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 ...?

[StuartJ]

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.



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

NOTHING

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

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 66 by mrhagerty]

He is making a claim that he knows the truth about God

That is patently false.

Any rationalist (and most non-rationalists) here will tell you that is NOT what I do.

Back it up or publically withdraw.

Then actually address the topic here.

[Tcg]

Back it up or publically withdraw.

That would be the honorable thing to do. Of course it's not uncommon to see a strawman built to support a strawman rather than admitting that the original strawman was false.

Hopefully my pessimism will be proven unwarranted in this case.

Then actually address the topic here.

That would be a refreshing change. I suspect however our future will involve this:



Even with the Holy Spirit stacking the deck in their favor, we get nothing but more opportunities to learn the cricket's song.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post by StuartJ"

That is patently false. . . Any rationalist (and most non-rationalists) here will tell you that is NOT what I do.

Back it up or publically withdraw.

Calm yourself, Stuart. It's a very simple case. If you claim to be an atheist, then you join a community that says there is no God, which is a statement of fact that they know something.

If you disagree that you are making any claim to know, then please stop calling yourself an atheist, and join with agnostics.

In which case, I have no obligation to withdraw anything. I've described a universal assumption among atheists which they proudly proclaim everywhere. It would apply to you if you insist that you are one.

If I'm accusing you falsely, it would only be on the ground that you are really an agnostic, which I would be bereft of knowing up front until you complained about having to demonstrate that you know that God doesn't exist.

BTW, you make other claims you don't bother to offer evidence for; i.e. that the NT is a collection of make-believe. You're entitled to your opinion, but when you claim it as a fact, you need to prove it. More than just drawing a conclusion that it's all make believe, you have to show evidence that the authors knew they were presenting mythical events as history, when they claimed to be eyewitnesses. You have to show the independent testimony from others who were there that the events never took place. And there were plenty of officials who could easily have published material stating that events they were supposed to have witnessed never occurred.

Take the case of the soldiers at the tomb. Why did the Jewish leaders characterize the arrangement with the soldiers as a different story (i.e. a lie) that they would be paid to disseminate, if it was actually true the body was stolen by the disciples.

When the real story is available to be told, you don't craft an arrangement to lie in order to explain that truth. You don't say, "Say the following when asked and we will back you with Pilate." You say, "Just tell the truth and we will will back you with Pilate."

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 84 by mrhagerty]

If you claim to be an atheist, then you join a community that says there is no God, which is a statement of fact that they know something.

Utter nonsense.

We have several threads running on that topic.

READ THEM

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 84 by mrhagerty]

BTW, you make other claims you don't bother to offer evidence for; i.e. that the NT is a collection of make-believe.

This too is false.

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 ...?

Is the precise wording here - and is similar elsewhere.

READ what I actually say very carefully.

And now, please pay us the courtesy of addressing the topic directly.

Several posts up are two lovely pictures of the Blessed Virgin Mary with the Holy Ghost and the Archangel Gabriel and quotations from the Jewish-Christian propaganda.

It LOOKS like a whole bunch of make-believe going on to me.

Kindly demonstrate that we are dealing with reality here.

Or perhaps admit that you too recognise it as make-believe.

And please don't disappear off into a smokescreen of "epistemology" and such, and derail my topic further.

It's perfectly clear what is being asked.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 84 by mrhagerty]

If you claim to be an atheist, then you join a community that says there is no God, which is a statement of fact that they know something.

Utter nonsense.

We have several threads running on that topic.

READ THEM

Yes, it is nonsense. It is also a straw man built to support a straw man.

[William]

[Replying to post 76 by mrhagerty]

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.

Why would you assume I would want respect from anyone who actively participates in misusing language? I would settle for acknowledgement that English is not the perfect use of language when it comes to this type of thing, and efforts to change that would garner my respect.

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

It does if you trust in it.

We agree here. Faith-based beliefs are things one trusts in as true. Depending on what it is that people are trusting as true, depends upon whether the faith trusted in is nonnegotiable.

Generally faith is considered to be something which is believed in, and is nonnegotiable. Otherwise it is not regarded as faith.

Are you saying that not all faith-based beliefs are nonnegotiable?

Are you saying you don't trust your belief that there is no God,...

About that, I have this to say.

1: I recognize you have the belief that I believe there is no GOD.
2: I recognize that the belief you express above is NOT faith-based.
3: I also recognize that the belief you express above is not based in any knowledge you have acquired from evidence.

