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 ...?

[Jagella]

I meant, Jesus shows in the Bible wisdom, truth and love that I dont believe people would have without God.

I can easily come up with morals that are better than any morals attributed to Jesus. Here are two examples:

• 1. Slavery is wrong. Never enslave anybody. If you own slaves, then free them.
  2. Love your family and live in harmony with them as best you can.

So I bested Jesus with no god. You now know that people can have good morals without any gods. In fact, without gods, people can have better morals.

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.

But to judge Jesus that way, you would need to already have his truth. So what do you need Jesus for if you already know his truth?

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.

I'm not sure what your point is here or how you arrived at it. If somebody has truth Jesus didn't have, then how would that prevent that truth being credited to somebody who didn't say it? As far as I can tell, nothings bars anybody taking credit for a truth they don't deserve credit for.

And what is "truth"?

[Elijah John]

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?

Moderator Warning


You may be alluding to a Bible passage in order to launch your blanket statement and personal attack, (non-believers loving sin) but it is still a blanket statement as well as a personal attack. There are other reasons people do not believe in God besides "loving sin". We do not use the Bible as a weapon on this site, you've been here long enough to realize that.

You may have thought your accusation was general enough to innoculate your comments from forum rules, but the context of the exchange indicates that your "generalization" was indeed an uncivli insinuation directed at your opponent.

The old expression "if the shoe fits wear it" is not quite enough to cloak uncivil rhetoric on this site.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Deleted]

[Replying to post 28 by Tcg]

tcj wrote:

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.

If they are destined for success, where have they then discovered the truth about religion? Its still up for grabs outside the NT as I can see. My point about failure was not that it wouldnt be meaningful in some way but that it wont ever lead to an assurance of truth about religion.

But let me commiserate with ones natural incredulity at my remarks. Im not so dull of mind as not to know how the statement about believing first sounds. If it were simply a recommendation that we must believe before we believe in order to know our belief is true, then I would be the first to agree that it is irrational.

But thats not what is being offered. This comes from a misunderstanding of how the Holy Spirit works in a persons use of faith. Faith conveys actual understanding to the individual that cannot be understood by those who insist on evidence. There is an actual transfer of understanding that comes into the soul. This is stated in Hebrew 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

But what is most important is that rejecting this truth does not eliminate its truth. This is the chosen way that faith was designed to work, and attempts to get around this by holding out for evidence will never find the truth about religion.

Quote:
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.

Thanks for your comments, tcj.

[Deleted]

[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

So, you missed my point - God is not in the business of coalescing to demands for proof.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 28 by Tcg]

tcj wrote:

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.

If they are destined for success, where have they then discovered the truth about religion?

Religion? We were discussing the NT and your admission that it doesn't provide evidence.

But what is most important is that rejecting this truth does not eliminate its truth.

You've yet to establish that this is a truth and in fact have admitted you can't do so.

Thanks for your comments, tcj.

It's "Tcg" actually.

[Deleted]

[Replying to post 35 by Tcg]

Re: If they are destined for success, where have they then discovered the truth about religion?

Religion? We were discussing the NT and your admission that it doesn't provide evidence.

The whole question about evidences for Christian faith is a step back in philosophy that asks what is the basis for truth about religion. So, when you offer that folks who reject the spiritual validation of the NT and prefer empirical or scientific evidences are destined for success, I have a basis then for asking where that success has been achieved (especially since I doubt they will meet with success on that plane).

My position is there is only one truth about religion and its embedded in the person of Christ. So, abandoning Christianity because it provides no humanistic evidences will lead to nothing successful. Hence my caution that your prognosis of better success is merely hopeful not concrete. Otherwise, kindly tell me what religions have demonstrated the better success you noted.

You've yet to establish that this is a truth and in fact have admitted you can't do so.

By what means of testing truth? We apparently have different definitions. I admitted in no way that I cant provide evidence. Its simply in a form you dont accept. Heb 11:1 uses the word evidence as pertaining to the truth people are seeking. SO. I havent asked that you believe in a complete vacuum of evidence. But if you choose to assess it as non-evidence, that would be you making the call.

It's "Tcg" actually.

My bad. Sorry.

[Tcg]

Otherwise, kindly tell me what religions have demonstrated the better success you noted.

I didn't make any claims about any religions.

But if you choose to assess it as non-evidence, that would be you making the call.

Actually you made the call and I agreed with it.

It's "Tcg" actually.

My bad. Sorry.

No problem, mrhagerty.

[Deleted]

tcg wrote

I didn't make any claims about any religions.

Then who are those you say are destined for success because they reject the claim I made?

Re: But if you choose to assess it as non-evidence, that would be you making the call.

Actually you made the call and I agreed with it.

I didn't assess it as non-evidence. Hebrew 11 claims it is evidence. I've quoted it to you twice. The only person in this conversation treating it as non-evidence is you. I agreed with the statement that God provides no evidence that skeptics or atheists limit themselves to. But that doesn't mean no evidence at all. To get to "no evidence at all" one has to accept your definition, hence the assessment is on you.

(unless you're willing to venture out on a limb and offer that there simply is no other type evidence than the kind you define)

[Tcg]

tcg wrote

I didn't make any claims about any religions.

Then who are those you say are destined for success because they reject the claim I made?

People who reject unsupported claims.

Re: But if you choose to assess it as non-evidence, that would be you making the call.

Actually you made the call and I agreed with it.

I didn't assess it as non-evidence.

In post 27 you admitted this:

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

I agreed with you then and still do.

[Don McIntosh]

[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 ...?

While I do think the divinity of Jesus can be demonstrated, I doubt it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of anyone who is less interested in discovering truth than promoting an agenda. In just two short sentences you've implicitly identified Jesus as a "fictional character" and the gospel of Christ as "propaganda" and "make-believe," which to me suggests an agenda.

And just to clear the air a bit, yes, it's possible that Jesus was a "fictional character," just as it's possible that the moon landing was a hoax and we are living in "the Matrix." (Most anything that is not logically, necessarily false is possible.) Otherwise the prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus appears substantial enough to meet any reasonable burden of proof.

As to the divinity of Jesus, try thinking of it like this: the strongest evidence for a hypothesis is that which is intrinsically improbable, but which renders the hypothesis much more probable than it would have been otherwise. The Jews in first century Judea were culturally, religiously averse to ascribing divinity to anything or anyone physical or corporeal, so that their believing Jesus to be divine was intrinsically highly improbable. Yet Jesus somehow managed to convince a large following of devout Jews in first century Judea that he was divine. These Jews claimed that Jesus had asserted his equality with God (as the Son of God), had performed miracles of healing and exorcism, and had appeared to them alive following his execution. These same Jews went on to worship Jesus as God to their deaths (gross idolatry if he were not divine), many of them at the point of the sword.

The best explanation for their conversion and lifelong religious dedication to Jesus is that what they claimed to have witnessed was in fact true. Because Jesus said and did what only God would be expected to say and do, Jesus was divine.