Is Jesus Christ a man or a god?

[uwot]

...if the original use of "fantastic" earlier in the thread was meant pejoratively...

It wasn't. If Immanuel Can had taken his own advice and read the earlier posts he might have seen this exchange:

It seems you missed "of the fantastic," the pivotal objection.

No, I think I just misunderstood your usage. I gather now you're referring to the "fantastic" events enumerated in the Bible, rather than the Bible itself being "fantastic?" If the former, I can see the objection. It's the latter one I would be pushing back against insofar as there are all sorts of "fantastic" books from the time that we nevertheless consider as reliable historical sources when it comes to establishing the less fantastic claims.

Despite his protestations, even Immanuel Can gets it:

If Uniformitarianism isn't true (and let's face it, we can't prove it is), then the claims of miracles are not "fantastic" in the sense of "being mere fantasies," but perhaps only "fantastic" in the sense of being really startling and amazing.

I don't really care what anyone means by fantastic. What is more interesting is the claim that Immanuel Can is now trying to wriggle out of:

We need to note hat a positive claim made by the doubter is advanced as the starting point of the debate: i.e., that miracles are "fantastic."


In other words, the debate with the doubter claiming to know something.

I can't find a reference to a specific doubter, so assume he means any doubter.
It's a claim which in this exchange with Blaggard, you appear to endorse:

Hold your horses you and the OP are claiming Jesus exists it's up to you to prove the historicity of this claim and don't use the Bible, that old tome has never been honest about anything even The Gospel truth.

Actually, it's the reverse. It's up to you to prove the negative here.

Why is it that some theists insist that atheists have anything to prove?

[ReliStuPhD]

Hold your horses you and the OP are claiming Jesus exists it's up to you to prove the historicity of this claim and don't use the Bible, that old tome has never been honest about anything even The Gospel truth.

Actually, it's the reverse. It's up to you to prove the negative here.

Why is it that some theists insist that atheists have anything to prove?

Because in this case, Blaggard is the one advancing a hypothesis, namely that "that old tome has never been honest about anything even The Gospel truth." The hypothesis I and others have advanced—that the Gospels are historically reliable documents concerning at least the non-fantastic claims concerning Jesus' life—is one that has been tested and is generally accepted as sound by experts in the relevant fields. It may yet prove to be untrue, but the atheist must nevertheless deal with the evidence that has already been amassed or his/her argument amounts to little more than a form of question-begging.* Just as one who says "quarks do not exist" takes upon him or herself the burden of proof regarding his/her claim, so also does the atheist take upon him/herself the burden of showing the Gospels not to be historically reliable. That is to say, it is not only bad form but poor argumentation to make an assertion and then duck the concomitant responsibility to defend that assertion. Those who hold to the historical reliability of the Gospels have done this, many times over. Atheists, as far as I know, have not even scratched the surface of providing evidence to support their claim.

Now, if you mean the question in a broader sense, it depends on the topic. If you have a specific example, I'm happy to give it a shot. As far as the Gospels go, the evidence is squarely on the side of historical reliability, therefore the burden is on the atheist to prove the counter-claim (if he or she chooses to make it. Blaggard has, you have not.)

*It's also worth noting that Blaggard has also fallen prey to the fallacy of "Stacking the Deck." There are also hints of "No True Scotsman" and "Appeal to Lack of Evidence" in his argument.

[Immanuel Can]

Quite right.

It may also be worth noting that the very word "Atheism" itself advances a positive knowledge claim: it says, "I know there's no God." It doesn't say, "I don't know if there is or not" which would, from the original Greek, be translated as "Agnostic." It claims the non-existence of God as fact, as declaration, as its profession of knowledge.

Interestingly, it is a positive claim to a negative fact: It claims there IS (+) NO (-) God. That needs to be defended, if it is to be asserted at all.

