Let's suppose God did....

[JGG]

No. That is not what I said at all.

What kind of supernatural evidence can you show us?

I do not expect you to speculate about supernatural evidence.

This seems like a trick...

Why would you not?

Its unbelievable...

 

[variant]

So which premise of that argument do you disagree with? One or two?

Number 1.

1. If God existed, then His existence would be obvious to everyone

Since God is not obviously something that exists, the only possible Gods are those that are purposefully hidden.

 

[Elioenai26]

Its unbelievable...

That is my point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But Jesus was physical and He is God... and there is evidence that He existed and was seen by many multitudes.

Jesus is a theophany (God in the human form) and appearance of God. He states "I AM the father" "I and the father are ONE." "Why do ye ask' show us the father? For when you see me, you see the father." He states "I have all the power on heaven and on earth" Matthew...

(1) In Zechariah 12:10, God speaks of the future return of Christ and says, ". . . They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourne for him, as one mourneth for his only son . . . ." This is spoken again in Revelation 1:7, which is clearly a reference to Christ Himself, but in Zechariah 12:10 GOD said, ". . . They shall look upon me whom they have pierced . . . ." The One that they pierced was Jesus Christ! So, in Zechariah 12:10, God is saying that He is Jesus Christ.

(2) In John 1:1, John 1:14, 1 John 1:1, and in 1 John 5:7, Jesus is called "the Word," and John 1:1 says that "the Word was God."


(3) Thomas referred to Jesus as "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28, and Jesus did not see the need to correct him.

(4) Isaiah 7:14 gives us the prophecy of the Virgin Birth of Christ and states that His name would be "Immanuel." Matthew 1:23 tells us that this word means "God with us."

(5) In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." The Bible certainly would not say this about anyone less than God.


(6) In John 10:30, Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." Jesus is not a lesser god; He is ONE with the Father.


(7) Micah 5:2 tells us that Jesus is "from everlasting."

(8) In John 8:58, Jesus tells the Pharisees, "Before Abraham was, I am." He claimed to be the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14, which is God Almighty.


(9) Jesus allowed others to worship Him (John 9:38; Matt. 14:33; and Luke 24:52), which was forbidden, unless He was God (Rev. 22:9).


(10) Jesus forgave sins (Mark 2:5), which only God can do (Mark 2:7).


(11) The Lord Jesus Christ is omnipresent (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; II Cor. 13:14; I John 5:7). We know He is God because He is capable of being everywhere at once.


(12) Jesus is omniscient (Mark 11:2-6; Matt. 12:40). He is God because He knows all things.


(13) The Lord Jesus is also omnipotent (Rev. 19:6; Matt. 28:18). He has all power.


(14) According to John 1, 1 John 1, Colossians 1, and Hebrews 1, Jesus Christ is the Creator of Genesis 1!


(15) Jesus never sinned! Romans 3:23 says that ALL HAVE SINNED and come short of the glory of God, but Jesus did not sin (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 3:18). So Jesus had to be God.

Jesus also states "Neither be ye called masters, for ONE is your master, Christ"... Then God is referred to as the one master "You cannot serve two masters, you either love or hate the other... You cannot serve both God and mammon" meaning Jesus IS God, the ONE master (no humans or things).

JESUS IS GOD!


But God showed Himself in Jesus, who was in the flesh. "God is the word and the word became flesh" John.
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

Isaiah 44:6 - (God is the Redeemer)
2 Peter 1:1 (Jesus is the Redeemer) - “To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”

Titus 2:13 - looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ



Something to think about: atoms cannot be seen, and centuries ago, their presence was based merely off intuition without any evidence. "Seeing" is not always believing.



But Jesus cannot be speculated as He actually existed. Even old churches in the medieval age may have had relics from His cross. And JESUS IS GOD. Proof?

"11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves."
Jesus's God's words, John 14:11



His evidence is in JESUS, God in the human form given as a theophany, an example to follow. As He had appeared to Moses - Moses saw God's back after He saw Him in the bush, and Jacob wrestled with God in the flesh and saw Him "face to face." Adam and Eve saw God when He walked in the Garden.



But there is evidence of JESUS, who was God in the flesh as a theophany (appearence of God) as seen in the past.



JESUS IS GOD. There is evidence He was there.


You know because all good comes from God, All good comes from Jesus. You know from the catacombs that people saw Him and what He did. Evidence from 30 A.D. on ward to 313 A.D. JESUS IS GOD, GOD'S THEOPHANY to give us a PERFECT, sinless example to follow.

Actually, the existence of Jesus as a real physical human being is increasingly the subject of debate. If we look at the trend over time...Jesus appears to being transitioning from divine being, to human being, to mythological figure.

 

[Elioenai26]

That evolution was false.

Belief in evolution and belief in Christ are not mutually exclusive. In fact a number of well known scientists who are Christians believe in evolution and see no explicit contradiction with it and the Genesis accounts of creation. Me personally, I do not think it matters either way.

So I am happy to tell you that your misgivings regarding evolution and Christianity are unfounded!

