God The Father, The Son and Early Christians

An anonymous Letter to Diognetus, named The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, which is probably written ca. 80-130 A.D by  unknown author who called himself “a disciple of the Apostles”, captures the early Church understanding of God the Father and Son relationship. In  Chapter 7: The manifestation of Christ in  Philip Schaff’s (1819-1893) Ante-Nicene Fathers, which can be found in public domain at Christian Classics Ethereal Library, of this epistle to Diognetus, we encounter this wonderful descriptions:

For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts.

He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things—by whom He made the heavens—by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds—whose ordinances all the stars faithfully observe—from whom the sun has received the measure of his daily course to be observed—whom the moon obeys, being commanded to shine in the night, and whom the stars also obey, following the moon in her course; by whom all things have been arranged, and placed within their proper limits, and to whom all are subject—the heavens and the things that are therein, the earth and the things that are therein, the sea and the things that are therein—fire, air, and the abyss—the things which are in the heights, the things which are in the depths, and the things which lie between.

“[A] disciple of the Apostles” explained that Almighty Creator of visible and invisible, the true God sent not an angel or a ruler but the very Creator and Fashioner of all thing. This is the doctrine that  was delivered to them, probably from the 12 Apostles themselves. The disciple of the Apostle continued to explain:

This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing?

This messenger, the very Creator and Fashioner of all thing, is a Son of God and very God. He explained that as a king sends his son, who is also a king, God send his Son who is also God. “[A] disciple of the Apostles” gives us an early understanding of the relationship the Father who is God sending his Son who is also God.

How could early monotheist Christians claim that the Son is God and the Father is God yet there is one True God? It is from this doctrine,(and the deity of Holy Spirit), that led the early Christians to progressively formulate the doctrine of a Tri-une God viz., One and Only true God  in three distinct Persons.

Question: Do you agree with “a disciple of the Apostles” that Jesus is God? Give reasons.

Source: Christian Classics Ethereal Library public domain documents

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. 1885 (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (27–28). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.


Early Church’s Understanding of the Holy Spirit: Irenaeus( c. 120- 28th of June 202 A.D) and Clement of Alexandria(c.150 – c. 215)

Who Is Christ Jesus? Answers From Clement(ca. 150- 215 A.D.)

Who is Christ Jesus? Answers From Irenaeus(c. 120-202 A.D)

Is Christ Jesus God? Answers From Ignatius(ca.30-107 A.D)

Early Church’s Understand of Genesis 1:26

Early Church’s Understanding Of Isaiah 9:6

Early Church’s Understanding Of John 1:1

56 thoughts on “God The Father, The Son and Early Christians

  1. Prayson, I don’t understand you. That makes no sense. If you can’t show that you own the car I’m not going to pay you for it.

    Have you ever heard of a red squirrel or a gray squirrel? Well, an invisible red squirrel is possible, assuming squirrels can be invisible.Additionally, since you can’t see it you can’t tell what color it is when it can be seen. Your argument does not prove that they cannot exist.

    How many different ways do you want to try to shift the burden of proof to other people rather than just accept that you are making a claim and thus the burden of proof is yours?

    • Habari myatheistlife,

      I believe its is you, myatheistlife, that is trying to shift the burden of proof :).

      You, myatheistlife, shifted the burden of proof by making me the car- dealer, so I can give you proof that I have a car. But I am not a car dealer in this articler, but a person who claimed that x-car dealers are selling a car(namely early Christians believed Jesus is God) and I shared my burden of proof to show that they do sell a car.

      You believe that x-car dealers are wrong. They do not have a car to sell(namely Jesus is not God). I, as a person who claimed x-car dealer are selling a car, would like to know how do you know/ what reasons made you believe x-car dealers have no car to sell?

      I would like to stop claiming that x-car dealers are selling a car if one could show me that they do not have a car. Making me the one to help you show they do or do not have a car to sell is,myatheistlife, shifting the burden of proof 🙂 no?

      In Christ,

  2. Prayson, you claim he was god, prove it.

    Guilty? Until their claim is proven, it is false. Such is how we treat those claims that someone committed a crime.
    Your claims about a returned Jesus are from a book which you have yet to show evidence of truth for.

    Jesus also said that he would return before any man alive would die… that prediction among MANY others failed.

    Jesus did not say that all in the world will bow down… and those people around these claimants do bow. Please define what is not the same then.

    I don’t have to give you reasons. You do as you wish. If you claim that some guy named Jesus for whom we have no proof existed and he was god incarnate, then you prove this… because I don’t believe you.