[jackles]

Scientifically speaking we could define jesus and all other humans as being local to an event but having nonlocality as conscience or consciouness .Which is what he was defining with his words. Nonlocality cant be understood how ever by a local brain. Nonlocality understands nonlocality as conscience.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Of course the odds are there was an entity named Jesus. Because it's highly unlikely, even in those days, that such a scam as a totally fictitious person, would or could be created for such a reason, especially in the beginning of the deception. So what? Whether there was or wasn't an entity named Jesus hardly speaks of him being a god or not. It would surely seem that the fact that he allowed himself to be crucified, speaks more of a human entity, and the subsequent story to make it seem otherwise, than it does a godly entity. The fact that so much of his life is shrouded in human frailty, and obscured by a lack of widespread overwhelming awe, speaks more of a man, than one as powerful as a god. I mean does a god really want to make a point and grab humanities attention? I could think of far better ways to shock the human populous, into submission, of paying the utmost attention to ones words of wisdom. And it would surely seem that any rationalization to the contrary, is an attempt at making the pieces fit, a fictitious story line, a means to create a god by men.

Or so it seems so clear, rationally speaking, to me.

[Immanuel Can]

Whether there was or wasn't an entity named Jesus hardly speaks of him being a god or not.

Quite right. It would remain to be shown. Other evidence would have to come to bear.

It would surely seem that the fact that he allowed himself to be crucified, speaks more of a human entity, and the subsequent story to make it seem otherwise, than it does a godly entity.

On the surface, perhaps. But might we be rushing to judgment to think so? Is it conceivable that God Himself was a bit smarter than we are, and may have known things about that situation we did not? Could it even be that He might condescend to offer us an explanation of some sort, however partial it might have to be for our limited human brains?

Or is that whole possibility just too wild?

The fact that so much of his life is shrouded in human frailty, and obscured by a lack of widespread overwhelming awe, speaks more of a man, than one as powerful as a god.

This seems less compelling. For one thing "shrouded in human frailty" is a metaphor, rather than a clear and specific identification of a problem. That some aspect of his life are "obscured," (which I grant you -- consider his first three decades of life, for example) would not tell much if that obscurity is not so overwhelming as to prevent all knowledge of the Man Himself. And that His life was not attended by "widespread and overwhelming awe" is not, perhaps what we humanly would expect, but is precisely what was predicted by OT prophecies concerning Him -- so then is quite expected -- and, in fact, that worry would seem to partake of the bandwagon fallacy, the misapprehension that more public consensus is some sort of indicator of truth.

That He was not what we thought, or did not do what we predicted might be quite reasonable for the Son of God.

Or is that also a wild thought?

I mean does a god really want to make a point and grab humanities attention?

Which "god"? If we think of the imperious, distant "god" of the Deists, for example, I would have to agree with your question.

But the Jewish and Christian traditions do not see God as that. They see Him as personal, meaning "having specific characteristics, intentions, attitudes and purposes in connection with Creation," and above all, "having an intention to produce genuine relationship with His Creation." If we suppose that the Jews and Christians are at all right, then "grabbing humanity's attention" is the very first thing one might expect such a Deity to do.

It all depends on what you expect from God.

I could think of far better ways to shock the human populous, into submission, of paying the utmost attention to ones words of wisdom.

Now, this would seem an excellent description of Allah, the god of Islam. After all, he wants submission and cringing obedience. And I think you have every reason to ask why such a deity, if he wants such things, would not simply enforce them. After all, if he exists, he would surely have the power, would he not?

But what if God wants free relatedness with His creatures? What if He should wish to allow them to make their own choices about whom they will or will not love? Could He do it more effectively than by shrouding His glory in some way? Indeed, if He did not, could human choice even remain possible, given the overwhelming forcefulness of truth reputed to attach to His person? Would He not, at least for a time, need to remain a matter of question if He were to allow an option to exist?

And it would surely seem that any rationalization to the contrary, is an attempt at making the pieces fit, a fictitious story line, a means to create a god by men.

Well, if you were a man creating a "god," I think it's pretty clear that it wouldn't be the God of the Jews and Christians you'd set out to create. I think you'd probably opt for one that was localizable, manageable and subject to human techniques. But God isn't like that. He's rather unexpected, just as you have so wisely pointed out. We continually find that His ways are not our ways, and indeed are often "past finding out," just as the Bible claims. I would further suggest that His character is not the sort of thing that humans would predict or would have reason to engineer. The God of the Bible is not attractive to human purposes nor flattering to human nature, but rather challenging to a great deal that humanity tends to value.

