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 ...?

[Tcg]

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.

As is so often the case with apologists, you are using the mythology about Jesus to prove the mythology about Jesus.

This is no different than your earlier attempt to use the NT to prove the reliability of the NT.

[Mithrae]

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.

As is so often the case with apologists, you are using the mythology about Jesus to prove the mythology about Jesus.

"We can't trust it because it's in the bible/written by Christians" would be exactly as irrational as "We can trust it because it's in the bible/written by Christians," and yet that's frequently the kind of argument we see from critics. Hopefully not you

MrHagerty's argument is unsound, but it's primarily because there are specific reasons for concluding that particular source (so-called 'Matthew') is often unreliable.

[StuartJ]

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.

As is so often the case with apologists, you are using the mythology about Jesus to prove the mythology about Jesus.

This is no different than your earlier attempt to use the NT to prove the reliability of the NT.

And folks of faith have your circle looping round and round inside their heads ...

And adding to it imaginary scenarios of clocks and aliens and parallel universes and surgeons ...

And the game of Pretend in the Magic Forest of Belief dances on.

I have no intention of even trying to find evidence to disprove any of the numerous Magic Forests numerous faith communities play in.

If you declare the Jesus character to be the Son of Yahweh ...

The onus is on YOU to demonstrate that you are telling the truth ...

And not a charlatan promoting fantasy.

My lack of acceptance of the Divine Jesus claims ...

And the claims of dwellers in all other Magic Forests ...

Is self-protection.

And quoting "scriptures" is not proof.

No one EVER demonstrates the divine origin of the human writings they claim are the "Word of God" ...

In my experience.

Not a squeak of independently verifiable evidence offered here to demonstrate that the Divine Jesus character is anything more than imaginary.

Lots of words though.

No simple proofs.

[William]

[Replying to post 66 by mrhagerty]

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

But this is just a misuse of English.

Who is to say that some ways in which English is used is in fact a misuse of language? Like how "I believe it is true" can be said as "I know it is true."

That is why I wrote "One should take care..." use critical thinking and do not assume English is a perfect example of perfect use of language...

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.

You make my point there mrhagerty. "Not all belief requires 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 by the reasoning of your argument, your own claims re GODs existing have to be proven. I still fail to see how something can be proven without material evidence, and that was the focus of my argument. Demand for evidence ordinarily is demand for something material, not immaterial.

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.

Even the biblical GOD has been said to act the same way. However, providing manifestations in itself does not necessarily provide evidence that whatever GOD you are claiming to be, is in fact the GOD that you are.

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.

You won't find any argument anywhere on this board or any other place where I myself demand material evidence to support notions of immaterial GODs.

I say as much here in my Members Notes;

Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine "verifiable evidence"

With such subtitle topics as;

The oxymoron phrase: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" debunked

Demanding unspecified evidence to prove that GOD does exist, is fallacy.

There ARE no examples of scientific evidence that would convince anyone God exists.

Are you actually wanting to buy a car or just wasting time debating with the salesman?

What kind of thing(s) would you expect to see which would convince you that GOD exists?

You believe your interpretation of the evidence as being the one which is truth. In that, you conflate.

I do not rationally expect anyone to come up with the actual evidence of science to support their assertion that science is saying that GOD does not exist.

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.

The idea is for the individual to contemplate the possibility that this is what motivates the dynamic and using critical thinking, change the motivation. In that it does not have to be declared as a reason, but simply tabled as a possibility the individual can contemplate and adjust as they may then see necessary.

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.

Specifically that is what I was pointing toward in relation to atheist answering the question begged.

Q : "Why do Christian debate forums exist?"

A: So that Christians have the opportunity to proselytize with atheist attendance.

Thus, if atheists create threads asking questions which promote proselytizing, they play directly into the game those Christians have set up to encourage this very thing. My pointing that out is to encourage any atheists able to engage critical thinking in order to help them to perhaps contemplate changing their approach.

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

So you are here why? Why are you participating in a debate forum if not to try and convince others that your beliefs are true? And why would you want to convince others that your beliefs are true (and theirs are not) if not to try and persuade them to adopt your beliefs?

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

What is it that makes your belief worthy of defending?

What about your belief can be seen by someone else as an attack against theirs?

What makes your belief okay to attack other beliefs but not other beliefs okay to attack yours?

Why can you not defend, attack and proselytize at the same time?