    • Hello myatheistlife,

      I just want you to know that you have not give any reasons why you believe Jesus is not God. Could you point me,myatheistlife, to contemporary N.T. or ancient Judaism Historian’s or Scholars ‘s journals which support your belief that there is no evidences that Jesus existed?

      Remember I claimed that early Christians believed that Jesus is God and I did my share of burden of prove to show that they did. You claim that they are wrong, namely Jesus is not God. So it is you, myatheistlife, who ought to give reasons why you are a believer of “Jesus not being God”? I just wish to know your reasons for your belief before I reasonably join you 🙂

      In Christ,

      • Can you point out evidence that invisible pink unicorns do not exist? All that you’ve shown is rumor and myth. If I don’t believe your evidence it does not become my duty to prove that myths are not real. If you believe that you showing any old evidence, no matter how unconvincing it is, relieves you of the burden of proof for your claim then you clearly do not understand how this whole argument thing works.

        Think of it this way, if you are trying to sell me a car and have no proof of owning the car, you can’t get me to buy it from you no matter how much you claim that the burden of proof is on my to prove you don’t own the car.If you want to sell the car, the burden of proof of ownership is on you.

        The so called evidence that you offer is proof of nothing, and in fact does as much to support that your Jesus is a myth as it does to support that he was a god. The ball is still in your court.

        • Hello myatheistlife,

          I can point to reasonable argument that invisible pink unicorns are incoherent being thus cannot exist. I can point out that I being cannot be both invisiblite and colored. If its invisible then it cannot be seen to be colored, if it has color, then its not invisible. Thus invisible colored beings can not exist. Therefore invisible pink unicorns do not exist.

          Your example is brilliant. The problem is, it is you that claims I do not have a car. So you need to give reasons why you think I do not have a car, no? 🙂


  3. Thank you myatheistlife and Christadelphians,

    Before I comment, I would say both of you did not provide reasons why Jesus is not God(myatheistlife) or why early Christians ca.30-250 A.D believed and taught Jesus is God(Christianadelphians).

    I reasonably hold early Christians innocent until you both prove them guilty. It would be unreasonable to hold them guilty until I prove them innocent.

    Your example of people believing to be Jesuses returned and have fellowers fails because early Christians believed that when Christ return, every person will physically see him and bow down and “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord/Yahweh, to the glory of God the Father.”(Phil. 2:11 cf Isa.45:23)

    This early Christians knew that Jesus warned them that” many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.”(Matt. 24:5) and “If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man”(v.26-27)

    So I, siding with early Christians, reasonably dismiss other Jesuses because if Jesus returned, everyone will know, and bow down before Him. I believe we three have not bow down to those Jesuses, thus they cannot be the
    Jesus which early Christians worshipped as their Lord and God.

    Could you two give me reasons why I should rationally not join the early Christians affirming John 20:28 that Jesus is the Lord of me and God of me?

    In Christ,

  4. Dear Prayson Daniel, be careful which ‘Christians’ you take for granted were the right ones to follow. We do agree there were early Christians who took on different positions than the first apostles. In the acts of the apostles we can already see that there is deviation of certain teachings. Later different teachings found popularity and we could find groups who argued that Jesus is God, but also other teachers who had an opposit position. When you go out from the writings of the Trinitarian thinking to prove Jesus is God you shall find enough material to prove this thesis. On the other hand we do think it is safer to go out from the Holy Scriptures themselves to form an opinion. There you shall not find one place where the Holy Trinity is mentioned as such. In case God is the same as Jesus why did He not say ‘Look this is me, having come on to the earth’, though it still makes it difficult that those who see God shall die immediately, because nobody can see God and live. In case the apostle John thought Jesus was God, he would not have written that nobody has seen God, because he knew we are not supposed to lie, and in case Jesus was God he would have been a liar (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18)

  5. Hi Prayson, that’s a lot of dialogue…
    In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God… and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Faith is the evidence – not good intellectual argument… don’t you think?

    • Hello Graeme,

      Thank you once again for your insight.

      I think faith, as used in Scriptures, captures both the heart, soul, strength and the mind.

      Jesus, Paul, John, James, Peter and early church fathers gave good intellectual argument for believing the Gospel. Jesus performed signs and John comment at the end of his book, that Christ did that so that we may believe in Him. Paul argued for resurrection and concluded that if it did not happen, our faith is a delusion.

      I wrote an article called Faith: The Biblical Christian Definition. In that article I researched the word faith in the entire Bible and explained what it meant and how Christian defined it before the age of enlightment which divided faith and rationale.

      Could you, Graeme, help know your definition of faith?

