God

[Wizard22]

Many people define God in many ways. But I don't recognize those without the Authority to speak of God. Most do not have that Authority. Thus I must rely on my own Reason, primarily, to find an Authority or Representation of God.

and, yes, what did you Reason come up with?

First we must wade through the countless definitions of God. Simultaneously we must agree-upon which God we're referring to. I presume by Belief in God, you mean the Abrahamic God shared by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. This is the predominant religion and belief-system of Earth. There are a few alternatives, and then the Pagan undercurrents which precede it all, but for the sake of this thread, we do not necessarily include those "Gods".

God as Omnipotent, All-Powerful
God as Omniscient, All-Knowing
God as Omnipresent, All-Being

These are the most common definitions I run into, from Theist and Atheist alike. If there is a God, then He must be All-Powerful, or powerful in ways far beyond the comprehension of mere Humans. In the way that New York City must seem like a God-derived place to chimpanzees and monkeys, so too does God exist and persist far above the level of Humanity. By this analogy, even removed from our Human environment, and placed into the middle of Heaven, we would still be at a loss, utterly confused and amazed. The implication of this first analogy is that: the human mind cannot really or definitively know God because of this innate power difference.


God as Immortal, Beyond Life and Death

In the Pagan Pantheon, before the rise and spread of Abrahamism, Gods were believed to be humanlike, Immortal beings. Death does not affect them. Thus they have knowledge far beyond the lifetime of a human, and presence far beyond the lifetime of a human. These Godly Beings also exist in another "Realm Outside" of human awareness and environment. Sometimes, Gods are claimed to 'intervene' and step into the Human environment, temporarily. Gods can 'possess' Humans, "speak through" Humans, as the Hellenes asserted. These claims are a bit more realistic than Omnipotence, but can hardly be proven "Scientifically". This puts Mysticism and Religion in a category other-than Empirical Science. However, both categories can share Rationality to some degree.


God as Ancestor Worship, or Idol Worship

The main shift between the Pre-Abrahamic world, to the Post-Abrahamic (our current time) world, was the general abolishment of Pagan Idol Worshipping. Abrahamic followers were commanded by their God, to destroy all Pagan Idols and Idolatry. Thus they have done so, and successfully spread their religion throughout the known world, to this day. The destruction of an Idol, is the destruction of a Pagan God and its "Shamanism". This co-aligns with the Hellenic notion of Gods and Deities, by their interpretation of Ancestor Worship. By displacing and destroying a Pagan Idol, what you are doing is destroying the memories of their Ancestors. It is the Obliteration and complete Annihilation of a tribal culture and identity.

This process continues today, in what you call "Secular Humanism". Secularization is the destruction of all Sub-cultures, into one worldwide, globalist, Mono-culture. Abrahamism is underneath this, because it represents the spread of the Abrahamic Faith, by its continuation to destroy any and all Opposition.

You must not worship your Kin, your Ancestry, your Ancestors, your Blood. Instead you must worship and kneel before the Abrahamic God. You must be made a Slave to the Abrahamic God. This destruction of your Ancestors, your tribal Idol and Sigil, is your destruction and Rebirth, your Baptism into the Abrahamic fold.

Religions cannot co-exist, but instead must compete to the Death. But this Death is not a mortal death--it is an immortal death. It is a spiritual battle, of Gods, between Gods. Idol-Worship is representative of Ancestor Worship, honoring ones' kin, ones' birthplace, ones' Homeland and Environment. The greatest abstraction of this is within the Roman Pantheon, where Divinity becomes abstracted to the entire Planetary system. There is a God of Earth, of Mars, of Saturn, of Venus, of Jupiter, of Sol, of Luna, Etc.


Now to the point...

Do I believe in "Your God", the Abrahamic God? Well, I don't know. I haven't recognized many, if any, earthly Authorities of Him. I've never met Christians, or Jews, or Moslems, who could present convincing arguments or Reasons for their beliefs. I find the Christian religion, of Jesus Christ, most compelling. The real life, birth, and death of Jesus Christ, is most convincing of the bunch. Was it real? Is it real, now? I presume so. Nothing supernatural needs to be implied though. Humans can do amazing "miraculous" things of our own volition, control, and choice. What is impossible to the masses of humanity, is not so to the rarest exceptions and individuals of humanity. So I leave some room for belief and faith in this.

[Immanuel Can]

Many people define God in many ways. But I don't recognize those without the Authority to speak of God. Most do not have that Authority. Thus I must rely on my own Reason, primarily, to find an Authority or Representation of God.

and, yes, what did you Reason come up with?

