ant wrote:

Their Messiah then? Who was the son of God? Right?

What do you mean by "son of god"?
(not being sarcastic here)

You're equivocating. You said, and I quote: "The earliest "christians" (followers of Christ) DID NOT believe Christ was their new God. That simply is false."

Early Christians believed Jesus was the son of God, a god in his own right (sometimes rationalized as part of the Holy Trinity or part of the godhead.) But a God, right? Right?

ant wrote:
Hi there!

How are you able to determine a miracle recorded in history did not happen?

What is the significance of "recorded in history? The question seems to truly imply appeal to authority. Because "history" has recorded it, there must be some inherent credibility? Virtually all independent scholars do not regard the Gospels as historical works, in the sense of being written records of events on the ground. Historical basis or historical origins are another matter. But the fact that miracles happen in the Bible is no reason at all to pause over their credibility. I wouldn't pause over the credibility of a present-day story a man who prayed to win the lottery, found a ticket on the street, and won the jackpot with it. That could be reported in the newspapers, and thus in "history," but would have nothing to do with its claim to be considered as credible.

Early Christians believed Jesus was the son of God, a god in his own right (sometimes rationalized as part of the Holy Trinity or part of the godhead.) But a God, right? Right?

Actually, you're wrong.

Although the gospels portray Christ as "the Son of God" it is not the same as saying he was actually God.
Being mindful of the fact that the gospels were not written in the 21st century with our current understandings of Christianity, one needs to place the gospels in the context of the time they were written - a 1st century context.

The Old Testament speaks of many groups and persons who were considered to be sons of god, but that does not mean they were recognized as gods:

The King of Israel was called "the Son of God." The reference was that of a parent to a child.

The nation of Israel was recognized as "the Son of God." That didn't mean the nation was divine. It meant that Israel was the people through which God worked his will on earth.

In the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is recognized in this sense - a man that God had a close relationship with, through whom God worked his purposes.

In pre-Pauline traditions Jesus is said to have BECOME the Son of God, NOT God himself.

That in a nutshell is the earliest understanding of Jesus and his relationship with God. The reference in question was not all that uncommon.

I understand that atheists do not choose to develop a deeper understanding of matters like this. That too is not all that uncommon.

Because "history" has recorded it, there must be some inherent credibility?

Who has asserted that?
Have you read any of my posts here that speak of probabilities and not certainties as it relates to historical examination?

ant wrote:

Early Christians believed Jesus was the son of God, a god in his own right (sometimes rationalized as part of the Holy Trinity or part of the godhead.) But a God, right? Right?

Actually, you're wrong.

Although the gospels portray Christ as "the Son of God" it is not the same as saying he was actually God.
Being mindful of the fact that the gospels were not written in the 21st century with our current understandings of Christianity, one needs to place the gospels in the context of the time they were written - a 1st century context.

The Old Testament speaks of many groups and persons who were considered to be sons of god, but that does not mean they were recognized as gods:

The King of Israel was called "the Son of God." The reference was that of a parent to a child.

The nation of Israel was recognized as "the Son of God." That didn't mean the nation was divine. It meant that Israel was the people through which God worked his will on earth.

In the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is recognized in this sense - a man that God had a close relationship with, through whom God worked his purposes.

In pre-Pauline traditions Jesus is said to have BECOME the Son of God, NOT God himself.

That in a nutshell is the earliest understanding of Jesus and his relationship with God. The reference in question was not all that uncommon.

I understand that atheists do not choose to develop a deeper understanding of matters like this. That too is not all that uncommon.

Fair enough. I understand that the concept of God has evolved much over the centuries. I don't doubt that the word "god" was bandied about to mean many different things. In the first century A.D. folks were still trying to shake off various polytheistic traditions and embrace the one God. In that respect Jesus was probably seen as a demigod or minor god just as the many minor gods that came into existence before him. And Jesus was extra special because if you believed in him as the son of God (the God as far as Paul was concerned), you got to go to heaven. And, so, looking through a historical lens, Jesus was a brand spanking new God, complete with that new God smell. And in historical terms that rise to Godhood happened relatively quickly. What is a Son of God but a new god? It seems that the early Christians weren't quite through with their polytheistic traditions after all (and obviously still aren't today). We've got God and the Son of God. Unless the math has changed too that still adds up to two gods.

ant wrote:
I understand that atheists do not choose to develop a deeper understanding of matters like this. That too is not all that uncommon.