      In Christ,

      • Hello Daniel,
        Thanks for your response. Don’t get me wrong I think it is extremely important to have a good intellectual knowledge of the things of God. I think the point I am making is best illustrated in Eph.1:17-18, “the eyes of our understanding” refers to the inner man which percieves the things of God at a level beyond the intellect – to do that we need to personally contemplate the cross of Christ. As we do this the fog of our human faculties gives way to divine revelation. That’s my experience, what do you think?
        Regarding faith: I have 3 posts in my January archives – Q9 Jan 8, Q11 Jan 10, Q28 Jan 27. Let me know your thoughts. My approach is always aimed at “renewing the mind” and so my posts are not intended as a full theological examination but rather a challenge to the established thinking of the culture of Christianity which is often more based on religion than revelation. talk soon, Graeme

    • Christ was not literally the Word. He was the word “made flesh”. (#Jo 1:14). The Greek word “logos” translated “Word” expresses the divine intention, mind, or purpose.1 Young defines “logos” as “a word, speech, matter, reason.”2 In the a.v. “logos” is translated by more than 20 different English words and is used for utterances of men (e.g., #Jo 17:20) as well as those of God (#Jo 5:38).

      • in fact He was literally the word before He was made flesh. He was and is the dynamic creative one who speaks things into existence by the power of His being.

  6. No, just no. You are a believer. In the very fact that you are you make a claim that is unproven, without evidence. My claim is that your claim has no evidence. Twist away.

    • Well, I, myatheistlife, can be a non-believer to a your claim. Then I do not have to give evidence which is absurd. 🙂

      You are also a believer to the claim that “There is no credible reason to believe that any god(including Christian God) can exist”. If you did not believe it, then you would not hold it.

      • You’re wasting my time. I mistakenly thought that maybe this time you would not. You are still the idiot you’ve always been. No evidence, only argument without end. You have always failed to defend or give evidence for your position. All you do is argue for argument’s sake. You are a waste of time. Good luck to you, but I do not want to waste any more of my time watching you do anything but defend your own position.

      • O 😦 myatheistlife, I am deeply sorry If I wasted your time. I wish you well and thank you for a wonderful dialogue.

        Know that I do care, love, and respect who you are. Sorry that I asked to much of you. I respect your view and your time. Until then thank you once again for all, myatheistlife.


  7. I am not a theologian but I know that Jesus is God as is the Holy Spirit…One God in three persons…each with their own purpose in the Kingdom of God…Diane

  8. I ended my comment with – Christianity has yet to show evidence that a god, any god, can exist

    The premise that any god can exist is unproven. Claiming Jesus is proof of god (in as much as he is supposed to be god) does not prove that gods can exist. This basic premise, this foundational belief is without proof. Where the theist believes that gods can exist and that their god is the only god that does exist, I am still waiting for proof that such is possible, never mind probable.

    The gist of the evidence is summed in the Bible. Other ‘evidence’ is offered as proof of the bible itself. Logical arguments do not make evidence and even they have failed to show that a god could exist. There is no credible foundation on which to base the statement that Jesus was god, so we can dismiss such statements as superfluous to the problem at hand. Piling one myth on top of another, over and over again does not make truth of wishful thinking.

    There is no god for Jesus to be. Without that god, Jesus (if he existed) cannot be a god.

    • Let me see if I understood you correct. Your reasoning, myatheistlife, is:

      1. That God exist is unproven
      2. Proof that Jesus is God is summed in the Bible
      3. No credible foundation that Jesus is God
      4. No God for Jesus to Be
      5. Jesus is not God

      Did I correctly presented, myatheistlife, your position?


      • You missed the important one. There is no credible reason to believe that gods can exist. That is, the thought that a god can even exist is unproven and without credible evidence. None of the rest of it matters if there is no reason to even believe that a god can exist, never mind the god of Abraham.

      • Good morning myatheistlife,

        Let me see if I now fully represent your case:

        1. That God exist is unproven
        2. Proof that Jesus is God is summed in the Bible
        3. Bible is not reliable
        4. Thus no credible foundation that Jesus is God
        5. There is no credible reason to believe that God exist
        6. God does not exist(No God for Jesus to be one)
        7.Therefore Jesus is not God

        Did I outline,, myatheistlife, your inductive argument correctly now?

        In Christ,

        P.S: Thank you for a wonderful tune and gentle and kind spirit that feels your comments.

        • I think that you have still missed out on the most important point. There is no credible reason to believe that a god, any god, can exist. The thought that a god can exist is hubris. The entire concept of gods is wrong, without credible evidence, and there is much evidence to believe that man made up the idea of gods… that gods exist only in the imagination of humans. Until this point is proven, there is no reason to believe in one god over another never mind that a god incarnated himself as a human … like many other false gods were claimed to do.

