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 ...?

[Mithrae]

Funnily enough however, you have "not one SHRED of evidence" to support those beliefs.

Did I do that right? That's how these 'debates' are supposed to go, isn't it?

Okay ...
They're not beliefs.
I've said on a number of occasions that I don't have beliefs.

How convenient for you. I was thinking of saying that there was not a single SHRED of evidence to support your 'position' - and I note that you still haven't provided any - but decided that 'beliefs' would be a more interesting choice of words. Looks like I was right

Provide a shred of evidence for the divinity of Jesus.
Or a shred of evidence for any of the NT events.
And if you have none ...
You too may care to search for reasons for the partisan propaganda.

If we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that there was no evidence whatsoever for the divinity of Jesus, that wouldn't make any particular alternative true by default.

If you assert that there is not a single SHRED of evidence for Jesus' divinity and refuse to budge...
And others assert that there is not a single SHRED of evidence for your beliefs and refuse to budge...
...then a third party could legitimately conclude that your position is no more credible than that of Christians. What I'm getting at is that the constant quasi-dogmatic assertions of "no evidence" which we so often see from atheists or professing 'sceptics' is not a very productive way to engage with others. It accomplishes nothing, besides perhaps encouraging a self-reinforcing echo chamber.



So in light of that, let's step back a little...

But one simple fact that we can't deny is that Jesus' words have become by far the most-printed and most disseminated in human history. And neither that (which he said would be so) nor any of the other influence by or attributed to his movement were at all likely during his life or indeed anytime in the first century. Of course it could be just 'coincidence' that it all panned out that way, but likewise it could be something more. It's not proof of Jesus' divinity, by any stretch of the imagination, but as I initially said it seems to me that any fair evaluation would have to raise the probability somewhat in light of that evidence.

Indeed it's not.

Not one person of faith has EVER - to the best of my knowledge - demonstrated the divinity of the person called Jesus of Nazareth.

So okay, no-one has ever proven Jesus' divinity. You snipped and quoted that blue fragment of my paragraph above to make that 'point.'

Can you now engage with the rest of what I said? It was extraordinarily improbable that Jesus' movement - either in his lifetime or in the decades after his death - would have such a profound influence on Western and world history, regardless of how indirect or convoluted that influence has sometimes been. Yet such an extraordinary influence was exactly what Jesus' alleged divinity and his own words demanded.

Vague prediction of such extraordinarily improbable results is not proof. But are you willing to acknowledge that it does increase the probability that the claims were true?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 11 by Mithrae]

And others assert that there is not a single SHRED of evidence for your beliefs and refuse to budge

Let's try this again ...

Just for you ...

I don't have beliefs.

I offer speculative hypotheses

What do we have to demonstrate that it's true ...?

Is the topic ...

You have offered NOTHING ...

No one EVER does.

Discussing my hypotheses is OFF TOPIC.

I have started a number of threads where you are most welcome to do so.

As long as you don't call them beliefs ....

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 12 by StuartJ]

Everyone has beliefs of one sort or another, but I suppose if it bothers you I'll try to be more sensitive in my choice of words going forward.

At this point as far as the thread topic is concerned however, you have now twice failed to engage with the substance of my argument... all while maintaining your dogmatic mantra that I have offered "nothing," of course

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 13 by Mithrae]

I'm not going to waste time on:

It's not proof of Jesus' divinity, by any stretch of the imagination, but as I initially said it seems to me that any fair evaluation would have to raise the probability somewhat in light of that evidence.

This person does not have beliefs.

Don't worry about sensitivity ...

I invite supercilious aggression ...

And raising the probability more than somewhat ...

For Magic Jesus with extraterrestrial origins and amazing superpowers.

[Jagella]

What do we have to demonstrate that it's true ...?

As far as I know the only evidence we have for the divinity of Jesus is his followers' written testimony that he performed feats that convinced them that he was the son of the Bible god. So to believe Jesus was or is divine the Christian must accept the word of unknown people who said that they saw him do magic.

[Jagella]

Not one person of faith has EVER - to the best of my knowledge - demonstrated the divinity of the person called Jesus of Nazareth.

Yet folks carry on believing - or pretending to believe- that it's true.

As you know Christian faith appears to be based on the inability to tell truth from fiction. That's why the Christian fiction is mistaken by so many people as true.

[Jagella]

I know that Bible tells Jesus was son of God and there is only one true God that is greater than Jesus. I believe that because of what Jesus said. Because he had wisdom, truth and love that I have not seen from people.

But how can you say that you believe the Bible because of what Jesus said when what Jesus said is (presumably) quoted in the Bible? What you're saying is that you believe what the Bible says because of what it says. That's circular reasoning.

[Don McIntosh]

If you assert that there is not a single SHRED of evidence for Jesus' divinity and refuse to budge...
And others assert that there is not a single SHRED of evidence for your beliefs and refuse to budge...
...then a third party could legitimately conclude that your position is no more credible than that of Christians. What I'm getting at is that the constant quasi-dogmatic assertions of "no evidence" which we so often see from atheists or professing 'sceptics' is not a very productive way to engage with others. It accomplishes nothing, besides perhaps encouraging a self-reinforcing echo chamber.

Thanks for that.

In keeping with your observations above, here in a nutshell is why I think the demand for evidence (of any and all claims) is self-defeating:

1. Beliefs not backed by evidence are probably false.
2. The belief that beliefs not backed by evidence are probably false, is not backed by evidence.
3. The belief that beliefs not backed by evidence are probably false, is probably false.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 11 by Mithrae]

If you assert that there is not a single SHRED of evidence for Jesus' divinity and refuse to budge...

I never intentionally make that assertion.

I do say that I have NEVER ENCOUNTERED a single shred of evidence.

And I leave that DOOR WIDE OPEN ...

Which is a long way from not budging.

But I do OFTEN find that certain folks will distort - subtly or otherwise - what I actually say ....

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 18 by Don McIntosh]

What do we have to demonstrate that it's true ...?

Is the topic.

No DEMANDS in that sentence.

Can you contribute anything ...?