I would wonder if there are not far better ways to invent a god if one has that idea in mind.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[ReliStuPhD]

Whether there was or wasn't an entity named Jesus hardly speaks of him being a god or not.

Along with I.C. (and many others, I imagine), I agree. The Gospels are evidence that Jesus' followers (or at least later generations of his followers) believed him to be divine. They are not proof that he was divine. And, if I may be so bold, Christians who understand the philosophical "strength" of such claims will not rest their hat on "the Bible tells me so."

[thedoc]

And it would surely seem that any rationalization to the contrary, is an attempt at making the pieces fit, a fictitious story line, a means to create a god by men.

Well, if you were a man creating a "god," I think it's pretty clear that it wouldn't be the God of the Jews and Christians you'd set out to create. I think you'd probably opt for one that was localizable, manageable and subject to human techniques. But God isn't like that. He's rather unexpected, just as you have so wisely pointed out. We continually find that His ways are not our ways, and indeed are often "past finding out," just as the Bible claims. I would further suggest that His character is not the sort of thing that humans would predict or would have reason to engineer. The God of the Bible is not attractive to human purposes nor flattering to human nature, but rather challenging to a great deal that humanity tends to value.

I would wonder if there are not far better ways to invent a god if one has that idea in mind.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I would suggest that if man created god, that god would be subject to human logic and reason. But a God that defies human logic and reason would require a different explanation, such as "God was not created by man, and God really exists".

[Immanuel Can]

ReliStuPhd wrote,

Along with I.C. (and many others, I imagine), I agree. The Gospels are evidence that Jesus' followers (or at least later generations of his followers) believed him to be divine. They are not proof that he was divine.

Oh, I'm sorry...did I give that impression?

Then let me rephrase, please: I only said that "whether there was an entity named Jesus" didn't prove it. And that's just a statement of the fact that a name alone, or the presence of a historical person is not IN ITSELF a warrant for such a belief.

Moreover, I am not at all on board with the suggestion that He did not claim to be God, that He did not provide good evidence in His life for taking His claims very seriously, or that He *was* not God. That's why I added,

It would remain to be shown. Other evidence would have to come to bear.

Yet I would argue that there is such other evidence, and I would be happy with the idea that the Gospels are a very significant source of such evidence. So there, perhaps ReliStuPhd and I part company a little.

And then, thedoc:

I would suggest that if man created god, that god would be subject to human logic and reason. But a God that defies human logic and reason would require a different explanation, such as "God was not created by man, and God really exists".

But this seems less than obvious to me. Why should we think that God, if He exists, would "defy" logic and reason? If those are elements He infused into His Creation, and if He Himself offers propositional claims about Himself, why would we suppose He must then "defy" all that? Would that not be rather inconsistent?

Would it not be more likely that He might remain a God of reason and logic, but simply transcend those elements as they are manifested in more limited beings such as we are?

And that is to say, not that he would thereby "deny" or obliterate reason. Rather, reason as a principle or as a method of addressing reality would remain fully in force; and even such rational statements as human beings were capable of making concerning God Himself would remain reasonable. However, this would in no wise entail that God would have to be limited to ONLY those statements that human beings could make. He could exceed those while remaining coherent within the limited terms human beings offer.

Just as the Atlantic Ocean is genuinely water yet exceeds my personal ability to drink, could not God remain coherent with human reason, but far too big to be contained only thereby?

That seems more reasonable to me -- more consistent for God, and more rational for us as well.

[ReliStuPhD]

ReliStuPhd wrote,

Along with I.C. (and many others, I imagine), I agree. The Gospels are evidence that Jesus' followers (or at least later generations of his followers) believed him to be divine. They are not proof that he was divine.

Oh, I'm sorry...did I give that impression?

No, I simply typed that poorly. I should have had a return after that sentence. (i.e. "I agree," now here's an additional point of my own.") Still, it was worth it to see your clarification, so a happy error.

Moreover, I am not at all on board with the suggestion that He did not claim to be God, that He did not provide good evidence in His life for taking His claims very seriously, or that He *was* not God. That's why I added,

It would remain to be shown. Other evidence would have to come to bear.

Yet I would argue that there is such other evidence, and I would be happy with the idea that the Gospels are a very significant source of such evidence. So there, perhaps ReliStuPhd and I part company a little.