Do you think that my pointing out the opportunity for proselytizing is somehow an attack rather than a simple honest observation of matters of fact? My main aim is to promote the understanding of how proselytizing is done and what in the content of the proselytizing can be identified as nonnegotiable - not up for debate under any circumstance, even within a debating setting.

If something is not up for debate, and is still presented as argument in a debating setting, it has to be proselytizing.

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

That is precisely my argument mrhagerty. If Christian beliefs are nonnegotiable, then the existence of Christian debate forums begs the question.

The answer is "to provide opportunity to proselytize" in relation to all such nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. They are, by definition, NOT UP FOR DEBATE.

It is not a criticism. It is an honest observation which can have the effect of changing how one interacts with others. In my case, identifying faith-based beliefs mean that I do not have to debate them. They are no relevant to debate. This is a great time and effort saver. It also means I don't have to start threads or ask questions which directly lead to the opportunity for faith-based Christian beliefs being proselytized. Those are besides the point and add nothing relevant to subjects which are debatable.

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.

See my above reply.

Short answer is "no". I am not banning anyone from doing anything. I am pointing out that in good use of critical thinking processes, anything identified as nonnegotiable, does not belong in a debate setting. That it finds its way there anyhow, is besides the point. Identifying it can have positive effects all around. Christians who understand that their faith is not negotiable, can also chose to refrain from wasting their time proselytize in a debate setting. Atheists can also choose not to waste their time attempting to debate the nonnegotiable. Win-Win.

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.

Hey, if one wants to give reasons for their positions, it all helps! That is not my argument anyway. My focus of argument is in identification of nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs within debate settings, for the initial purpose of identifying where debate ends and proselytizing begins.

[William]

[Replying to post 73 by StuartJ]

Not a squeak of independently verifiable evidence offered here to demonstrate that the Divine Jesus character is anything more than imaginary.

I can't help but be amused at your apparent seriousness in expecting that their could actually be the evidence you appear to be demanding!

I am left thinking either you are being serious (which would mean you have left critical thinking at the door) or
You are not being serious, which leaves me wondering why you are bothering at all?

[Deleted]

"by William"

Who is to say that some ways in which English is used is in fact a misuse of language? Like how "I believe it is true" can be said as "I know it is true."

Who is to say? Grammarians. Literary critics. Philosophers. People you want respect from.

You make my point there mrhagerty. "Not all belief requires faith."

It does if you trust in it. Are you saying you don't trust your belief that there is no God, or your belief that the Bible is make believe?

Then by the reasoning of your argument, your own claims re GODs existing have to be proven.

Which I've done satisfactorily for myself. I buy the arguments that Greenleaf presents - that the NT testimony about Jesus as a real person and their witness to what he said and did are defensible in a court of law as valid historical accounts. You don't have to believe what they said, but you can't disbelieve they said them. The rest of the proof I needed came from the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

So I haven't avoided the search for proof.

I still fail to see how something can be proven without material evidence, and that was the focus of my argument.

Because you've bought into Rationalism, William. And it's been abandoned.

You won't find any argument anywhere on this board or any other place where I myself demand material evidence to support notions of immaterial GODs.

The Christian God is Spirit, i.e. immaterial. Yet we have a demand from you for material evidence. You want something that can be seen or tested or independently verified. Those are scientific requirements, hence material requirements.

You said:
There ARE no examples of scientific evidence that would convince anyone God exists.

So you are here why? Why are you participating in a debate forum if not to try and convince others that your beliefs are true?

To speak the truth as I believe it to be, and to defend it when asked.

And why would you want to convince others that your beliefs are true (and theirs are not) if not to try and persuade them to adopt your beliefs?

Simple. To correct misunderstandings about those beliefs, untrue statements or lies about those beliefs. That doesn't have to be interpreted as a call to believe. Unless you feel conviction. In which case that would be your own experience.

What is it that makes your belief worthy of defending?

That it witnesses to the truth about all people. When falsehoods and misstatements are leveled against it, they should be answered and refuted.

Ex. the proposition that Jesus infiltrated Rome in order to spread Christianity using the influence of Rome. It's not true, has no historical support, so it stands as a falsehood that needs to be refuted.

What about your belief can be seen by someone else as an attack against theirs?

Religious truth isn't democratic. There isn't a board of governors in the sky making sure everyone has a fair shot. I know that's how atheists see all religions, but its an artificial dogma.