          The first problem is the assertion that gods can exist. I’m not talking about YOUR god, but any god.

      • Well, in any god, I believe, includes God as understood and believed in Christianity. Since we are talking about Jesus, then I believe using God as believed in Christian worldview, would be fair enough and also keeps us safe from attacking a straw-man.

        Let me, myatheistlife, add your most important point in the outline list:

        1. That God exist is unproven
        2. Proof that Jesus is God is summed in the Bible
        3. Bible is not reliable
        4. Thus no credible foundation that Jesus is God
        5. There is no credible reason to believe that God exist
        5.1 There is no credible reason to believe that God can exist.
        6. God does not exist(No God for Jesus to be one)
        7.Therefore Jesus is not God

        You can add, remove, correct my outline, because I do wish to fully understand and correctly represent your premises before we start looking at the truthfulness of each premise and cogent of the whole argument.

        Did I now present your inductive case, myatheistlife, correctly?

        In Christ,

        • It seems that still I have not communicated well enough. I ask, can an invisible pink unicorn exist? Is it possible? In such a manner I ask can a god exist? Is it possible?

          This is the most important part. There is no evidence or credible reason to think that either of these things can exist, and so there is no credible reason to believe that they do exist. There is no definition of gods that explains that they can possibly exist. Without evidence or proof for this there is no point in thinking of the rest.

      • Myatheistlife, I really do wish you to communicate well enough that I may understand your position.

        I believe I added the points your making in premise 5.(There is no credible reason to believe that God exist) and 5.1(There is no credible reason to believe that God can exist).

        I would like to know if I fully and correctly represented your inductive case?


      • Brilliant ☺ You are so correct in saying if God cannot exist, then it follows necessarily that all other points are for nothing.

        So let me attempt to represent your case again(please do comment, add or remove if you disagree or wish to add more)

        1. There is no credible reason to believe that God exist
        1.1. If God does not exist, then the Bible is necessarily false
        1.2. If God does not exist, then Jesus is necessarily not God
        2. There is no credible reason to believe that God can exist
        3. God does not exist
        4. Therefore Jesus is not God

        Do you agree with my presentation of your case, myatheistlife?


        • Okay, now I see
          1 There is no credible reason to think that gods can exist
          1.1 if there is no credible reason to believe that gods can exist, there is no credible reason to believe that the god of Abraham cannot exist

          Until these points are answered, there are no more questions because all the rest depend on the first evidence.

          I apologize for being slow to understand.

      • You are not being slow to understand, myatheistlife. I admire your boldness and passion for reasoning.

        I want to fully understand your position, myatheistlife. William of Ockham(1285–1347/49) wonderful said: “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate”(Plurality should not be posited without necessity). From Ockham’s razor, I believe we should make your case stronger and not attacking a straw-man by razoring gods to God.

        (If not, I believe you can agree that If gods cannot exist then God cannot exit. Thus I dropped gods and went direct to God for there is were Jesus comes in)

        So, do you agree that I presented your case fully and correctly before we move on? I am sorry that I keep asking you this. The reason is that I want to fully understand, represent and engage in your position.


        • it is not reasonable to drop gods for god and go to Jesus…. Without cause to believe that any god can exist it is not proper to think that a god can exist. Without this belief it is not possible to think your god exists and Jesus doesn’t even get into the conversation.

      • As you do wish, myatheistlife, I will not drop gods(even though its attacking strawman and cares not Ockham’s razor principle)

        1. There is no credible reason to believe that gods(including Christian God) exist
        1.2. If gods(including Christian God) do not exist, then the Christian God does not exist
        1.1. If the Christian God does not exist, then the Bible is necessarily false
        1.2. If the Christian God does not exist, then Jesus is necessarily not the Christian God
        2. There is no credible reason to believe that gods(including Christian God) can exist
        3. Christian God does not exist
        4. Therefore Jesus is not Christian God

        How about now, myatheistlife? Are we good?

        • Ockham’s razor does not prove that YOUR god exists, and only posits a wager that some god will not know that you are trying to cheat. Believing because you don’t want to burn is no different than saying you believe because you don’t want the inquisitor to kill you. Forced confession is of no value and if it is of value to your god then your god is no better than the Spanish inquisitor.

          Belief is not an insurance policy… if such would work, there is no value in it, be cause you can cause harm all your life and profess belief with your last breath. This does not support the tenants of Christianity as I know them.

          You put too many items in the list.

          1 – There is no credible reason to believe that any god can exist.

          When that one question is proven, then we can ask the other questions.

          It is not a question of whether a god exists or not, it is a question of whether a god can exist. Any god, not just yours. Without proof or credible evidence of this all the rest is not worth asking.