Yes, I think there's some light between us here. I'm am not inclined to look to the Gospels as anything more than proof that Jesus existed, led the life of an itinerant preacher, etc, etc, etc and that he and his followers claimed X about him. I do not see that they provide evidence that Jesus was X. To wit, the Gospels provide no evidence to help in discerning between the metaphysical and logical possibilities that Jesus was God or simply an alien from Zaphod Beeblebrox's homeworld who is having a mighty laugh at our expense. They serve as evidence for either claim. (But on a less humorous note, rhetorical analysis of the Gospels calls into question whether Jesus himself considered himself to be God or it was a later theological accretion.)

[Immanuel Can]

rhetorical analysis of the Gospels calls into question whether Jesus himself considered himself to be God or it was a later theological accretion

If that is the sort of analysis, then I think its conclusions are merely rhetorical as well. It seems pretty clear that *if* we take the Gospel record as accurate -- or even reasonably so -- He most certainly did.

But that, of course, reintroduces the area of space between us: just how seriously should we take the Gospels.

My suggestion would be, "Very seriously indeed, or else not at all."

The reason I say this is that as soon as we start being selective we are faced with the need to specify our criterion of selection; and while some such criteria are possible -- say in variant readings on Greek syntax -- such as can be specified refer to variations that are extremely small indeed, and which fail to make a dent on major themes or events recounted in multiple places.

Once we decide that the major themes and recurrent patterns are up for grabs, then we're in deep trouble exegetically; for it would entail that there is really *no* theme or event that is not vulnerable to the criteria, and the whole record becomes entirely ineffective to us as a source of information, since we really have nothing we will no longer doubt, regardless of how much intra-textual evidence we find.

If we are to doubt, how shall we keep out doubt from becoming irrational, excessive or cynical? How shall we say we know *anything* when any part of the record might be up for grabs?

[thedoc]

And then, thedoc:

I would suggest that if man created god, that god would be subject to human logic and reason. But a God that defies human logic and reason would require a different explanation, such as "God was not created by man, and God really exists".

But this seems less than obvious to me. Why should we think that God, if He exists, would "defy" logic and reason? If those are elements He infused into His Creation, and if He Himself offers propositional claims about Himself, why would we suppose He must then "defy" all that? Would that not be rather inconsistent?

Would it not be more likely that He might remain a God of reason and logic, but simply transcend those elements as they are manifested in more limited beings such as we are?

And that is to say, not that he would thereby "deny" or obliterate reason. Rather, reason as a principle or as a method of addressing reality would remain fully in force; and even such rational statements as human beings were capable of making concerning God Himself would remain reasonable. However, this would in no wise entail that God would have to be limited to ONLY those statements that human beings could make. He could exceed those while remaining coherent within the limited terms human beings offer.

Just as the Atlantic Ocean is genuinely water yet exceeds my personal ability to drink, could not God remain coherent with human reason, but far too big to be contained only thereby?

That seems more reasonable to me -- more consistent for God, and more rational for us as well.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been, I am not advancing either idea as my own concept of God, just possibilities. My comment about a God who defies logic and reason is based on several criticisms that have used that the God of the bible did not behave in a way that was either logical or reasonable, at least in the opinion of that particular critic. God may very well be both logical and reasonable but in the Bible it states that God does not think or act as humans might expect, Isaiah 55-8.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, that's true, of course. I don't mean to split hairs.

Yes, it would be most surprising if the Supreme Being always behaved in precisely the way human reasoning might lead us to anticipate.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Whether there was or wasn't an entity named Jesus hardly speaks of him being a god or not.

Quite right. It would remain to be shown. Other evidence would have to come to bear.

It would surely seem that the fact that he allowed himself to be crucified, speaks more of a human entity, and the subsequent story to make it seem otherwise, than it does a godly entity.

On the surface, perhaps. But might we be rushing to judgment to think so? Is it conceivable that God Himself was a bit smarter than we are, and may have known things about that situation we did not? Could it even be that He might condescend to offer us an explanation of some sort, however partial it might have to be for our limited human brains?

