The divinity of the person called Jesus of Nazareth

[StuartJ]

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 ...?

[Elijah John]

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

As far as I know the only evidence we have for the divinity of Jesus is his followers' written testimony that he performed feats that convinced them that he was the son of the Bible god. So to believe Jesus was or is divine the Christian must accept the word of unknown people who said that they saw him do magic.

And even if Jesus performed the "magic" as skeptics often say, (and as the New Testament suggests), it is still a leap to conclude that Jesus is God.

There were more than a few first century "magicians" running about, if accounts are to be believed.

[1213]

I know that Bible tells Jesus was son of God and there is only one true God that is greater than Jesus. I believe that because of what Jesus said. Because he had wisdom, truth and love that I have not seen from people.

But how can you say that you believe the Bible because of what Jesus said when what Jesus said is (presumably) quoted in the Bible? What you're saying is that you believe what the Bible says because of what it says. That's circular reasoning.

I meant, Jesus shows in the Bible wisdom, truth and love that I dont believe people would have without God. This is basically same as, if somebody claims that he has been in America and tells things that show it is true, then I believe he has been in America.

And if it would be from some other human than Jesus, I dont believe it would be credited to someone who really didnt say it.

[Mithrae]

If you assert that there is not a single SHRED of evidence for Jesus' divinity and refuse to budge...
And others assert that there is not a single SHRED of evidence for your beliefs and refuse to budge...
...then a third party could legitimately conclude that your position is no more credible than that of Christians. What I'm getting at is that the constant quasi-dogmatic assertions of "no evidence" which we so often see from atheists or professing 'sceptics' is not a very productive way to engage with others. It accomplishes nothing, besides perhaps encouraging a self-reinforcing echo chamber.

Thanks for that.

In keeping with your observations above, here in a nutshell is why I think the demand for evidence (of any and all claims) is self-defeating:

1. Beliefs not backed by evidence are probably false.
2. The belief that beliefs not backed by evidence are probably false, is not backed by evidence.
3. The belief that beliefs not backed by evidence are probably false, is probably false.

I think #2 is incorrect; or at least we can certainly demonstrate that beliefs based on no/poor evidence are less likely to be true than contrasting beliefs based on better evidence. But in general you've got the right idea in that - for the subset of atheists and professing sceptics whose primary mode of 'debate' consists of sitting back demanding evidence and then insisting that it's not good enough or (in extreme cases) does not exist at all - such an approach is largely if not entirely arbitrary and in itself does not seem to be supported by adequate evidence.

The problem isn't that our views should be supported by evidence and logic - they should be - it's that some folk feel that they 'win' debates by simply asserting that there is no legitimacy whatsoever (or simply not enough legitimacy) to the reasoning and evidence supporting others people's views.

And to my mind the biggest problem with that approach has nothing to do with 'winning' or 'losing' a debate or changing others' minds: It's the failure to acknowledge uncertainty and hence the (perhaps slim but often significant) possibility that the other guy's guesses are correct. For example in the case of this thread topic, depending on my mood and how much I'd had to drink, I might be persuaded to acknowledge anywhere from a 1% even up to 20% plausibility for the claim of Jesus' divinity, or at least (in deference to Elijah John's point) his messiahship; the predicted and actual success and influence on world history of his movement alone has got to be worth a percentage point or two!

[Don McIntosh]

[Replying to post 18 by Don McIntosh]

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

Is the topic.

No DEMANDS in that sentence.

Can you contribute anything ...?

Remember, context is really important if you want to understand what someone else is saying. I was responding to Mithrae's remarks:

If you assert that there is not a single SHRED of evidence for Jesus' divinity and refuse to budge...
And others assert that there is not a single SHRED of evidence for your beliefs and refuse to budge...
...then a third party could legitimately conclude that your position is no more credible than that of Christians.

Mithrae in turn was responding to your remarks:

Provide a shred of evidence for the divinity of Jesus.
Or a shred of evidence for any of the NT events.

Thus my reply was relevant to Mithrae's remarks, and his was likewise relevant to yours. So the real question is whether your own remarks (which appear all the world like a "demand for evidence") were relevant to the OP. If they were, then there was nothing irrelevant or inappropriate about my (or Mithrae's) replies. If they were not, then according to your own implicit reasoning above you have nothing to contribute to your own thread.