First we must wade through the countless definitions of God.

Well, we should get that right.

Firstly, we can divide between "God" and "gods." And we need to, because they're just not the same concept at all.

"God" is associated in many traditions, from Christianity and Judaism to Hinduism and even paganism, with the great, singular Entity behind all things. Terms like "First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Great Oneness," "Ultimate Source," and so on, are associated with this term. Also many traditions include other criteria, like omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, transcendence and immanence, spiritual nature, sovereignty, eternality..and on, and on.

The key idea behind this term, though, is that there is only one who can occupy this role.

"gods," with the small "g," signifies entities smaller and lesser than that. Zeus, Odin, Mars, Osiris...and so on. These "gods" are said to be superhuman; but they don't have the above qualities. They don't know everything, they aren't everywhere, they aren't the first cause of the universe, they aren't ultimate...in many cases, such as the Norse or Greek traditions, they've even contingent beings -- they have an origin story (like, "Zeus sprang from the head of Cronos, and gave birth to the other gods,") and an ending story (like the Norse Ragnarok). They also preside for a limited time over a limited field: like Poseidon has power over the seas, but not on land; or Aphrodite has power over love, but not over hunting; or you have a "god" of the river, and a "god" of the mountains, and a "god" of agriculture, and a "god" of war...). And these "gods" are said to conflict and disagree, as well. Socrates pointed that out.

The "gods," then, are not all-powerful, or all-knowing, or even permanent. They're just sort of impressive contingent beings of great-but-limited power and authority. They're more like Hercules or Superman than they are like the first conception, "God."

The key idea: there are many, and they are each limited.

Some traditions, like Hinduism or Gnosticism, include both. There are "little gods" or avatars, and there is The One behind them (Gnosticism calls this "Abyss")

I presume by Belief in God, you mean the Abrahamic God shared by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

I'm sorry, but I have to stop you here: this is a myth.

Just as there is a difference between the concept "God" and "gods," so too there is a difference between the various conceptions of "God" that different traditions hold to. You'd be okay saying that Judaism and Christianity both believe in the same God (called, in Torah, YHWY, or HaShem, or I AM...). But not Islam. And you can tell, because Islam's "Allah" has a very different nature, revelation and will from YHWH, even though Muslims have claimed to come from Torah tradition. It's just not the case. And you'll find it rationalizes very different kinds of religious behaviour -- but let's set that aside for now.

We should also distinguish the "God" of Judaism and Christianity from the Deistic "God." The Deistic "God" has neither a will nor intentions for us or for this world. He has been called an "absentee landlord," who is said to have created and then disappeared, with no further interest in his Creation. He's not like any of the above, therefore, and not the same Entity. And we could differentiate the Pantheistic God, the Panentheistic God, the Unitarian God...and so on. There are many different versions or characterizations of "God" proposed, most of them very different from each other.

This is the predominant religion and belief-system of Earth.

Well, no, not statistically, it's not.

Secularization is the destruction of all Sub-cultures, into one worldwide, globalist, Mono-culture.

No, this isn't correct, either. Secularization does not mandate that it must be "worldwide" or "globalists" or issue in any particular "culture" or "monoculture." It's simply the segmenting off of two realms: one, "the religious," and the other "the secular." It's no more than that.

Abrahamism is underneath this, because it represents the spread of the Abrahamic Faith, by its continuation to destroy any and all Opposition.

Not in the way you imagine.

"Abrahamism?" I think you mean something like "the Jewish-Christian view of God". But it doesn't have anything close to what you attribute to it here. One essential feature that should prove this to you is that it's fideistic: that is, it requires belief. A person has to actually think the religion in question is true, and choose to believe in it, or conversion (and salvation) simply do not happen and cannot. As the Bible puts it, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God."

John Locke made this case brilliantly, by the way. He said, that God would never "have men forced to Heaven," because it would never succeed. You can't MAKE a person believe. They have to CHOOSE to. So you can persuade, argue, debate, present, encourage...but you cannot do things like propagandizing, forcing or compelling, because those things will only produce a false confession that God sees through and will not honour.

So Christianity and Judaism could certainly prostelytize (though Judaism tries not to), but they cannot lie, swindle, compel, threaten, or force anybody to do anything. And this is why we have so much freedom in the West: we believe in the importance of the personal choice to believe, even if that choice goes wrong! It's a pretty strong belief, in other words.