Or is that whole possibility just too wild?
Nothing that's plausible is too wild. Yet you just did exactly what I eluded one would do to make the story fit. What you're forgetting, is that a so called god made everything, that's the basic premise, that one entity created the universe. If in fact that would be the case, then nothing would be anything other than, what it wanted it to be. As everything as necessary, as it created it to be, it would love everything exactly the same, as a part of this highly complicated, and miraculous whole, each part that it made necessary, or it wouldn't have made it necessary in the first place, because it's a god, it can do anything it wants. Under these circumstances, it's a no brainer that it would tell everyone of it's existence, if it wanted too boost, help, control, aid, love all of it's creation, because surely in it's eyes all would be created equally, at least from that perspective, wanting them to know, how it is, that it suggests, they live. To truly love them all, would be to give no unfair advantage to anyone with it's message of suggested existence, especially for it's somewhat rational, more complicated thinker, humankind.

Rather within this secrecy 'lies' the ability for one to claim anything, and with sword in hand, demand it's so! Why couldn't this be the case he says, as he passes around the collection plate.

Sounds like a man to me my friend! Same with your incarnation of speculation.

Why would you want to tell me, anyone else, or even yourself what constitutes "smart" in the eyes of a god? Do you believe yourself as smart as a god?

The fact that so much of his life is shrouded in human frailty, and obscured by a lack of widespread overwhelming awe, speaks more of a man, than one as powerful as a god.

This seems less compelling. For one thing "shrouded in human frailty" is a metaphor, rather than a clear and specific identification of a problem. That some aspect of his life are "obscured," (which I grant you -- consider his first three decades of life, for example) would not tell much if that obscurity is not so overwhelming as to prevent all knowledge of the Man Himself. And that His life was not attended by "widespread and overwhelming awe" is not, perhaps what we humanly would expect, but is precisely what was predicted by OT prophecies concerning Him -- so then is quite expected -- and, in fact, that worry would seem to partake of the bandwagon fallacy, the misapprehension that more public consensus is some sort of indicator of truth.

That He was not what we thought, or did not do what we predicted might be quite reasonable for the Son of God.

Or is that also a wild thought?

I mean does a god really want to make a point and grab humanities attention?

Which "god"? If we think of the imperious, distant "god" of the Deists, for example, I would have to agree with your question.

But the Jewish and Christian traditions do not see God as that. They see Him as personal, meaning "having specific characteristics, intentions, attitudes and purposes in connection with Creation," and above all, "having an intention to produce genuine relationship with His Creation." If we suppose that the Jews and Christians are at all right, then "grabbing humanity's attention" is the very first thing one might expect such a Deity to do.

It all depends on what you expect from God.
Unlike you I expect nothing from anyone, or anything, except that I expect others to be as respectful and considerate of me as they expect for themselves, because I am a mirror, if I care to be. And I'm talking in either direction. I never say what a god is, if it exists and it wants me to know, it shall tell me, or not hold me accountable for me not knowing. And please don't you dare try and speak for him, because I'll just laugh! Thinking, "it sounds just like a man to me!"

I could think of far better ways to shock the human populous, into submission, of paying the utmost attention to ones words of wisdom.

Now, this would seem an excellent description of Allah, the god of Islam. After all, he wants submission and cringing obedience. And I think you have every reason to ask why such a deity, if he wants such things, would not simply enforce them. After all, if he exists, he would surely have the power, would he not?

But what if God wants free relatedness with His creatures? What if He should wish to allow them to make their own choices about whom they will or will not love? Could He do it more effectively than by shrouding His glory in some way? Indeed, if He did not, could human choice even remain possible, given the overwhelming forcefulness of truth reputed to attach to His person? Would He not, at least for a time, need to remain a matter of question if He were to allow an option to exist?
Please, quit trying to split hairs. To taint human choice is to taint human choice, it matters not how little or in what way. As I've said, 'loving all, he would surly not give unfair advantage to any one or few.' As surely, giving anyone the exclusive ability in the telling, 'does exactly that.' As an all knowing god, he knows men can't be trusted amongst other men, which is exactly what his message supposedly tries to mediate.

And it would surely seem that any rationalization to the contrary, is an attempt at making the pieces fit, a fictitious story line, a means to create a god by men.

