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 ...?

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:38 pm

StuartJ wrote: Bucketloads of bloviated language about "epistemology" and Lord knows what ...

But not a shred of plain, down-to-earth, simple, fact/evidence/proof/whatever you want to call it ...

That the possibly fictional Jesus character from the Christian-Jewish propaganda was sired by the mythological and possibly not-even-Jewish deity Yahweh on a human virgin.

If there was any at all, it would be slammed triumphantly on the pulpit.

All that is ever offered is:

1) The propaganda sort of says that's what happened - but even early Christians couldn't agree that the Divine Leader was divine.

2) The Indwelling Holy Spirit says that's what happened - but the IHS may just be voices/imagination inside the heads of believers.

3) A disappearance into "philosophy" and "poetry" and "analogies" and "hermeneutical epistemological redemptive eschatology" and "Stalin was worse" and "you've offended me" and "what do you mean by ..." ...

And anything other than directly address that the notion of gods breeding with human virgins looks very much like ...

MAKE-BELIEVE

For the man who hates God or just doesn't like God no amount of evidence will ever be enough. Jesus could rise from the dead in their own bedroom and they would explain it away as just a hallucination.

Which begs the question what you hope to accomplish in being here. Every post reiterates your "belief" that this Jesus stuff is make believe. So you're hear to be a philanthropist who helps people face reality. You wish to help folks toward their only reasonable option, their apostasy and an open door to freedom from such foolishness.

But who have you convinced? Who here has abandoned their faith in gratitude of your doing your duty toward them?

There's another thread in this forum - What difference did Jesus make? Atheists may not like it or understand the difference Jesus has made in millions of lives across human history, but that fact can't be argued away.

What difference has StuartJ made?

William · Post by **William** » Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:11 pm

[Replying to post 58 by StuartJ]

Bucketloads of bloviated language about "epistemology" and Lord knows what ...

But not a shred of plain, down-to-earth, simple, fact/evidence/proof/whatever you want to call it ...

I am consistently amused by the notion that such ideas are seriously demanded of evidence. Did I word that correctly?

How can anyone seriously demand plain, down-to-earth, simple, fact/evidence/proof/whatever you want to call it 'evidence' for notions which are intrinsically none of the above?

If there was any at all, it would be slammed triumphantly on the pulpit.

If there were any at all, there would be no pulpit. No pull into the pit.

1) The propaganda sort of says that's what happened - but even early Christians couldn't agree that the Divine Leader was divine.

Can you or I accurately create a list of 'what to realistically expect to see in the divine' which;

1: We could both agree with.

2: Others could all agree with.

If not, then no surprises that people - theists or atheists - couldn't agree that the Divine Leader was divine back then any more than right now.

This begs the question then. What is your point in stating such, Stuart?

2) The Indwelling Holy Spirit says that's what happened - but the IHS may just be voices/imagination inside the heads of believers.

Well until it is known for sure, one is best to suspend their belief any-which-way.

iow - 'might be, might not be'. *shrugs*.

3) A disappearance into "philosophy" and "poetry" and "analogies" and "hermeneutical epistemological redemptive eschatology" and "Stalin was worse" and "you've offended me" and "what do you mean by ..." ...

An implied defense mechanism which is observed as prevalent in all manner of human society, be they atheist or theist based.

And anything other than directly address that the notion of gods breeding with human virgins looks very much like ...

MAKE-BELIEVE

Some think that to believe is to 'make it so' - such is the power of belief, especially when coupled with the ever-increasingly-taken-seriously-by-academia notion of Theory of Simulated Universe something the plebs often shreak about, regardless of which camp their minds are parked up in.

see also my Members Notes;
Stimulating Simulation

As far as biblical stories depicting seemingly miraculous (ordinarily physically impossible) events go, the only way I can see the possible is by removing the supernatural element by declaring *Aliens*

iow;

Not, unremarkably such explanation is met with derision from both camps, which only encourages me to think I might be onto something here.

Removing all notions of conspiracy from the idea is helpful of course, as it allows for one just to focus on the bare-bones of the science of it.

In the case of the Virgin Mary, the miracle is explained through the known science of artificial insemination.

Poor souls. Voices in the head. Invisible voices. Visions. Apparitions. Other-worldly phenomena. All acting to push the evolution of data gathering beyond the natural pace of biological evolution, creating a mechanism which can land probes on tiny asteroids.

Even that idea was first conceived through imagination, making believing in something, a reality.

That the possibly fictional Jesus character from the Christian-Jewish propaganda was sired by the mythological and possibly not-even-Jewish deity Yahweh on a human virgin.

One cannot argue well against the fact that the Jewish branch of theology and their idea of GOD had some clever consequences.

They may well have been visited and picked out to play their role on this planet, by ET GODs intent upon pushing human beings beyond their natural bio-clocks timing in order to fashion a being which would reach for the stars that much sooner.