Contrast that with Islam. Islam means "submission," and its point is to force people at point of sword to "revert" to it. Islam cares very little for what you believe -- it cares for whether or not you are submitted. And submission means you are subdued by any means...including lying (taqqya, they call it), bombing, shooting, bullying, enslaving, abusing and even murdering. The point is only that the whole world must become "Dar el Salaam," the "land of the pacified," until which time, every other place remains "Dar al Harb," the "land of war." Islam's "God" cares little for what you think: he's imperious, distant and demanding. Islam is a total, forced way of life, not a private conviction. It's not fideisitic -- or at least, far from primarily fideistic.

Religions cannot co-exist, but instead must compete to the Death.

Christianity and Judaism do not believe that. They do believe because of their fideistic nature, that there will always be other false beliefs. That's inevitable, and is part of fideism. Other religions do believe that, and Islam believes it totally.

I've never met Christians, or Jews, or Moslems, who could present convincing arguments or Reasons for their beliefs.

Is that because they weren't convincing, or is it because you were not willing to be convinced? Honest question.

I find the Christian religion, of Jesus Christ, most compelling. The real life, birth, and death of Jesus Christ, is most convincing of the bunch. Was it real? Is it real, now? I presume so.

I agree.

Nothing supernatural needs to be implied though.

That isn't the case. If Jesus was not supernatural and did nothing supernatural, then what is the evidence of His special status? If He was not, at the very least, superhumanly moral, regardless of his miraculous works, on what basis would we find Him "compelling"?

[Greatest I am]

Which God? I see two basic models. The supernatural one and the natural one.

The natural God can be discussed with evidence while the supernatural God hides behind an unenterable shield of ignorance.

[Immanuel Can]

Which God? I see two basic models. The supernatural one and the natural one.

Theists believe in a God who is both immanent and transcendent. The two are not at all mutually exclusive, though you've artificially separated them in your question. So the answer is very simple: there aren't two; there's just one.

[MikeNovack]

Theists believe in a God who is both immanent and transcendent.

Except there are TWO possibilities for (non)transcendence and one of these, that physical existence is contained with a God is not limiting God to be within physical existence. I am also not positive that theism NECESSARILY requires immanence. Is a God who created everything but aftewr creation ignores it thereby not God?

Do you classify Spinoza as atheist?

[Immanuel Can]

Theists believe in a God who is both immanent and transcendent.

Except there are TWO possibilities for (non)transcendence

Except that anything "non-transcendent," if that's the term you mean to use, can't be "God." It can be "a god," small "g," but it cannot be First Cause, Supreme Being, Creator of all, etc.

Do you classify Spinoza as atheist?

Certainly not. Spinoza was a Panentheist. He believed that nature or "all," was IN God, but that God was not coextensive with nature. God was bigger and more encompassing than nature or physical reality, in other words. So it seems to me that Spinoza, too, believed in a view of God that is transcendent and immanent. He just had his own unusual twist on how that worked.

[Wizard22]

The key idea behind this term, though, is that there is only one who can occupy this role.

I agree that it's primarily a division between a Monotheistic Penultimate God, versus Polytheistic 'gods' of a lesser nature or power. Abrahamism (Christianity + Judaism + Islam) were the combined force that ushered in the Monotheistic world-view that dominates today.

That is the reference to our Western Civilization's One-God.

We should also distinguish the "God" of Judaism and Christianity from the Deistic "God." The Deistic "God" has neither a will nor intentions for us or for this world. He has been called an "absentee landlord," who is said to have created and then disappeared, with no further interest in his Creation. He's not like any of the above, therefore, and not the same Entity. And we could differentiate the Pantheistic God, the Panentheistic God, the Unitarian God...and so on. There are many different versions or characterizations of "God" proposed, most of them very different from each other.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all share the same 'Creator' God of Genesis. I believe they all 3 of them, refer to the same Monotheistic Deity there.

The way I interpret the Abrahamic religions, is that all 3 of them are referring to the same 'God', but from 3 different angles/perspectives.

This is the predominant religion and belief-system of Earth.

Well, no, not statistically, it's not.

"Yes, Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) collectively form the most popular religious group worldwide, comprising over half of the global population. Christianity is currently the largest single religion (approx. 2.4–2.6 billion followers), followed closely by Islam (approx. 1.6–1.9 billion), which is also the fastest-growing religion."

https://share.google/aimode/5HfXUzo3ouctQXKTv

So Christianity and Judaism could certainly prostelytize (though Judaism tries not to), but they cannot lie, swindle, compel, threaten, or force anybody to do anything. And this is why we have so much freedom in the West: we believe in the importance of the personal choice to believe, even if that choice goes wrong! It's a pretty strong belief, in other words.

