Son of a God

[StuartJ]

Okay, the human Jesus is a possibility.

Is there independently verifiable evidence that Jesus was sired by the (for me mythological) Jewish deity Yahweh on a human virgin ...?

[Tart]

Well to ask if there is independent sources that claim Jesus is divine, is like asking is there any believing Christians that arent Christian... It is kind of a bizarre question. We do however have sources of nonbelievers becoming Christian, only after being proven so by divine means.. Like Paul's conversion might be considered independent, and the scripture say as one "abnormally born" in reference to Paul as he was a non believer before encountering the risen Jesus...


But let me ask you then... If the sources we do have are true, then that would be conclusive evidence Jesus is the Son of God... Right? Despite any "independent sources"...

[Willum]

The Talmud and Celsus both claim that Jesus was the son of Tiberius Panderia, a Greek soldier.

The writers of the Talmud were there, and Christian writers weren't.

So this leaves us two options;
A magical birth, that is a one-for-one analogy to the birth of another god, Sirius.
Or a young girl who has a naughty tryst.

Which one is more likely?
Which one, or both, is necessary?

Is it worth noting that Jews did not convert to Christianity FOR SOME REASON(s).

[Divine Insight]

Okay, the human Jesus is a possibility.

Is there independently verifiable evidence that Jesus was sired by the (for me mythological) Jewish deity Yahweh on a human virgin ...?

I see far too many problems with this.

For one thing was Jesus a demigod? If so, then Christianity is polytheistic.

Is Jesus the incarnation of Yahweh himself? This is ever more absurd.

If Jesus was God then he couldn't have been tempted to sin, because supposedly God is incapable of sinning. God supposedly hates sin. So why would Jesus be tempted to sin if he was God? And if he wasn't tempted to sin, then it's no big deal that he didn't.

So this whole religion is utterly absurd no matter how we try to cut it.

Jesus as a mere mortal man doesn't work.

Jesus as a demigod doesn't work.

And Jesus as an incarnation of Yahweh himself doesn't work.

The Christians came up with this utterly absurd idea of a "Trinity" where Jesus is supposedly 100% man and 100% God. That claim should be insulting to anyone who has even an inkling of intelligence. There's no way that any entity could be both 100% man and 100% God at the same time. Those to concepts simply aren't mutually compatible.

The excuses for this religion are, quite frankly, an insult to the very concept of intelligence.

It's just utterly absurd, A God had to come to earth to show humans that it's possible to be sin free? The whole time this religion demands that it's impossible for any mortal man to be sin free?

This is a religion that continually demands to have its cake and eat it too. It's a paradigm of extreme contradictory claims.

And people also claim that Jesus would never tell anyone to do something that they could not do. Yet he told the woman at the well to "Go and sin no more". Well, why tell her that if that's impossible for a human to not sin?

This religion is an insult the intelligence of humanity in general. I just can't stress this enough. It is so extremely self-contradictory that there's just no way that it can be rationally justified.

It's hard to accept that modern day humans are still arguing about this ancient obviously false collection of superstitious fables and rumors. This is surreal.

Truly it is.

[bjs]

[Replying to StuartJ]

What do you mean by “independently verifiable�? Can you give me an example of evidence that, if it did exist, you would consider “independently verifiable� evidence that Jesus was a human being who was conceived by the Holy Spirit?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 5 by bjs]

This is a standard diversion tactic.

If you had any evidence you would simply present it.

And put an immediate end to the debate.

[bjs]

[Replying to StuartJ]

Not really. It is a pretty basic question for any discussion. If you don’t know what you mean by “independently verifiable evidence� then no one else can either and the question is both meaningless and impossible to answer.

[rikuoamero]

Well to ask if there is independent sources that claim Jesus is divine, is like asking is there any believing Christians that arent Christian... It is kind of a bizarre question. We do however have sources of nonbelievers becoming Christian, only after being proven so by divine means.. Like Paul's conversion might be considered independent, and the scripture say as one "abnormally born" in reference to Paul as he was a non believer before encountering the risen Jesus...


But let me ask you then... If the sources we do have are true, then that would be conclusive evidence Jesus is the Son of God... Right? Despite any "independent sources"...

Unfortunately, Paul himself does not tell us how or what happened with regards to his conversion.
What we have regarding this comes from a third party, one who was not there. We "hear" about it in Acts of the Apostles. Since Paul does not go into detail on his own supposed experience, are we supposed to just take the author of Luke-Acts at his word, regarding what someone else went through? Paul does not corroborate what the author of Luke-Acts says, so we have to take it with a grain of salt.
Here is how I see the situation in my head
Rikuo <---- Author of Luke-Acts "This is what happened to Paul" ?<----- Paul

Question mark indicating that it is unknown that what the author of Acts is telling me did indeed come from Paul.

[PinSeeker]

The Talmud and Celsus both claim that Jesus was the son of Tiberius Panderia, a Greek soldier.

LOL!!! The Talmud does no such thing. It consists primarily of discussions and commentary on Jewish history, law (especially its practical application to life), customs and culture.

Moreover, it wasn't even in any written form until the mid-200s A.D. As such, it dates to about 150 years after the Gospels or any New Testament text, which as we all know, are attacked for being written 20 to 30 years after Christ's life. So one might ask, "Why would a text written 150 years after the New Testament was written be so readily accepted by unbelievers? One can only wonder (and shake his/her head).

Likewise, the same can be said about Celsus, who, wrote around 170 to 180 A.D. Celsus was a heretic. And he was just like any unbeliever today (and even here on this board) who ever attacked anything and everything Christian.

Once again:

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..." (Simon and Garfunkel, "The Boxer," 1968)

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to StuartJ]
What do you mean by “independently verifiable�? Can you give me an example of evidence that, if it did exist, you would consider “independently verifiable� evidence that Jesus was a human being who was conceived by the Holy Spirit?

Right, and one might question what he means by "sired," too. Does he need a DNA test from God to prove his fatherhood? LOL!!!