By the way, here are some of my own thoughts on the timeworn "not even a shred" rhetoric:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017 ... dence.html

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 24 by Don McIntosh]

Okay ... got that.

Now ...

Can you demonstrate that the possibly fictional Jesus character from the Christian-Jewish propaganda was in any way divine ...?

Or that the idea is just make-believe ...?

[Bust Nak]

Let's try this again ...

Just for you ...

Moderator Comment

Please avoid condescending remarks from now on.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Deleted]

StuartJ complained that "Not one person of faith has leapt to the side of their Lord and Saviour."

I'm a newbie here and Im a person of faith.

The fundamental problem with all debates about the truth of Jesus teaching or even the reality of His existence is that these are always being posed from a position of disinclination and disbelief already entrenched. Proofs demanded are either in accord with science or the facts of verified history.

But the NT never offers proof of its validity by an appeal to human assessments. It repeatedly states that the validity of Jesus words and person are only verified by the spirit " that these things are spiritually discerned. Anyone who sidesteps this approach is pretty much doomed to failure.

To make this the only criteria is to prefer walking by sight, which annihilates faith, and everything in the Bible is about faith first, not evidence first.

Paul says that we know these things are true because we have the spirit and they are being verified from spiritual to spiritual (I Cor 2:13-14). Otherwise they will be appraised as foolishness to skeptics and unbelievers who prefer to walk according to the flesh.

The human spirit is simply going to rebel against what Jesus taught. And the best way to rid ourselves of that testimony is to discount the teaching as never being said and the person as doubtfully ever existing.

[Tcg]

But the NT never offers proof of its validity by an appeal to human assessments. It repeatedly states that the validity of Jesus words and person are only verified by the spirit " that these things are spiritually discerned. Anyone who sidesteps this approach is pretty much doomed to failure.

I think those who reject this claim are destined for success. The approach you suggest would involve accepting the truth claims of a book so that you can then accept the truth claims of a book. Those who reject this kind of logic are wise and certainly stand a better chance of not falling for unsupportable claims.

To make this the only criteria is to prefer walking by sight, which annihilates faith, and everything in the Bible is about faith first, not evidence first.

It's great to read this admission. All too many believers ignore this reality and pretend that they can provide evidence.

The only thing I would correct here is that everything in the Bible is about faith period. As you have admitted, the Bible doesn't provide evidence but encourages, or rather demands, a leap of faith just as you have demonstrated.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 27 by mrhagerty]

But the NT never offers proof of its validity by an appeal to human assessments.

For the selected collection of Christian-Jewish cult propaganda to have force or effect outside the communities that are in the state of the mind that assents to the proposition that they are "The Word of God" ...

One would need to independently verify that so much as a single verse did indeed come in some way from the mythological deity Yahweh, his supposed god-man son Jesus, or even the nebulous Holy Ghost.

Otherwise, the "scriptures" of every charlatan and political opportunist can deceive the credulous who accept stories of angels and virgins and talking donkeys on "faith".

We have two threads running where you can demonstrate your proofs that the biblical cult propaganda is from your version of "God".

It should be quite straightforward ...

If it's true.

If you can't demonstrate proofs ...

I suggest you need to question your "faith" in the cold hard daylight ...

viewtopic.php?t=35004

viewtopic.php?t=35067

[ttruscott]

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 ...?

Still demanding proof, the demonstration of truth. Christian live by faith not sight, that is we hope in the fulfillment of certain ideas while holding in abeyance our need for proof. You will get no help from us. You hope for other things...so be it. Apparently we all get what we most sincerely hoped for.

Then there is the small issue that Romans 1, one of our scriptures that Christians consider to be the word of GOD, tells us that everyone has indeed seen the proof of GOD's divinity and power first hand, so clearly in fact that no one has any excuse for not accepting HIM in reality and worshipping HIS Deity.

Why do people then refuse to accept HIS reality and the natural worship of HIS deity? Rom 1 also claims as fact that sinners, estranged from HIM in spirit, means that they love their sin more than the truth and so they all repress / suppress the memory of the truth of the proof so they can sin freely.

This being accepted, why should the Christian world feel any need to re-prove HIS divinity and power to those who will promptly forget it again due to their love for sin anyway?