Essentially bringing the beast up to speed.

see also my Members Notes;

ET and the notion of GODs...

Mithrae · Post by **Mithrae** » Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:44 pm

mrhagerty wrote: For the man who hates God or just doesn't like God no amount of evidence will ever be enough. Jesus could rise from the dead in their own bedroom and they would explain it away as just a hallucination.

Thing is it could be a hallucination and, given the extraordinary nature of the alleged event, hallucination should be very seriously considered as an explanation - it may well be the best explanation in most if not all cases. I mean, what if someone told you they saw their chair turn into a giant spider? Of course that's a hallucination, right? So what makes a resurrection any more plausible? You might say a resurrection is more sensible, has some purpose to it, and is more in line with expectations. And that would be true, but those very points would also lend themselves to supposing that the viewer's subconscious might be more likely to shape her hallucination in line with expectations.

That's why multiple witnesses is a highly desirable if not essential requirement for any such alleged miraculous events. (Which in turn is why some Christians try so desperately to claim multiple eyewitness gospels, regardless how obvious it is that 'Matthew' wasn't written by the apostle.)

Idle anecdotes or purposeful propaganda such as the gospels are also problematic, less likely to stick to the facts than for example formal sworn testimony. Some measure of relevant qualification or expertise regarding the nature of the event is also desirable to reduce the chances of the observer/s misunderstanding what had happened.

Perhaps it would be setting an absurdly high bar to demand all of these things as necessary criteria for legitimate evidence. But strangely, even imagining a scenario where all of those criteria are met, Stuart seems determined to avoid giving a direct answer at all costs:

Mithrae wrote: I glanced at a couple of other threads too and noticed one in which [Stuart] and Jagella were insisting that if there were any such tiny shred of evidence it would mean that you would 'lose' the debate.

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 has already declared that in his opinion even that would not be evidence of a miracle - perhaps Stuart secretly thinks the same, but doesn't want to acknowledge it. Refusal to admit even that as legitimate would certainly place a pretty big asterisk next all the boasting about "no evidence"

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:24 pm

[Replying to post 62 by William]

They may well have been visited and picked out to play their role on this planet, by ET GODs intent upon pushing human beings beyond their natural bio-clocks timing in order to fashion a being which would reach for the stars that much sooner.

Not gonna play with aliens either ....

I keeping my focus on the Lord Jesus Christ and his Heavenly Father Yahweh and the Mother of God the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Still not a peep of the good hard independently verifiable stuff for ANY of them.

Still looks to me like people are playing make-believe,

Post by **Tcg** » Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:50 pm

StuartJ wrote: [Replying to post 62 by William]

They may well have been visited and picked out to play their role on this planet, by ET GODs intent upon pushing human beings beyond their natural bio-clocks timing in order to fashion a being which would reach for the stars that much sooner.
Not gonna play with aliens either ....

I keeping my focus on the Lord Jesus Christ and his Heavenly Father Yahweh and the Mother of God the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Still not a peep of the good hard independently verifiable stuff for ANY of them.

Still looks to me like people are playing make-believe,

I agree, and it appears that they are attempting to support make-believe with the make-believe.

Well, there's one exception. One attempt to support make-believe with a pure hypothetical.

Of course both can be summed up with, "Let's pretend that...".

I for one am spoiling the fun by responding, "No, let's not".

The game can be ended immediately by a presentation of evidence.

Of course the game continues because some have determined that "evidence" is a dirty word and they refuse to tolerate it.

This of course allows them to pretend it is an invalid request which is exactly what one would expect from a group pushing something they have no evidence for.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:55 pm

" Replying to post 60 by William"

I did not state or imply that StuartJ had faith or was expressing faith-based beliefs.

Oh, but he is; because he makes a claim about reality without evidence to back it up. In his posts he effectively defines faith as make believe because Christians cant back up their claims with evidence. He is making a claim that he knows the truth about God, yet provides no evidence. By his own paradigm, he is operating by faith.

And no, William, you didnt imply it. I did, by necessity.

Atheists need to realize that atheism isnt possible. The very best they can ever do is agnosticism, which says they simply dont know because no evidence has yet come to light.

One should take care not to conflate belief with faith. Not all belief requires faith.

But this is just a misuse of English. We often say believe about matters of fact. I believe I have a GE refrigerator at home, when it is a fact. I believe he went across the street to talk to Jim, when you can see him through the window.

Belief is a claim about a state of affairs in the absence of evidence. Faith is the same as belief but adds the element of trust. I can say I believe there will be a gas station in time before I run out. But there is no basis for trust, since I may have miscalculated.

If I say I believe my wife will never cheat on me, thats a statement of faith since I place my trust in it. Because I know her character. And yes, its possible to be wrong with faith.