Agreed

I've never met Christians, or Jews, or Moslems, who could present convincing arguments or Reasons for their beliefs.

Is that because they weren't convincing, or is it because you were not willing to be convinced? Honest question.

Both, I suppose. I personally have not had much interest in pursuing Theology or Theologians throughout my life, instead always preferring Philosophy and Philosophers. So maybe there's a conflict of interest involved. I approach a concept like God philosophically first and foremost, with doubt and negatively, rather than with faith and positively. But I understand the necessity of Belief and Faith, and the necessity and requirement to Choose.

Our 'Choice' is reflected in every individual assessment and definition of God.

Nothing supernatural needs to be implied though.

That isn't the case. If Jesus was not supernatural and did nothing supernatural, then what is the evidence of His special status? If He was not, at the very least, superhumanly moral, regardless of his miraculous works, on what basis would we find Him "compelling"?

I should clarify on this point...

What is considered Supernatural or "Impossible" is distinctly relative to the specific Paradigm of the Age. If we would tell those living in 1500AD or beforehand, that we'd have an internet, smart phones, airplanes, nuclear bombs, etc. they would call us liars and magicians and insane. So super-natural qualifiers and "magic" are relative to each Century. Even more so from Human to Animal. And I believe the most critical aspect of Jesus Christ is his ability to separate Man (ie. HUMAN) from Animal. He distinguished a "Supernatural" morality in that specific sense. He brought Western Civilization out of the 'Natural' paradigm of polytheism and paganism.

It represented a paradigm-shift, that is still misunderstood by many today.

[Immanuel Can]

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all share the same 'Creator' God of Genesis. I believe they all 3 of them, refer to the same Monotheistic Deity there.

They don't, actually. The only similarity is that the name "Abraham" is used in reference to all three, but the Christian and Jewish understandings of God are from the Torah description, but Mo got all his facts wrong about that. He didn't remember the Torah account of Abraham correctly, even though Mo used it as the authorization for his own claims. He got the facts of Abraham's own life wrong, among the many things he got wrong -- but Mo was working from his own flawed memory, based on things the Nestorians had told him; he didn't use Torah.

Thus, you'll find that the Islamic description of "God" has different characteristics, an opposite will, and very different commandments from anything found in Torah. It's very clearly not the same entity. Think of it this way: if two people say they know Wizard 22, and one says he's a six foot white man with a ponytail, and somebody else says he's a five foot aboriginal woman with one eye and one leg, what can you conclude but that either neither knows Wizard 22, or one of them doesn't know him? Not more than one of those descriptions can even possibly be true at the same time, though both could also be wrong.

So the YHWH God of Torah is not the Allah of Mohammed. They aren't the same in any meaningful way, even if Islamists say they are "Abrahamic." They simply are not. The depictions contradict in irreconcilable ways.

What you'll find is that the myth that they're the same "God" derives from three things:
1. That the Islamists need to insist on it, because Mo claimed to be following the Torah God, even though he messed that up badly.
2. The Western secularists and relativists find it convenient to think of them as one, because they like to think it doesn't matter much anyway.
3. The cynical-Atheist types find it propagandistically useful to lump all three monotheisms into one group, so as to be able to generalize broadly, and sometimes to blame Jews and Christians for what Islamists do.

But any depth of study will reveal very obviously that Allah is not the God of Torah. You can't miss it, once you look at their particular characteristics and their revealed wills.

I've never met Christians, or Jews, or Moslems, who could present convincing arguments or Reasons for their beliefs.

Is that because they weren't convincing, or is it because you were not willing to be convinced? Honest question.

Both, I suppose. I personally have not had much interest in pursuing Theology or Theologians throughout my life, instead always preferring Philosophy and Philosophers. So maybe there's a conflict of interest involved. I approach a concept like God philosophically first and foremost, with doubt and negatively, rather than with faith and positively. But I understand the necessity of Belief and Faith, and the necessity and requirement to Choose.

That's a very honest answer. Thank you for being so forthcoming. It's unusual, and it's also very helpful.

Our 'Choice' is reflected in every individual assessment and definition of God.

I don't think, though, that our "assessments" matter very much, if they fail to reflect the reality of who God actually is. After all, my assessment of any fact is not going to change the fact. It will maybe change my relationship to the fact, but not the fact itself.