...or your belief that the Bible is make believe?

About that, I have this to say;

My belief is that the Bible is not 'The Word' of any GOD. That -specifically - is what I consider to be 'make believe' about the Bible.

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

Which I've done satisfactorily for myself.

In this;

1: I believe you.
2: I have no reason not to believe you.

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.

How much did this cost you in terms of time and money? (An estimate will suffice.)

You don't have to believe what they said,...

What is written is open to evaluation.

...but you can't disbelieve they said them.

What is written is open to evaluation.

So far my evaluation is that it does not matter who wrote anything. What matters is whether what is written is useful to my investigations or not.

The rest of the proof I needed came from the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

I go with The Spirit Who Leads Me Into All Truth.

Are we now going to set our Spirits against each other to see who's Spirit wins?

So I haven't avoided the search for proof.

In that we are kindred.

I like the way 'Proof' and 'Truth' rhyme. That is something I do appreciate about English as a language.

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.

Rationalism doesn't seem to cost as much and fits in with my budget mrhagerty. I am rather thrifty, there's no denying that.

If I adjust what I wrote to now read;

"I still fail to see how something metaphysical can be proven with material evidence, and that was the focus of my argument." would that change your assessment any?

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.

Indeed, the idea of the Christian GOD has been expressed in that way, I agree.
But I also read in the Bible that this is not always the case, although if those examples are meant to be taken figuratively rather than literally, then "GOD is actually immaterial" can be agreed with...if that is what you are saying.

Yet we have a demand from you for material evidence.

No we don't. I am confident you cannot provide any evidence where I have written anything of the sort. I am equally confident that you got such an impression through misunderstanding and even presumption.

You want something that can be seen or tested or independently verified. Those are scientific requirements, hence material requirements.

No I don't. I am confident you cannot provide any evidence where I have written anything of the sort. I am equally confident that you got such an impression through misunderstanding and even presumption.

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

So explain to the reader if you will mrhagerty, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I want something that can be seen or tested or independently verified, by what I said in the above.

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.

This is what I think, from reading the above;

You are here to speak the truth as you believe it to be even when not asked.

And;

You are here to defend the truth as you believe it to be, whenever you believe it is being attacked.

Welcome to the forum mrhagerty. That is precisely why we are all here. Kindred.

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.

Are the beliefs you have and wish to defend, nonnegotiable mrhagerty?
Lets say for the moment that I believe your beliefs are indeed nonnegotiable.

Would I be incorrect about that? Would my belief about that be a misunderstanding of your beliefs?

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.

I specifically asked about YOUR belief mrhagarty. I was not asking for a commentary on religious truth in general.

But is your answer a reflection of your beliefs in that your beliefs include the right to attack other beliefs which are not exactly your beliefs?

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.

I have to say that the list of questions I wrote were done in a manner of 'these are questions that your arguments are begging' rather than implying that you have done some/all of those things. I want to know what your beliefs entitle you to do in relation with other beliefs.

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.

This is the job of "The Spirit Who Leads Me Into All Truth" I go with and mentioned earlier.

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?

Why would you say that? Stick around long enough yourself and your will discover that there is ample opportunity to debate without proselytizing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs.

[William]

[Replying to post 84 by mrhagerty]

If you claim to be an atheist, then you join a community that says there is no God, which is a statement of fact that they know something.

Utter nonsense.

We have several threads running on that topic.

READ THEM

I think the issues those threads raise are currently under discussion for the purpose of finding a definition all atheists agree with. At present they appear not to.

Are you are an atheist who believes that GODs do not exist, or an atheist who lacks belief in GODs?

Is an atheist who lacks belief in GODs really an agnostic, and thus atheists are really those who believe GODs do not exist?

Is all the above really another example of how English misuses language? Why is it necessary to consider agnostics to being atheists, when it obviously causes confusion?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 88 by William]

This - and most of your other posts - have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the topic.

I can reasonably ask if you are filling my topic with thousands of words to derail it ...?

Tell us about the divinity of the person called Jesus of Nazareth.

There are a couple of lovely pictures a few posts up (if you can get past all the clutter)

The lovely pictures are DIRECTLY related to the topic.

Please address them.

We can discuss epistemology and aliens in other topics.

This one is about the Saviour of the World Jesus.