        • I confused myself by what you meant. Occam’s razor is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor and what I was thinking, Pascal’s wager is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
          Occam’s razor does not support the position that you seem to claim.

          It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.

          The simplest argument is that there is no evidence for the existence of any god, never mind your god.

      • Hello myatheistlife,

        I used Ockham’s razor principle on “gods”(Plurality of god posited without necessity). I did not make a case for God’s existence, in this article or on these comments, myatheistlife. Say I am an atheist, just like you, but wishing to know what reasons we could have to hold a position that Jesus is not God.

        Remember you are trying, myatheistlife, to share your reasons to the position you hold viz., Jesus is not God. The outline list I presented is the collecting of the claims you have explicitly or implicitly asserted and I wish not only to understand them fully but also be able to present your case correctly.

        So, did I present your case fully and correctly?

      • Daniel, I understand that you are being careful to fully understand. Occam’s razor is not required as to gods. My meaning was for any god, not many gods.

        Here is an edited version of your list

        1. There is no credible reason to believe that any god (including Christian God) can exist

        Until point one is invalidated by credible evidence or proof, the other points do not matter. On the issue of whether a god can exist, the ability to imagine that a god exists does not mean that they can exist. In the case of the god of Abraham you would need to explain why it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-benevolent god can exist. Simply saying that one can is not explanation, and saying that we can’t prove that one doesn’t exist is not explanation.

        2. If gods (including Christian God) do or can not exist, then the Christian God does not exist
        3. If the Christian God does not exist, then the Bible is necessarily false
        4. If the Christian God does not exist, then Jesus is necessarily not the Christian God

      • Habari za asubuhi myatheistlife,

        Thank you for understanding what I am trying to accomplish. “My” list is an outline of the claims you have explicit or implicit asserted as you attempt to give reasons to why you hold a conclusion that Jesus is not God.

        We have agreed on the following:

        1. There is no credible reason to believe that any god (including Christian God) can exist
        2. If gods (including Christian God) do or can not exist, then the Christian God does not exist
        3. If the Christian God does not exist, then the Bible is necessarily false
        4. If the Christian God does not exist, then Jesus is necessarily not the Christian God

        Could we say, that is I have fully understood and presented an outline of your case, myatheistlife?


          • O! 🙂 Thank you, myatheistlife. I am glad I can now say I understand your position.

            Lets begin to look at the truthfulness of 1. namely “There is no credible reason to believe that any god(including Christian God) can exist”.

            What evidences/reasons can we offer, as atheists, to reasonably accept the claim that “there are no credible reason to believe that any god(including Christian God) can exist”?

            E.g. Which reasons did we look at,if any, and concluded that they were not credible reasons?


          • Prayson, I’m not sure that I understand. Are you asking what evidence there is that all the evidence offered for the claim that gods can exist is false?

            The burden of proof is on the claimant, and the claim is that gods can exist, implied by the claim that gods do exist.

            To that claim I answer no, I don’t think they can, what is your proof that gods can exist?

            I’m still waiting for credible evidence. We’ve been waiting for credible evidence since the first time someone claimed that a god exists.

      • Myatheistlife, I am with you, as an atheist, in this one, a devil advocate role

        Remember I did not claim that gods can exist or do exist. The only claims we have so far is yours that gods cannot and do not exist.

        You, myatheistlife, threw down the gauntlet, medieval knight challenging another knight, by asserting that “There is no credible reason to believe that any god(including Christian God) can exist”. It means we cannot step back. We, as atheist, have to engaged.

        The burden of proof is the responsibility of whoever makes an asserting for his view. Your view, myatheistlife, is that “There is no credible reason to believe that any god(including Christian God) can exist”.

        I am trying to rescue us for fallen into ad ignorantiam mistake of reasoning. Example: If I say there are no credible reason to believe that there is any gold in planet Mars. And sit down waiting for someone who say there is gold in Mars to refute my claim, and if not, I then conclude, therefore there is no any gold in Mars. This is simply an appeal to ignorance.

        We have to defend the view that “There is no credible reason to believe that any god(including Christian God) can exist” for anyone, atheist or theist to agree with us. Help me, as an atheist, defend it.

        So, what evidences/reasons can we offer, as atheists, to reasonably accept the claim that “there are no credible reason to believe that any god(including Christian God) can exist”?

        Devil advocate,

        • Prayson, First, if you read my blog posts you will know that I speak for no other person and none speak for me. You may agree with me as a devil’s advocate atheist but the only thing we common then is a professed disbelief in the existence of gods.