If I choose not to believe I'll fall if I step off a cliff, that may indeed change my disposition to the cliff. But it won't change the reality of the cliff, will it?

Nothing supernatural needs to be implied though.

That isn't the case. If Jesus was not supernatural and did nothing supernatural, then what is the evidence of His special status? If He was not, at the very least, superhumanly moral, regardless of his miraculous works, on what basis would we find Him "compelling"?

I should clarify on this point...

What is considered Supernatural or "Impossible" is distinctly relative to the specific Paradigm of the Age. If we would tell those living in 1500AD or beforehand, that we'd have an internet, smart phones, airplanes, nuclear bombs, etc. they would call us liars and magicians and insane. So super-natural qualifiers and "magic" are relative to each Century. Even more so from Human to Animal. And I believe the most critical aspect of Jesus Christ is his ability to separate Man (ie. HUMAN) from Animal. He distinguished a "Supernatural" morality in that specific sense. He brought Western Civilization out of the 'Natural' paradigm of polytheism and paganism.

It represented a paradigm-shift, that is still misunderstood by many today.

I don't think that's historically sustainable. The Jews were monotheists long, long before Jesus Christ came. And while paganism was still rife, particularly in the Gentile world, it would remain so for centuries...and is arguably still very much alive even today. That men are not animals was also very well known. So none of those things can be said to be the significance of the life of Jesus Christ.

Moreover, if what Jesus Christ did and taught had something to do with "internet, smart phones, airplanes, nuclear bombs, etc." then you might have a case that nothing supernatural was claimed or done by Him, that He was merely using technology or science before its time. (Still, that would imply HE had supernatural access to those things; for how could He have predicted the technology, living as He did in the first century? So that's a weird theory.) But what you see, instead, is that the claims and actions of Jesus Christ are definitely presented as supernatural. There's really no avoiding that. And the supernatural is presented as His authentication, in fact.

And the people of Christ's day were not idiots, of course. Like us, they knew that lepers don't get cured, men born lame don't walk, the blind don't suddenly see, food doesn't materialize from nowhere, nobody walks on water, dead bodies don't rise, and nobody on earth has power to forgive sins. They got all that. It was well within normal human experience to know that, even in the first century. And that was why they recognized what Christ did as "miraculous." One doesn't call something a "miracle" if one knows any natural explanation for it. They definitely knew there was something going on that was so far different from normal experience that no accounting could be made of it.

So the narrative will not sustain the interpretation you're offering, I think you'll find. One can, of course, simply then decide to reject the whole narrative, and to say that no such Person ever existed. But when one admits the existence of Jesus Christ (which historically is quite well established anyway), then one has to make a plausible accounting of that narrative, too. I suggest that what you propose above simply won't do.

[Greatest I am]

Which God? I see two basic models. The supernatural one and the natural one.

Theists believe in a God who is both immanent and transcendent. The two are not at all mutually exclusive, though you've artificially separated them in your question. So the answer is very simple: there aren't two; there's just one.

Wow. Quite the lie.

If you have a proof of concept of one God, it is the same proof for many Gods.

Who is Yahweh referring to when he says not to put any other God above him?

How about when Jesus asks us from the Bible? Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

You have, hence your lies.

[MikeNovack]

Uh ...... the "big three" NOT the only monotheisms, not even just considering the Middle East.

For example, the Atenism of Akhenaten (Egypt 14th century BCE) <<influence on Judaism unknown, but hey left Egypt relatively shortly after this had been put down >>

[Immanuel Can]

Which God? I see two basic models. The supernatural one and the natural one.

Theists believe in a God who is both immanent and transcendent. The two are not at all mutually exclusive, though you've artificially separated them in your question. So the answer is very simple: there aren't two; there's just one.

If you have a proof of concept of one God, it is the same proof for many Gods.

No, actually, it's not. Nothing can make the concept of "many Gods" coherent, because it's self-contradicting already.

Who is Yahweh referring to when he says not to put any other God above him?

Exactly what you're talking about: the false "gods" that various people worship, as they did all over the ancient world...Baal, Moloch, Ashtoreth, Zeus, Hermes, Aphrodite, Artemis...

How about when Jesus asks us from the Bible? Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

https://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html

[Immanuel Can]

Uh ...... the "big three" NOT the only monotheisms, not even just considering the Middle East.

Well, monotheism is originally a Hebrew product, but there are some indicators of primitive people of other types who chose to worship the one God instead of many gods. But the rule generally has been polytheism of some kind.