Well, if you were a man creating a "god," I think it's pretty clear that it wouldn't be the God of the Jews and Christians you'd set out to create. I think you'd probably opt for one that was localizable, manageable and subject to human techniques. But God isn't like that. He's rather unexpected, just as you have so wisely pointed out. We continually find that His ways are not our ways, and indeed are often "past finding out," just as the Bible claims. I would further suggest that His character is not the sort of thing that humans would predict or would have reason to engineer. The God of the Bible is not attractive to human purposes nor flattering to human nature, but rather challenging to a great deal that humanity tends to value.
Sure you're going to defend your faith, it's understandable. For anyone to tell another how they should live their life, when in fact it's only a god anyone has to answer to in the end, so to speak of the common belief, for not living the "proper way," is everyone's burden alone. Any god would tell me itself, and not trust any man so as to be fair to every man; it's entire creation, surely!


I would wonder if there are not far better ways to invent a god if one has that idea in mind.
Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Give men some time, I'm sure they'll find a way, either way!

Thanks for your thoughts.

And thank you for your reply, I hope I wasn't too pointed, that I poked you, far too much.

For the record, in case you've not read my thoughts on gods and religion up till now. I'm an agnostic, believing no man can prove they know either way. I hate men's 'he' god, for all the things men have done in his name. I only believe in the possibility of a creator of the universe, and anything beyond it. This thing, this creator, if nothing else, is electromagnetic energy, that which is at the core of everything we know. In my book, no true loving creator would give unfair advantage to any one or group of it's creations, no matter any case any man can decry.

[Immanuel Can]

What you're forgetting, is that a so called god made everything, that's the basic premise, that one entity created the universe. If in fact that would be the case, then nothing would be anything other than, what it wanted it to be.

This would be a natural assumption if one has a Deterministic view of God. If one takes a more Libertarian view, however, and believes that God wants freedom of choice to exist in the universe, then Determinism would be incompatible with this project, by definition. I'm not a Determinist, of course, and I don't think God is either.

Why would you want to tell me, anyone else, or even yourself what constitutes "smart" in the eyes of a god? Do you believe yourself as smart as a god?

I'm afraid I'm missing the direction of your question here. Can you clarify?

I never say what a god is, if it exists and it wants me to know, it shall tell me, or not hold me accountable for me not knowing. And please don't you dare try and speak for him, because I'll just laugh! Thinking, "it sounds just like a man to me!"

I would not, of course. But I shall ask the question that is obvious here, and it's my own. What if God had already spoken? And what if you even had a pretty good idea of where to look to find out what He had said, but were simply uninterested in doing that? Could He then hold you accountable for not knowing? I'm just interested in what sort of answer you would give to that hypothetical.

As I've said, 'loving all, he would surly not give unfair advantage to any one or few.' As surely, giving anyone the exclusive ability in the telling, 'does exactly that.' As an all knowing god, he knows men can't be trusted amongst other men, which is exactly what his message supposedly tries to mediate.

I really have to apologize again...I'm not grasping your point here. Could you clarify?

And thank you for your reply, I hope I wasn't too pointed, that I poked you, far too much.

No, no, a certain amount of jocularity is fine, so far as it isn't merely dismissive without thought. I'm not thin of skin.

I'm an agnostic, believing no man can prove they know either way.

Agnosticism can be rational. But only if it stays modest, saying "I don't know," and not jumping to the irrational assumption, "Therefore no one else can know either." Apply that logic to any other situation -- to a known truth -- for example, and its wild irrationality is evident. For example, I do not know if you own a car; does it in any way follow, therefore, that no one -- including you -- can know whether or not you own a car? That's clearly poor logic, no?

So I assume you don't go there. You probably don't say, "I don't know God, so no one can." And if you did, others could surely ask you upon what basis you knew that.

I hate men's 'he' god, for all the things men have done in his name.

I understand the reaction. I share your antipathy to how that Name has been abused at times. Yet would it really make sense to hate a God, male or otherwise, because of what mankind (of all genders) have done using Him as an excuse? I would think not...

In my book, no true loving creator would give unfair advantage to any one or group of it's creations,...

This claim seems to be an important one for you. I'm still not sure, quite, what is meant by "unfair advantage," but I think I can agree with you that God would not be "unfair."

Maybe you'll have more to say on that.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.