I don't agree that claiming GODs do or do not exist should be supported by physical evidence, simply because GODs are metaphysical ideas, and not often really well defined for that.

Their physicality or metaphysicality doesnt matter. If its a claim to know something about the state of reality, then it cant be claimed merely philosophically. Whether you focus on material evidence or not, you do have to prove your claim because you are saying you know.

Everything else, no matter what labels you like to use, is agnosticism.

then I have to presume that by GODs they mean something along the lines of 'physical humanoid beings which should be able to be seen', which - while may qualify as a definition of a GOD, does not qualify as the only definitions of a GOD.

The Greek gods were claimed to be immaterial beings, but they provided manifestations that would support a request for evidence. So its not true that if one asks for evidence he is limited to particular kinds of gods.

Theists in general do define their idea of GODs, and it is within the definitions that debate can take place.

Right. They claim them to be non-corporeal, immaterial, or spirit. So, by your definition above there would be no expectation of providing evidence. In which case, it doesnt make sense to condemn Christians for not providing even a shred.

Of course once the Christians spirals their argument back into the faith-based vortex, it is 'game over' as far as debate goes, due to faith-based beliefs not being negotiable.

Likewise, its non-negotiable when an atheist sets the rules of evidence regarding beings defined above as having no expectation regarding empirical evidence.

When there are two sides holding nonnegotiable positions, the sanity of the dynamic therein becomes questionable in relation to debate. The possibility of egocentrically driven addiction can be explored as one possible reason for said dynamic.

But, alas, thats not declared as a reason here or anywhere else in the threads.

That is what I was referring to as 'finding the opportunity to proselytize'.

Not if the question is Why do you believe such nonsense. Or, Why do you believe Jesus made a difference? Answering those questions doesnt require preaching. It does require using Scripture. If you are identifying the use of Scripture or the teachings of Jesus as proselytizing, I think you need to consult the definition again.

In answering your questions Im not asking you to become His follower. Im not asking you to be converted. Thats the definition of proselytizing.

If you mean Im promoting Christianity by defending Christianity against attack, then youre misusing the term.

That of course, is different to debating, especially when what is being proselytized is obviously not up for debate. Some of which are listed in the OP of this thread:

The problem is this is not a case of debating evolution or a philosophy. Youve agreed to debate a religion where ideas are held by religious faith. So, its axiomatic that a defender is going to use statements from their documentary source of faith. You cant then turn around and say posting statements from your faith is inappropriate, or try another approach in which you avoid the reasons for your faith.

Its the nature of the beast, William

My picks
1: The GOD of the OT is 'The one and only true GOD'.
2: Jesus was the promised Messiah
3: Jesus was a messenger of the OT GOD.
4: The bible is the 'inerrant word of GOD'

So, in a forum called Christian Apologetics, you are banning discussion about the key topics that constitute being a Christian. In other words, Come and debate Christianity, but dont mention anything essential to Christianity.

You would think it rational then to start a debate on Atheism, but set rules that you cant post any reasons why youre an atheist.

William · Post by **William** » Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:56 pm

[Replying to post 64 by StuartJ]

Still looks to me like people are playing make-believe,

Well unfortunately for you, what it looks like to you makes no difference to any debate. It is, as augment, insufficient.

Not gonna play with aliens either ....

Nonetheless, the possibility is there. Your lack of desire to go there and argue against, doesn't convince me otherwise.

William · Post by **William** » Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:59 pm

[Replying to post 65 by Tcg]

The game can be ended immediately by a presentation of evidence.

I agree. Evidence either way could end the game. So the game continues to play on.

William · Post by **William** » Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:05 pm

[Replying to post 66 by mrhagerty]

Oh, but he is; because he makes a claim about reality without evidence to back it up. In his posts he effectively defines faith as make believe because Christians cant back up their claims with evidence. He is making a claim that he knows the truth about God, yet provides no evidence. By his own paradigm, he is operating by faith.

And no, William, you didnt imply it. I did, by necessity.

Atheists need to realize that atheism isnt possible. The very best they can ever do is agnosticism, which says they simply dont know because no evidence has yet come to light.

Oh I see. You are saying that Stuart is criticizing faith based beliefs of theists while upholding his own faith-based beliefs as acceptable, but either way they are faith-based beliefs.

If that were the case, I suppose it would explain why Stuart appears not to want to negotiate even that ample opportunity to do so has been afforded him.

So am I correct in understanding you are saying that someone who declares GODs do not exist, does so because of faith-based beliefs?

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:07 pm

"Replying to post 63 buy Mithrae"

I mean, what if someone told you they saw their chair turn into a giant spider?

The testimony about Jesus isn't in the same category as the spider (unless you choose to make it so).

In fac,t the testimony about Jesus was propagated in the presence of hostile witnesses who were on scene and could have blown the whistle that the disciples were lying. Instead, they forced Roman soldiers to lie and promised to back them with their superiors.