          This is a clever twist of argument to attempt to relieve yourself of the burden of proof. Just the same it remains impossible to prove a negative. This is logical fallacy. The non-believer does not make a claim, but simply disputes the claims that there is credible evidence that gods do exist. No matter how you try to twist it, these facts do not change.

          The believer claims that despite the lack of credible evidence, gods do exist. The non-believer simply disputes this because of the lack of credible evidence for the existence of gods.

          There is no evidence as you request because you cannot prove a negative. The lack of evidence points to the lack of existence of gods. Over time, without new credible evidence for existence the lack of evidence for existence becomes a kind of evidence for non-existence of gods.

          You are using the same tired arguments that have been refuted over and over again. You have nothing new to offer and simply try to put some spin on old arguments to sound somehow new. It isn’t new, it doesn’t sound new. It is completely unconvincing and to some extent an insult.

          When you find some new evidence or argument that has not been tried and refuted completely many times already, let me know.

      • Good morning myatheistlife,

        I am so thankful for a wonderful dialogue that helps us to rethink our positions. I believe a clever twist is in the one who assert a claim and run for cover, not ready to shoulder his burden of proof to show that her asserted claim is correct.

        If we reason that a non-believer does not make a claim, which I believe is false, then a Christian theist would just twist her argument to argue as a non-believer to a claim that “God does not exist”,which would lead to an absurd stalemate, were each present a negative case and refuse to defend.

        If I made a claim, myatheistlife, then I ought to shoulder the burden of proof. But I have not. The only one who made a claim is you viz., “There is no credible reason to believe that any god(including Christian God) can exist”

        Imagine I am writing my Ph.D thesis that People from Texas do not have to pay taxes, and the only reason that I give to support my thesis is that I cannot prove the negative viz., “People from Texas do not have to pay taxes” and that there is no evidence to prove a negative that “People from Texas do not have to pay taxes”. Therefore “People from Texas should not pay taxes”. What would you do, as my professor grading my paper?

        If you can not defend your own most important point/view, myatheistlife, namely “There is no credible reason to believe that any god(including Christian God) can exist” then, I believe, I cannot rationally be justified to accept it. As atheists, if that is all we offer then I believe we, as atheist, have failed to have a reasonable ground to hold a conclusion that Jesus is not God. Don’t you think?


  9. The statement that Jesus is God contains several presumptions:
    1 – the god of Abraham exists
    2 – the god of Abraham came to this Earth
    3 – Jesus the miracle worker existed
    4 – that this is in fact what happened and there is evidence to believe this

    All the evidence that we have is summed in Christian Bible (not the other holy texts of Abrahamic Faiths). This book starts with logical failures on page one, and continues throughout. There is no credible way to say that some parts of it are true and these are the parts etc. so we cannot logically say that the part where the god of Abraham (apparently imitating the gods of other religions) impregnated a human female so that he could walk the Earth – something he should have been able to do without a virgin birth. The point of the virgin birth was to show that YHWH was the one true god, and not just another god like all the rest in the Jewish pantheon. It is quite odd that the god of the Jews didn’t manage to convince his chosen people that he was himself in the person of Jesus. The very people he supposedly came to ‘save’ reject him and you can trust me when I say they were there (as a people) to witness his teaching and make a decision. Apparently they were not convinced. If a man walked on the Earth and did miracles, it would not appear like rumors and myth to the rest of us today. Rather than convince the Jews that he was god, he got himself crucified – according to the story. Then, amazingly like other religions he rose from the dead. Even this apparently did not convince the Jews. If they did not believe it, why exactly should anyone believe myths 2000 years later? Even the stories in the Christian bible do not agree with one another. It appears that Paul was trying very hard to start his own religion and use the Jesus story as the basis for it. The authors are not known, and so the writings are at best questionable. Many theologians will tell you that the authorship of the books of the Christian bible are questionable, and that there have been edits and revisions which suit particular agendas long after Jesus’ supposed death.

    If we find that we cannot reliably use the holy text as evidence we can only then look for corroborating evidence that is outside the text and/or religion. None exists. Even this anonymous letter written long after the death of Jesus is only an explanation of understanding, not evidence of the facts, it is not a witness account of things, nor does it even claim divine revelation. It’s existence means nothing more than does the a story book about the tooth fairy means to whether a tooth fairy exists. It should not be a wonder that in 100 CE there were people talking about or writing about Chrstianity. Constantine ensured that it would be talked about for much longer. Talk and faith do not count as evidence on their own, and really only become meaningful when there is evidence for the talk and faith in the first place. Without the evidence talk and faith are no more than myth and superstition.

    Christianity has yet to show evidence that a god, any god, can exist… or even why it is that we should hope that a god exists. That’s my take.