I would agree with this. Dawkins chooses not to debate the finer points of theology as well. It would be silly (for me at least) to delve into the merits of one religion's concept of postmortem baptism (Mormonism) or another's concept of transubstantiation (Catholicism). Theology, the study of the nature of God, seems to me not much more than an intricate rationalization for the existence of God. It's like "studying" the supposed mating habits of the Loch Ness monster or Yeti.

geo wrote:

ant wrote:
I understand that atheists do not choose to develop a deeper understanding of matters like this. That too is not all that uncommon.

I would agree with this. Dawkins chooses not to debate the finer points of theology as well. It would be silly (for me at least) to delve into the merits of one religion's concept of postmortem baptism (Mormonism) or another's concept of transubstantiation (Catholicism). Theology, the study of the nature of God, seems to me not much more than an intricate rationalization for the existence of God. It's like "studying" the supposed mating habits of the Loch Ness monster or Yeti.

I also agree. It's a handicap if an atheist/agnostic chooses to touch on theology in argument, so Dawkins is right to stay away from it. But as geo says, not being schooled in theology has no bearing on qualifications to judge the larger matter of whether God exists at all. It's similar to judging the miracles of the Bible. If I refer inaccurately to a Bible miracle while indicating disbelief, my mistake is irrelevant to my assertion that miracles don't happen.

ant wrote:

Because "history" has recorded it, there must be some inherent credibility?

Who has asserted that?
Have you read any of my posts here that speak of probabilities and not certainties as it relates to historical examination?

Sorry if I misunderstood your point. I have read your other posts, but don't find that they explain much. You seem to be holding up the supposed distinction between the realms of faith and science. Yes, anything is believable through faith, but that is just what seems so implausible and hard to defend in the light of modern understanding. If "recorded by history" is irrelevant to your point, you're left with "How can you determine a miracle did not happen?" That is rather simply answered through applying the the scientific standards of reason and evidence that each of us, religious and non-religious, rely on daily. Yet some insist on selectively rolling back the past two millennia when it comes to a certain book, and that book only. I may have again misunderstood your point, but perhaps that's because you're being a little bit cagey.

geo wrote:

ant wrote:
I understand that atheists do not choose to develop a deeper understanding of matters like this. That too is not all that uncommon.

I would agree with this. Dawkins chooses not to debate the finer points of theology as well. It would be silly (for me at least) to delve into the merits of one religion's concept of postmortem baptism (Mormonism) or another's concept of transubstantiation (Catholicism). Theology, the study of the nature of God, seems to me not much more than an intricate rationalization for the existence of God. It's like "studying" the supposed mating habits of the Loch Ness monster or Yeti.

How many strawmen are you going to wrestle with here?
We aren't rationalizing god here. We are talking abut the historicity of a man

And intellectual arrogance demonstrates nothing.

DWill wrote:

ant wrote:

Because "history" has recorded it, there must be some inherent credibility?

Who has asserted that?
Have you read any of my posts here that speak of probabilities and not certainties as it relates to historical examination?

Sorry if I misunderstood your point. I have read your other posts, but don't find that they explain much. You seem to be holding up the supposed distinction between the realms of faith and science. Yes, anything is believable through faith, but that is just what seems so implausible and hard to defend in the light of modern understanding. If "recorded by history" is irrelevant to your point, you're left with "How can you determine a miracle did not happen?" That is rather simply answered through applying the the scientific standards of reason and evidence that each of us, religious and non-religious, rely on daily. Yet some insist on selectively rolling back the past two millennia when it comes to a certain book, and that book only. I may have again misunderstood your point, but perhaps that's because you're being a little bit cagey.

Realm of faith??
You continue to either ignore the point I made about the difference between history and the sciences or are intentionally misrepresenting what I've said to steer away from this discussion.