And the Egyptians were most certainly polytheists. They even regarded their king as a "god."

[Greatest I am]

Theists believe in a God who is both immanent and transcendent. The two are not at all mutually exclusive, though you've artificially separated them in your question. So the answer is very simple: there aren't two; there's just one.

If you have a proof of concept of one God, it is the same proof for many Gods.

No, actually, it's not. Nothing can make the concept of "many Gods" coherent, because it's self-contradicting already.

Who is Yahweh referring to when he says not to put any other God above him?

Exactly what you're talking about: the false "gods" that various people worship, as they did all over the ancient world...Baal, Moloch, Ashtoreth, Zeus, Hermes, Aphrodite, Artemis...

How about when Jesus asks us from the Bible? Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

https://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html

Moral coward. No wonder you can stomach the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty.

As to your "No, actually, it's not. Nothing can make the concept of "many Gods" coherent, because it's self-contradicting already.",

Is there only one person, stupid?

The genocidal Yahweh is fast to use genocide on humans and would genocide other God's. Right?

If not, why not?

[Immanuel Can]

As to your "No, actually, it's not. Nothing can make the concept of "many Gods" coherent, because it's self-contradicting already.",

Is there only one person, stupid?

There's only one Supreme Being and First Cause. And there can only possibly be one. Analytically, only one can be "first" and only one can be "supreme." Likewise, there can be only one self-existent One...the rest have to be, at most, contingent, limited in wisdom and strictly temporal, just as the "gods" were said to be in their legends.

As for the gratuitous abuse, it merely demeans you. It's childish and irrelevant. But I don't mind ignoring you as there's nothing of substance here.

[Wizard22]

So the YHWH God of Torah is not the Allah of Mohammed.

That's highly debatable, but for the sake of continuing my thesis in this thread, I'll grant you your points here.

At least we will agree upon the Monotheistic basis for the "Abrahamic religions", which do comprise the majority believers and faiths of the world.

I don't think, though, that our "assessments" matter very much, if they fail to reflect the reality of who God actually is.

I agree with that, and the premise that the Monotheistic (Abrahamic) God is Objective, not Subjective. Rather an individual's personal definition, relationship, and perspective of God, is Subjective. The Transcendental aspect, the Objective, is only reached through the "Leap of Faith". Reason and Logic only go so far--the second part is Acting upon the Axioms (of God).

Without Actions, beliefs are nothing and meaningless.

Moreover, if what Jesus Christ did and taught had something to do with "internet, smart phones, airplanes, nuclear bombs, etc." then you might have a case that nothing supernatural was claimed or done by Him, that He was merely using technology or science before its time. (Still, that would imply HE had supernatural access to those things; for how could He have predicted the technology, living as He did in the first century? So that's a weird theory.) But what you see, instead, is that the claims and actions of Jesus Christ are definitely presented as supernatural. There's really no avoiding that. And the supernatural is presented as His authentication, in fact.

And the people of Christ's day were not idiots, of course. Like us, they knew that lepers don't get cured, men born lame don't walk, the blind don't suddenly see, food doesn't materialize from nowhere, nobody walks on water, dead bodies don't rise, and nobody on earth has power to forgive sins. They got all that. It was well within normal human experience to know that, even in the first century. And that was why they recognized what Christ did as "miraculous." One doesn't call something a "miracle" if one knows any natural explanation for it. They definitely knew there was something going on that was so far different from normal experience that no accounting could be made of it.

So the narrative will not sustain the interpretation you're offering, I think you'll find. One can, of course, simply then decide to reject the whole narrative, and to say that no such Person ever existed. But when one admits the existence of Jesus Christ (which historically is quite well established anyway), then one has to make a plausible accounting of that narrative, too. I suggest that what you propose above simply won't do.

Your arguments here rely heavily on what is epistemologically available to Humanity from Century to Century. The collective human knowledge ...is of Nature or of the hypothetical Super-natural / Super-nature / Artificial. My interpretation of Super-natural is Artificial or Artifice. It is something Created from a Creator, or Pro-created. It becomes distinct from Nature, in a way that 2000AD technology is far beyond the knowledge of 1000AD or 0AD.

Technology is Artifice.

Because the Abrahamic / Monotheistic God is "Not Natural" or at least Above Nature, then I assume 'He' is only Artificial... or Heavenly / Celestial / Divine / Outside all human knowledge altogether: Unknowable.

What say you to all this?