OzSpen,

“He is such a competent historian that Macquarie University hired him. And you, an atheist, would be as unbiased as it gets. Right??”

Let’s get some facts straight as you are being quite disingenuous on a number of fronts. Paul William Barnett is a fellow in ancient history at the Macquarie University. He has written about the history of the New Testament and not the divinity of Jesus. As far as I know he does not aspire to creationism.

The existence of Jesus of the New Testament is not under dispute in this thread as it is unimportant. What is of paramount significance is whether this character was divine. There is no credible ex-Biblical evidence for that As a Christian, he may hold the view that Jesus was divine on faith but that is all.

“Please tell me your qualifications in biblical hermeneutics”.

No, I’m not an expert on interpretation of the bible. Neither are you. And if there was one interpretation then there would be one religion. This method of escaping the question of your creationist leanings is another example of manipulating the language.

I don’t have to be an expert as the human race is very lucky, it has the best truth finder there is, it is called science. It’s not perfect but nothing comes close to it. Science would be very pleased indeed if creationists could demonstrate another force in the universe but creationism/intelligent design has failed to produce any studies refuting evolution in accredited scientific journals where they may be investigated by peer review.

And please don’t come back with excuses that scientist have a conspiracy theory against God, are influenced by the Devil or are deluded and therefore won’t allow any studies to be published. That is nonsense.

A GAC speaker and evolutionist, Eugenie C. Scott, is the Executive Director of the National Centre for Science Education. Have a look at what she says here. Watch at 33:50 if not wanting to view the whole video. But, it is glaringly obvious that you definitely need to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8&list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&index=14

David

David,

David: <<Let’s get some facts straight as you are being quite disingenuous on a number of fronts. Paul William Barnett is a fellow in ancient history at the Macquarie University. He has written about the history of the New Testament and not the divinity of Jesus. As far as I know he does not aspire to creationism>>.

Here again you are using a fallacy of relevance. I was not addressing an aspect of creationism. You wanted to discredit Paul Barnett in a previous post because he was the former Anglican bishop, so what do you do now? You switch horses with a red herring fallacy. I gave you books on the demonstrated reliable history of the New Testament written by a competent historian, Dr. Paul Barnett. But you are not interested in pursuing what Dr. Barnett states about the New Testament as history. It is in the historically reliable New Testament that we have the biblical evidence for the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ. He is the God-man and not just God or just man.

David: <<The existence of Jesus of the New Testament is not under dispute in this thread as it is unimportant. What is of paramount significance is whether this character was divine. There is no credible ex-Biblical evidence for that As a Christian, he may hold the view that Jesus was divine on faith but that is all>>.

The existence of Jesus, the God-man, is under discussion in this thread, which is authenticated by the NT, and you have denigrated the historical veracity of the NT.

David: <<No, I’m not an expert on interpretation of the bible. Neither are you. And if there was one interpretation then there would be one religion. This method of escaping the question of your creationist leanings is another example of manipulating the language>>.

You are demonstrating your ignorance. I happen to have a BA in biblical literature and NT Greek, which means that I have completed courses in hermeneutics. I'm currently working on a PhD in New Testament with a university. You have misrepresented me.

OzSpen,

The New Testament Jesus may be under discussion by you but it is irrelevant to me. I am not going to say this again. It is the divinity of Jesus that is pertinent as Jesus the man is only a man. Bugs Bunny is a rabbit and only a rabbit. He is not an actual creature.

It is a red herring that you play continually on the historical Jesus. Don’t do it.

If you have qualifications, (where did you achieved them) or if you are a young or old earth creationist and you wish to have proper discussion, those facts should be divulged. Please lay this information on the table now.

You can consider that Jesus was a God-man but there is no evidence for that. Stop manipulating the topic to make out there is. What is the ex-biblical evidence for Jesus being a God-Man? I mean universal evidence that would be accepted by all.

Oh, and by the way, the terribly hard question I posed does have a very simple answer.

