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 ...?

[Deleted]

tcg wrote:
People who reject unsupported claims.

You can't claim success if you aren't talking on the same common ground. You and I have not been on the same common ground since the start. Your definition of evidence is not the same as that claimed to come by faith.

The only thing you can do is state that it isn't your kind of evidence, which isn't the same as saying there is no evidence at all. And if you were to venture to prove the latter, you wouldn't ever be able to claim success because you can never prove the non-existence of something. The best you could do would be to show (not prove) that you haven't seen particular forms of evidence.

Archaeologists claimed there was no evidence for Nineveh therefore Nineveh never existed. This was a mistake because they could really only say in truth is that they had yet to see evidence for it. Then Nineveh was discovered and their supposed "success" in proving that Nineveh never existed fell to the ground.

Re: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.

Notice the qualifier "by an appeal to human assessments." Why do you
insist that that qualifier means no evidence whatsoever?

You need to answer this because it is the fundamental mistake you keep making.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 34 by mrhagerty]

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

I wasn't demanding ANYTHING of your version of "God".

But you are right - your version of "God" certainly does not "coalesce":

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/coalesce

I was asking YOU to demonstrate that the cult propaganda you are using to back your claims CAME from your version of "God".

You have failed to do that.

And you have failed to demonstrate that the claim that your Divine Leader - the person called Jesus of Nazareth - was sired by the mythological (and possibly not even Jewish) biblical deity Yahweh on a human virgin, is anything more than fanciful make-believe.

Because, to date, you have only quoted the Christian-Jewish cult propaganda.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 40 by Don McIntosh]

Yet Jesus somehow managed to convince a large following of devout Jews in first century Judea that he was divine.

Convincing people that it's true does not mean that it is.

No one offers a shred that the possibly fictional Jesus character was sired by the mythological Yahweh on a human virgin.

No one ....

It still looks like make-believe to me.

[Tcg]

tcg wrote:
People who reject unsupported claims.

Your definition of evidence is not the same as that claimed to come by faith.

I haven't given any definition of evidence.

Re: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.

Notice the qualifier "by an appeal to human assessments." Why do you
insist that that qualifier means no evidence whatsoever?

Given that we are humans, your qualifier admits that the NT provides no evidence for humans.

If you are claiming that you do have evidence that demonstrates the divinity of Jesus, feel free to correct my misunderstanding by presenting it.

[Deleted]

I haven't given any definition of evidence.

It would have been nice but your written expectations for it in arguments you've made betrayed it for you

Given that we are humans, your qualifier admits that the NT provides no evidence for humans.

Wrong again. Evidence for the benefit of humans is not the same as evidence contrived by humans. My statement only included the latter. God is not obligated to serve the needs of evidence defined by humans, as in scientific. God does not have to conform His evidence to scientific evidence just because man choose to limit it to that.

If you are claiming that you do have evidence that demonstrates the divinity of Jesus, feel free to correct my misunderstanding by presenting it.

You'll first need to tell me what qualifies and doesn't qualify as evidence to you.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 45 by mrhagerty]

You'll first need to tell me what qualifies and doesn't qualify as evidence to you.

This is seen by this Atheist - and others, I suggest - as a standard Christian method to avoid admitting that they have NO evidence of any sort whatsoever.

It appears time after time after time ...

By Christian after Christian after Christian.

My standard response to it is - just slap whatever it is that you have triumphantly on the pulpit and let it speak for itself.

My Hat of Prophecy is telling me that you will offer nothing that can be independently verified ...

As ANY sort of evidence whatsoever.

ANY sort of evidence whatsoever would have we Atheists tuck our tails between our legs and scurry off to the nearest church to fall on our knees ...

And hand over the first tenth of our family income.

My Hat of Prophecy is never wrong on this one.

[Tcg]

You'll first need to tell me what qualifies and doesn't qualify as evidence to you.

Why? Is this going to change what evidence you present?

Just present all you have and we'll proceed from there.

If it doesn't qualify, I'll let you know.

[Deleted]

"Replying to StuartJ"]

This is seen by this Atheist - and others, I suggest - as a standard Christian method to avoid admitting that they have NO evidence of any sort whatsoever. . .

My Hat of Prophecy is telling me that you will offer nothing that can be independently verified ...

Ok So despite the diatribe of emotional outburst, you've disclosed something useful - that your idea of evidence is only that which can be independently verified. Which asks that faith be put into the test tube or on the crucible of newspaper reporting of facts.

And that is based on the very old idea of humanistic rationalism which says that the only reality or real facts we should entertain are those that science verifies or that can be tested in a court with witnesses.

Unfortunately, Rationalism died a natural death in the 18th cent. but folks like you act as if you didn't get the memo.

It fails because you can never test that science and reason will discover all the truths that will ever comprise reality.

But there's more under the hood in arguments like these - that atheists choose this kind of criteria because they know it will eliminate any propositions of faith, which is horribly artificial at best. It doesn't get you any closer to truth.

[Mithrae]

ANY sort of evidence whatsoever would have we Atheists tuck our tails between our legs and scurry off to the nearest church to fall on our knees ...

A clearly false claim, since some evidence has already been offered since post #3 and subsequently expanded on. Yet far from 'tucking tail' (which seems a hyperbolic over-reaction in any case) or even just reasonably acknowledging that there is some room for uncertainty here (which would be the appropriate response), the ongoing tone of posts seems to be a triumphant insistence that nothing whatsoever has been offered.

And then, of course, the feigned puzzlement over why anyone would request terms of evidence before embarking on your wild goose chase.

In fact when I first returned to the forum after a long hiatus, literally my first two posts back included a more specific question addressed to you on this very subject which over a week and a couple of reminders later you still have not answered:

The only real answer to many such questions, as far as I can tell, is that we don't know. We might have the sworn testimony of three or four surgeons and medical staff who saw a leg amputated and later regrown, but even then the believers would be mistaken if they supposed that it provided certainty that a miracle occurred. Likewise the apparent certainty that a miracle did not occur seems equally misguided, and leads to (in fact demands) the erroneous insistence of there being "total absence/not a SHRED of evidence" for their occurrence.

For some reason many of us don't like leaving the question open, so we tailor our perception of the available data to match our desired conclusion.

Surely the sworn testimony of three or four surgeons and medical staff who saw a leg amputated and later regrown would qualify as a shred of evidence and then some?

[Tcg]

My standard response to it is - just slap whatever it is that you have triumphantly on the pulpit and let it speak for itself.

My Hat of Prophecy is telling me that you will offer nothing that can be independently verified ...

Your Hat of Prophecy was telling you the truth.

You got nothing in return, not even an attempt.

My Hat of Prophecy is never wrong on this one.

It's record remains intact.