the topic ...

I think you could be right ...!

We are trying to discover any FACTS outside the Christian-Jewish propaganda that may be behind the Christian claim that their Divine Leader was divine.

I have NONE to say that he was not.

But it looks awfully like make-believe to me.

Christians offer NONE that he was.

So it STILL looks make-believe to me.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:29 pm

"Replying to post 99 by StuartJ"

I'm going to call you out loudly on this one.

You have been told REPEATEDLY and politely that NONE of "us lot" here claim we know there is no God.

Fair enough. I believe your sincerity and clarity of mind about who you are and who you are not. I apologize for irking you on this point.

But it now remains for you to tell me your definition of an agnostic and how your agnostic-like statements are actually atheistic.

Here's the definition out there that I'm working from:

ag-nos-tic
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:37 pm

mrhagerty wrote: "Replying to post 99 by StuartJ"

I'm going to call you out loudly on this one.

You have been told REPEATEDLY and politely that NONE of "us lot" here claim we know there is no God.
Fair enough. I believe your sincerity and clarity of mind about who you are and who you are not. I apologize for irking you on this point.

But it now remains for you to tell me your definition of an agnostic and how your agnostic-like statements are actually atheistic.

Here's the definition out there that I'm working from:

ag-nos-tic
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

You didn't "irk" - I don't operate on emotion - it was your honesty I was calling into question.

I'm not going to play the "define an agnostic" diversion with you.

I'm also not going to plough through the piles of verbiage you dumped in this topic to see if you've presented anything that looks remotely like any sort of evidence whatsoever for the divinity of the person called Jesus of Nazareth.

I suggest you haven't.

I suggest that Jesus as the Son of Yahweh is make-believe.

I suggest that piles of verbiage are a smokescreen.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:22 pm

"from StuartJ"

I'm not going to play the "define an agnostic" diversion with you.

Why?

You didn't have a problem engaging a definition conflict before. You've been quite vociferous in correcting the definition I was applying to you.

Is it because you now face a conflict from which you will have great difficulty extricating yourself? Nor is it a definition of my crack-brained manufacture, so you can't claim I'm just making up nonsense.

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:23 pm

[Replying to post 103 by mrhagerty]

You just played the distraction card ...

AGAIN

Start a new "definition" thread if there aren't enough already for you.

Stick to this topic.

Do you have a shred of anything we can check for a god-sired Jesus character?

I suggest with what you are doing that you have NOTHING.

But that door is still WIDE open for plain, simple facts for the very foundation of Christianity.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:54 pm

"Replying to post 104 by StuartJ"

But that door is still WIDE open for plain, simple facts for the very foundation of Christianity.

You've told us what you (and supposedly the world of clear thinkers) can't accept as simple facts. You imply that everyone agrees on what you mean by facts.

Since it's not an assumption for me, tell me what you will accept as facts.

If you include "independently verified," can you help me understand how you would determine what qualifies as independent?

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:33 pm

mrhagerty wrote: "Replying to post 104 by StuartJ"

But that door is still WIDE open for plain, simple facts for the very foundation of Christianity.
You've told us what you (and supposedly the world of clear thinkers) can't accept as simple facts. You imply that everyone agrees on what you mean by facts.

Since it's not an assumption for me, tell me what you will accept as facts.

If you include "independently verified," can you help me understand how you would determine what qualifies as independent?

You have just played the very standard "tell me what you mean by evidence" diversion.

I see that as a diversion by people who have NO evidence.

And the discussion is now meant to divert into a great and verbose smokescreen, and the player of the diversion can avoid admitting they have NOTHING.

That will not happen.

I suggest that you have nothing other than the cult propaganda and the IHS (Indwelling Holy Spirit)/Voices In Your Head to offer as "proof" that the possibly fictional Jesus character was sired by the mythological - and possibly not even Jewish - deity Yahweh on a human virgin.

NOTHING

Otherwise, you would slam it triumphantly on the keyboard.

And put an end to Atheists suggesting that it's a bunch of delusion and make-believe and propaganda.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:39 am

"Replying to post 106 by StuartJ"

And the discussion is now meant to divert into a great and verbose smokescreen, and the player of the diversion can avoid admitting they have NOTHING.

That will not happen.

Ah. So, you'd prefer I accuse you of a different definition than you hold, so you can rattle your sabre that I'm putting words in your mouth?