Here is the question again.

>>>”I am very happy with my life and live it similarly to most reasonable people in the community.

Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.

Why should I follow anything he says?”<<<

Answer: Because you will go to hell if you don’t.

The implications should be obvious.

David

>>>He was not known in his time because he was just one of the run of the mill 'messiahs'

David,

Have you ever heard of the expression "where there is smoke, there is fire"? Does someone get to become the most famous and influential person to ever live, changing the world many times over, by being a run of the mill dime a dozen religious personality? That seems like an unreasonable hypothesis to me. There is no exaggerating the impact that Jesus has had on the Earth. Consider the words of Napleon:

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2008/04/napoleons-proof-for-divinity-of-jesus.html

His words in the NT are what proves they are His genuine testimony. The power of those words to change the world, and shape nations do not exist in any other book. The power of those words to change lives, to transform a person from the inside out, could not be written by just anyone. There is no one like Jesus; His writings and wisdom are unique in all the worlds history. That isn't something anyone could just dream up. Look at what Einstein said:

George Viereck: “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”

Einstein: “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

George Viereck: “Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets.”

Einstein: “No man,” Einstein replied, “can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he.”

The worlds most intelligent human in recent times agrees with my line of thought, which is that the words of Jesus could not be manufactured. They are the genuine article and their transformative power over the world and mens hearts is the proof.

>>>There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence >>>suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine.

David,

Jesus Himself offered to prove His existence to anyone who would open the door to Him:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

There are two kinds of skeptics. An honest skeptic and a dishonest skeptic. An honest skeptic is someone who doesn't know but is willing to find out. A dishonest skeptic is someone who doesn't know and doesn't want to know. Which are you? Would you be willing to sign your name to this statement?:

God, I don't know if you exist or not. I don't know if the bible is your word or not. I don't know if Jesus Christ is your Son or not, but I want to know, and because I want to know I will make an honest investigation, and because it is an honest investigation I will follow the results of that investigation where ever they lead me, regardless of the cost.

If you are willing to sign off on it, then your assignment is to read the gospel of John. The purpose of the gospel of John is stated thusly:

John 20:31

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

It was written specifically so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that by believing you would have life in His name. Although you don't now believe, you can say to God..God I don't know if this is your word of not, but if this is your word, show me. I'll make up my mind before the fact that I will obey you only if you show me this is your word and speak to my heart.

Would you be willing to do that?

washed,

I think OzSpen would pull you up about arguments from authority. That is on his cute little fallacy list. Be interesting to see if he does or doesn't. And by the way you left out a bit of Einstein’s conversation. Why did you do that? Here it continues.

“I seriously doubt that Jesus himself said that he was God, for he was too much a Jew to violate that great commandment: ‘Hear O Israel, the Eternal is our God and He is one!' and not two or three. Sometimes I think it would have been better if Jesus had never lived. No name was so abused for the sake of power!”

Einstein doesn't mention that Jesus was a God-man and Einstein did not convert to Christianity he remained a cultural Jew and discounted the trinity magic. Have you a point to make?

Over a billion people follow the words of Muhammad and they influenced civilisations also. By your logic, they must be right. Can you explain that discrepancy thanks?

I'm not going to investigate every quote you bring up unless it proves the existence of a god. Then I will check it out.

Mass-quoting from the bible is only a sign that you have been indoctrinated as a child and you were susceptible to that indoctrination the same as people who quote from the Koran and other holy books. That is why the Atheist Foundation of Australia is opposed to children being mentally interfered with by religion. We are trying to give children a chance not to turn out like you. I hope others on the Online Opinion Forums see the importance of the AFA position on this.

I’ll ask you also but I know it is pointless, supply proof of your god that everyone will accept the same as everyone accepts the law of gravity or that the earth revolves around the sun etc.

And, what is your answer to my question?

Surely you are not so fearful of your god as to be frightened to answer it. I thought it was the god of love.

David