I think you misunderstand what my point was. I was saying that the Bible could have falsely claimed that Jesus said he was God. Maybe Jesus never claimed such a thing.

Well this simply is not true. The Jews had Jesus killed primarily because of who He Himself claimed to be, not because of what others were saying about Him. In fact the inscription above His head on His cross indicates this. Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum means, Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews which is what Pilate had placed above His head. The Pharisees contested this rendering and desired for it to read rather: "He said He was the King of the Jews". But Pilate replied: "What I have written, I have written."

The Pharisees condemned Jesus at a private council of the Sanhedrin before taking Him to Pilate to ask that He be crucified. They condemned Him because Christ confessed that He was the Son of Man alluding to the prophecy of the Messiah recorded in Daniel and said that they would all see Him coming on the clouds of heaven.

If Christ's disciples and close associates of the disciples who wrote the New Testament, as you suggest, knew He was NOT the Messiah, then why would they willingly endure such hardships, tortures, imprisonments, and eventually martyrdom for their beliefs that they knew were not true?

 

[variant]

Well this simply is not true. The Jews had Jesus killed primarily because of who He Himself claimed to be, not because of what others were saying about Him. In fact the inscription above His head on His cross indicates this. Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum means, Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews which is what Pilate had placed above His head. The Pharisees contested this rendering and desired for it to read rather: "He said He was the King of the Jews". But Pilate replied: "What I have written, I have written."

The Pharisees condemned Jesus at a private council of the Sanhedrin before taking Him to Pilate to ask that He be crucified. They condemned Him because Christ confessed that He was the Son of Man alluding to the prophecy of the Messiah recorded in Daniel and said that they would all see Him coming on the clouds of heaven.

If Christ's disciples and close associates of the disciples who wrote the New Testament, as you suggest, knew He was NOT the Messiah, then why would they willingly endure such hardships, tortures, imprisonments, and eventually martyrdom for their beliefs that they knew were not true?

That has something to do with who wrote the books, when they did so and why.

Obviously the atheist is going to have some differences with you over the veracity of those texts.

It would be hard for instance to conclusively show that the Jewish people were looking for a messiah that was meant to be part of God himself.

 

[pjnlsn]

Ok.

What would God have to do convince you He existed?

Like I said, the complete answer i'm sure would be an insight into someone's personality, but in general: It depends on the situation and exactly what I saw, from what was suggested before.

But again, even if I (or any amount of people) believed, completely and without doubt, there still wouldn't be proof.

 

[Davian]

Do you mind sharing what that belief was?



I think you misunderstand Lewis' point here. You say Jesus could have been a preacher. Well, the historical evidence affirms this. He proclaimed, among other things, that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand and things of that nature.

But He was either lying or crazy my dear. If He was not really God incarnate, then His statement regarding the Kingdom of Heaven, and Him being able to forgive sin, and Him receiving worship, and Him rebuking the religious leaders of His day was either a result of Him lying about who He was, or either He really believed He was the Son of God but really was not. There is no third option of saying: "Well He was a good teacher or He was just a Rabbi."

A man who is not God would be evil if he were lying about being God and knew he was not God, and a man would be crazy if he said he was God and really believed he was God when he actually was not.

So which do you think Jesus was? Crazy or a liar, or both?

He may have been deceived. Self-deceived, at that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Mr. Ellis, if you agree with premises 1 through 6, then 7 which is the conclusion follows logically. You cannot accept 1 through 6 and then disagree with 7. If you disagree with 7 then you must show which of the premises 1 through 6 you disagree with.

Not at all, and I provided why that is in my previous response. He can exist but for some reason not have provided sufficient evidence to everyone.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Mr. Ellis, aside from the fact that Jesus' historicity is affirmed by virtually all ancient historians, secular and Christian, I was speaking to Paradoxum who stated she believed Jesus was indeed real.

I was not talking to you when I provided the C.S. Lewis quote.

Jesus historicity is not affirmed by a single contemporary historian. Tacitus and Josephus are the closest to the period, however came decades later and they mostly speak of Christians, rather than Jesus himself.

Furthermore, as neither one were Christians they also must have thought there was nothing to what the early Christians were saying.

 

[Dave Ellis]

When I found one of my beliefs was wrong, I realised that others could be wrong. I tried to make sure my faith and beliefs were based on evidence and reason. But, I still started to wonder if the things I called God or God produced were in fact just psychology. In the end alot of what I thought was God started to look more like bias, coincidence, and placebo.



I am familiar with that quote. Jesus could have been a preacher that was misrepresented by time. So I would say the writers of the Bible got it wrong, for whatever reason.

Or perhaps that Jesus meant his claims to understood less literally. Like if a Hindu said they were God, they might mean they are God just like everyone else, not that they are a special manifestation of God.

It is worth noting there was a major division within early Christianity where some sects didn't believe Jesus was divine at all, he was just a prophet of sorts. That issue was not settled until the council of Nicaea centuries after the events in question.

 

[JGG]

No. That is not what I said at all.



I do not expect you to speculate about supernatural evidence.



Why would you not?

That is my point.

What is your point? I should believe the bible because its unbelievable?

You failed to answer my request for supernatural evidence.