What makes your belief okay to attack other beliefs but not other beliefs okay to attack yours?

I haven't attacked another religious belief in my comments here.

If two religions make claims for the truth and you wish to follow the one most likely true, you have to assess the truthfulness or probability that one is truer than the other.

That is precisely my argument mrhagerty. If Christian beliefs are nonnegotiable, then the existence of Christian debate forums begs the question.

So you'll be quitting, right?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 73 by StuartJ]

Not a squeak of independently verifiable evidence offered here to demonstrate that the Divine Jesus character is anything more than imaginary.

I can't help but be amused at your apparent seriousness in expecting that their could actually be the evidence you appear to be demanding!

I am left thinking either you are being serious (which would mean you have left critical thinking at the door) or
You are not being serious, which leaves me wondering why you are bothering at all?

I certainly DON'T expect such evidence.

That's one of my points.

But the door is WIDE open ...

For those who DO claim they DO have evidence for a god-sired Jesus.

But we only ever get ...

A quoting of the propaganda

The Indwelling Holy Spirit

And games of hide and seek amongst the aliens and surgeons.

And an avoidance of the admission that a god-sired Jesus is as fanciful as any other mythology or leprechaun or elf or fairy story.

[Mithrae]

And games of hide and seek amongst the... surgeons.

You've got that right. I'm trying to seek any hint that you have some kind of clear or valid understanding of what evidence is, but you're still desperately hiding away from the question

But at least there's that original point from post #3 still uncontested; not absolute proof, but clearly evidence which slightly increases the probability of truth in early Christian claims about Jesus.

[Deleted]

"Replying more to post 74 byWilliam"

My main aim is to promote the understanding of how proselytizing is done

Then you need to use examples where it is being done, not pseudo-examples which you surmise are motivated by a desire to proselytize. That takes knowledge of another person's mind. If I don't make a call to believe or to abandon your atheism for my truth, I'm not evangelizing.

BTW, proselytizing is a term applied to people of a different religion or faith who are encouraged to come to abandon theirs and embrace yours. Its a religion to religion thing.

We don't use it for unbelievers. 'Evangelizing' is the proper term. Unless of course you are seeing yourself being called from your current "faith" to mine. Hmmm?

If something is not up for debate, and is still presented as argument in a debating setting, it has to be proselytizing.

See, what needed to be done here is to name this forum: "Proving Christianity is True By Scientific Evidence." That way everyone knows up front that you're setting up an impossible debate for Christians to participate in.

Then you can have a home where only atheists and agnostics thrive, and the population of Christians would be nil. You can post and talk largely to yourselves.

But you didn't do that. You gave the deceptive impression that Christians could defend their faith with statements from Scripture, OR discuss the reasons why they believe. Which you then ruled out as non-debatable contributions.

That is precisely my argument mrhagerty. If Christian beliefs are nonnegotiable, then the existence of Christian debate forums begs the question.

I didn't declare them as non-negotiable, you folks have. And that based from your insistence on what constitutes a valid defense.

This is a great time and effort saver.

What time and effort have you saved for yourself here? The post count has tripled since I started replying. I honestly don't know what you mean by thye above.

Short answer is "no". I am not banning anyone from doing anything. I am pointing out that in good use of critical thinking processes, anything identified as nonnegotiable, does not belong in a debate setting.

Then why in the world is this called CHRISTIAN debating. Literally everything Christian is going to be faith-based; you are going to spot it as non-negotiable.

This makes your presence here a complete contradiction of your principles.

Maybe somewhere in the ether of atheism you have an expectation that one can have debates on Christianity that are completely devoid of faith-based arguments. Pray tell, what would those be?

Christians who understand that their faith is not negotiable, can also chose to refrain from wasting their time proselytize in a debate setting.

Again, defending one's reason's for believing is not proselytizing nor is it evangelizing. Just because you want it to be doesn't make it so.

What I fear you are experiencing is good old fashioned conviction. It's because you feel you're being preached to, or you feel you're being evangelized. And you really can't foist your feelings as motives for the other person.

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.

Hey, if one wants to give reasons for their positions, it all helps!

William, William. I was hoping you might see that it's antithetical to even conceive of such a thing. But you think, Hey why not?

[StuartJ]

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.



The tiniest shred of evidence to back any of this up ...

NOTHING

The probability that's it just make-believe ...?