    • Habari Myatheistlife,

      Thank you for your reply.

      Let me say I do agree with you in everything you wrote, for argument sake, that all the evidences is summed in Bible and the authorship are questionable and cannot be reliable and Christians have failed to show evidence that God exist. How do you,myatheistlife, move from that to your position viz., Jesus is not God?

      Could you help me understand the logic behind “No reliable evidence/No evidence at all” and your conclusion “Jesus is not God”?

      Help me, myatheistlife, connect the dots.

      In Christ,

  10. I have not yet seen anything which is credible evidence for the existence of Jesus the miracle worker. A letter written some 50+ years after his supposed death is not certain to have been directly relayed from one of the disciples. Applying myth and legend to the name of a person long dead is common in human history. Plagiarising other cults in doing so would also be a common thing. Nothing found so far shows credible reason to even believe that he existed.

    If a creator god came to Earth in human form with the express purpose of being the blood sacrifice to allow himself to forgive the people, and thus sanctify the act of using ‘scape goats’, then that god is not relevant to anything but backwards people who don’t know what a fork is.

    If the god of Abraham ‘is’ a god as described in the books, that god could come to this world as a man. This argument has a lot of ‘if’ statements attached. Understanding the universe we know as a simulation allows for the god character to also play a human character. It is the rest of it that makes no sense whatsoever. Why come to this world as a human? Why require a blood sacrifice? Why tell people that using a scape goat is ok? Why perform miracles if there will be no evidence of them for the future? Why promise that you will return before any man alive will die? The whole thing seems pointless.

    • Hej Myatheistlife,

      Thank you for a good comment which rose brilliant questions worth exploring.

      Before we explore them together( if you would love to that is), I can see that you disagree that Jesus was not God. If that is your position, myatheistlife, I would love to know how you came to that conclusion.

      Could you be kind, myatheistlife, to share your reasons to the position you hold?

      In Christ,

    • Why should a creator god come so many years later to the Earth in human form with the express purpose of being the blood sacrifice to allow himself to forgive the people? God can not die, so why should He have to fake a death, to save the people He had let to live in agony for so many years? Why did God not react earlier and waited such a long time to come Himself to bring such a masquerade?
      When people would listen more to the words of Jesus who never claimed to be the person that was doing the miracles, and never asked to be worshipped, but gave the task to honour only One God, who is in heaven and who is his and our Father, to whom we all should pray. Jesus was well aware that his Father is much greater than he is and knows everything, while he does not even knows the time when he shall return, because only God knows that. (Luke 3:21-23; John 3:16,36; 4:9-10;5:19; 14:28; 20:17;1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28; Galatians 4:4; Romans 6:4,9; 1 Peter 3:22; Philippians 2:9)

      • Why should any god perform miracles, die and rise again, be born of a virgin mother etc.? Because that is what the people wanted to hear, it was what they thought was proof. Why did the Jesus wait so long? Because it took that long to invent him.

        • God wanted to see a new Adam. The creation did not came to an end with the first Adam. Perhaps it took so many years before the was a man able and willing to take this humble place to die as a murderer, though not having committed any sin. Jesus could be tempted, but God can never be tempted and as a ghost he also can and could never die, because He is eternal. Jesus had a beginning (birth) and an end (death) and was taken up by his Father (the Bible no where gives an indication he stood up out of himself). It was God who placed him in a higher position and now Jesus is sitting at the right hand of his Father, not sitting in the same place ‘in’ the Father or on top of the Father. Clearly two distinguishable persons: 1. God Jehovah; 2. Jeshua, Jesus the son of God which is not equal to god the son.

      • Thank you Christadelphians and myatheistlife,

        It is important that I primary point out that you have both not counter, or give reasons against the early Christians positions on who Jesus is, namely God. As I have shown above, early Christians ca.30-250 A.D. believed the Son of God is very God of very God.

        In the writings of Ignatius(ca.30-107 A.D), Clement(ca. 150- 215 A.D.), and Irenaeus(c. 120-202 A.D), to mentions the few, we can read that early Christians taught and believe that Jesus, the Son of God, is true God of true God.

        Your questions, Christadelphians, were easily addressed by early Christians. From book of Hebrews, we learn that it was impossible for blood of the bulls and sheep take away the sins of the Israels(Hebrews 10:4) in OT. The sacrifical system in OT only symbolized the coming of the Lamb of God that would take away the sin of the world. We are also told that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”(Hebrews 9;22).