 

[super animator]

It's a way of saying, absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence, with claims where evidence is expected.

That boils down on what evidence are you expecting and/or looking for. The whole absence of evidence is evidence of absence thing just screams argument from ignorance to me. Just because the person doesn't have any evidence doesn't mean the person won't have it in the future, or we simply couldn't find one yet.

It's the same way Carl Sagn famous quote "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in his book Cosmos, I think.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That boils down on what evidence are you expecting and/or looking for. The whole absence of evidence is evidence of absence thing just screams argument from ignorance to me. Just because the person doesn't have any evidence doesn't mean the person won't have it in the future, or we simply couldn't find one yet.

It's the same way Carl Sagn famous quote "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in his book Cosmos, I think.

And in many cases, Sagan is right.

However, say you have a young son who thinks there's a monster in the closet.... when you go open the closet and discover no monster, that is an instance where an absence of evidence, is evidence of absence.

In short, if we're talking about absence of a required item to make the idea work, that absence is evidence the idea is incorrect.

Sagan's famous line is not talking about situations like that though.

 

[variant]

That boils down on what evidence are you expecting and/or looking for. The whole absence of evidence is evidence of absence thing just screams argument from ignorance to me. Just because the person doesn't have any evidence doesn't mean the person won't have it in the future, or we simply couldn't find one yet.

It's the same way Carl Sagn famous quote "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in his book Cosmos, I think.

The absence of evidence generally means that we can't start making assertions about a thing, and at that point religion is relegated to uselessness.

The Atheist doesn't need to make any assertions about anything supernatural, or about divinity or whatever.

We don't need to partake in other peoples fantasy life.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is worth noting there was a major division within early Christianity where some sects didn't believe Jesus was divine at all, he was just a prophet of sorts. That issue was not settled until the council of Nicaea centuries after the events in question.

If I'm not mistaken, there were also those who believed Jesus wasn't even a physical being....and those who believed he lived roughly 100 years before his modernly agreed lifetime.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That boils down on what evidence are you expecting and/or looking for. The whole absence of evidence is evidence of absence thing just screams argument from ignorance to me. Just because the person doesn't have any evidence doesn't mean the person won't have it in the future, or we simply couldn't find one yet.

That's why we say it's evidence of absence, not proof of absence.

Suppose you tell me there's an elephant in my garden, and I go out and have a look, and I don't see an elephant, nor do I see elephant poop, nor elephant tracks, nor elephant hide, nor a suspicious elephant trunk peeking out from behind my tree. There's a conspicuous absence of evidence for the existence of this alleged elephant, and this absence of evidence is itself evidence that the elephant does not exist.

It is perfectly reasonable to note the absence of evidence for elephants in my garden, and ipso facto conclude there are no elephants.

 

[Paradoxum]

Belief in evolution and belief in Christ are not mutually exclusive. In fact a number of well known scientists who are Christians believe in evolution and see no explicit contradiction with it and the Genesis accounts of creation. Me personally, I do not think it matters either way.

So I am happy to tell you that your misgivings regarding evolution and Christianity are unfounded!

I actually agree that evolution and Christianity are compatible. I meant that because I was so easily wrong once, with the same method of believing things I could be wrong about other beliefs.

Well this simply is not true. The Jews had Jesus killed primarily because of who He Himself claimed to be, not because of what others were saying about Him. In fact the inscription above His head on His cross indicates this. Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum means, Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews which is what Pilate had placed above His head. The Pharisees contested this rendering and desired for it to read rather: "He said He was the King of the Jews". But Pilate replied: "What I have written, I have written."

The Pharisees condemned Jesus at a private council of the Sanhedrin before taking Him to Pilate to ask that He be crucified. They condemned Him because Christ confessed that He was the Son of Man alluding to the prophecy of the Messiah recorded in Daniel and said that they would all see Him coming on the clouds of heaven.

If Christ's disciples and close associates of the disciples who wrote the New Testament, as you suggest, knew He was NOT the Messiah, then why would they willingly endure such hardships, tortures, imprisonments, and eventually martyrdom for their beliefs that they knew were not true?

Well aren't you just quoting the book that I'm not sure if all true anyway? I'm sure you don't take what other holy books say as history.

How do we know that the others that wrote the New Testament knew Jesus, or died for those beliefs? How do we know they were being truthful?

It is worth noting there was a major division within early Christianity where some sects didn't believe Jesus was divine at all, he was just a prophet of sorts. That issue was not settled until the council of Nicaea centuries after the events in question.

The development of Christianity seems to be very human.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

What caused this change?



Are you familiar with the statement that C.S. Lewis once made which goes something like:

"Jesus Christ was either God, a liar, or a lunatic"?

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes, I'm familiar with C.S. Lewis. I have read most of his books.

His statement is a false dilemma. He forgot to add a fourth, and most likely, option, that of myth. Jesus was either god, liar, lunatic or myth.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

His existence, or God as a concept?

Those are two distinct topics. Which one do you believe is logically impossible?

Yes, god is a concept. That we can conceive of a god does not make it's existence any more likely. We can believe in the concept of god as a god concept.