        Paul of Tarsus argued that atoning work of Christ “was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”(Rom. 3:25-26 ESV)

        Remember we have to understand the taking away of the sins in ancient Judaism context in order to understand what is happening. Before we start projecting our modern thinking into ancient Judaism, let us try to move from our context to their context. We ought to at-least be in a position were we can say we understand, before we criticize a given position.

        You are very correct, Christadelphians,in saying that God cannot die. When Tertullian(c. 160 – c. 225 AD) in De carne Christi, argued rhetorically, “Was not God really crucified? And, been really crucified, did He not really die? And, having indeed really died, did He not really rise again?” He remarkably recapitulated the two natures displayed in the person of Christ Jesus as God and man. He wrote: “in one respect born, in the other unborn, in one respect fleshly in the other spiritual; in one sense weak in the other exceeding strong; in one sense dying, in the other living. This property of the two states—the divine and the human—is distinctly asserted with equal truth of both natures alike, with the same belief both in respect of the Spirit and of the flesh. The powers of the Spirit, proved Him to be God, His sufferings attested the flesh of man”(Roberts, Donaldson & Coxe 1885: 525)

        Correct understanding of Jesus’ two natures in one person explains how Christ Jesus grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52) and not knowing the hour of his second return (Mark 13: 32 cf. Matt. 24:26) yet he knows everything (John 21:7). Early Christians would answer your question, Christadelphians, that it is the human nature of Jesus that died, that did not know the time of His returning but not His divine nature.

        With “Why Jesus did wait so long” question, myatheistlife and Christadelphians, is irrelevant when it comes to God timing. If we accept the Judeo-God exist, then He created time and is Lord of time. Thus what we may see as long waited time is only in respect to limited creatures and not with a timeless Creator.

        It is my hope that we try to think in a Jewish context and not our modern context. Let us try to understand Christ Jesus on His own context, so that we may not fall into attacking a strawmen because we failed to understand the context of ancient Judaism.

        If you, myatheistlife, could give me good reasons/evidences why you believe that Jesus is not God, then I would follow you 🙂 and Christadephians, if you can show me that the early Christians ca. 30-250 A.D did not believe that Jesus is God, then I would start rethinking my position. For now I think is reasonable for me to side with early Christians who affirm with doubting Thomas in John 20:28 that Christ Jesus is the God of me and the Lord of me.

        In Christ Jesus,

      • Prayson, There are people in Siberia that believe ‘the teacher’ is Jesus returned. He is a man living there with 4000 people. In Australia there is a guy named Allen Miller who also claims to be Jesus returned to Earth. Both are alive today, both claim to be Jesus, both have many followers who absolutely believe them. There is absolutely no reason to believe the Jesus story in the Christian Bible is more true than the stories of these two nutjobs. In fact, we can talk with eyewitnesses for these two but we have zero eyewitness accounts of Jesus and his death/reanimation.

        Even with the wonderful communications systems we have today, China was able in the time of one generation to wipe out all memory of ‘Tank Man’. That is to say that in less than 20 years all evidence and truth have little to do with what the people will or won’t believe. Just because early Christians thought some guy named Jesus was a god does not mean that either of them exist. At that time, there were people who thought Mithra was a real god, that Baal was a real god and so on. It means nearly nothing that some people believed without evidence. Your holy text says that when Moses came down from the mountain the Jews were worshiping idols. apparently it did not take much of anything for the Jews to believe something or someone was a god.

        That is why I do not believe the Jesus story. However, it is you that says he was real, and was god…. it’s up to you to prove that.

        • We even do not have to go to Siberia, in Europe and the States we can fin Mr Moon who says he is Jesus who returned.
          When people would after some hundreds of years take the books of all those returned Jesuses their followers and use those writings to proof the position of Jesus, they shall have enough material to proof their way of thinking, but I do hope you can agree it would not be the right books to go on. Therefore we better follow the Word of God as given to us in the canonical Bible (i.e. the Holy Books most Christians could agree with that they form the Word of God).
          As myatheistlife rightly points out several Jews got biassed ideas about worshipping as well as many first Christians. In particular those teachers who wanted to be popular did not find anything better to mix with the heathen gods, so that people could feel easier at home with their attitudes and tradition. For reasons of tradition many groups took on several heathen ideas in their religion. Compare for example a Catholic service in the North, the Middle or the South of Europe, North or South America, or Africa and recognise so many heathen actions taken into their religion according to the region. In Belgium you can find as such many Celtic worship actions in many Catholic and protestant denominations. In the heathen commercial very active region of Jerusalem, the first century CE people found already several mixtures of worship. The apostles had already a hard time trying the faith clean and clear, and that is the nice part of Scripture that even their discussions and resentment or rancour to each other was already portrait in the Book of Books.

Comments are closed.