Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.
But the thing you’re questioning says it’s true. Duh. How is that not enough for you?
ETA: With the moderator's appropriate comment posted just after mine, I want to provide a more serious comment hereto because, again, I think this is a poignant example of just how strong the "faith" factor plays in to talking about these sorts of issue. I say this because 15 year old me absolutely would have taken no issue with Paddington's post and would have agreed with it whereas 41 year old me sees the blatant circular logic with Paddington's post to the point where comedy and snark are the natural reactions.
In other words, while this thread has been overwhelming productive all things considered and I'm hopeful that it will continued to be so, I agree with a prior poster (I think it was
@IvanKaramazov ) who basically posited upthread that meaningful discussions about "proof" of God's existence and, if so, whether the Bible is H/his word will inevitably fall short. I unfortunately agree because, when factoring in faith, believers v. non-believers are just going to start the discussion coming from two completely "ballparks" and common ground will not be found because of the inherent disagreement over the very basic fundamental principle that starts the discussion will almost certainly never be resolved.
You're not understanding that the post I put regarding Christ being God, was BIBLICAL Evidence meant for those who believe the Scriptures, not necessarily for those who do not. I can prove Christ is God with both Secular AND Biblical evidence. The Resurrection of Christ proves that He is God and many other things. Have you looked at the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ? They aren't Scripture and they aren't written by Believers in Christ, yet they support the Biblical account.
Are you referring to the 2006 article by Dr. Nelson Price?
That is the only title and/or proper noun I could find when I googled the bold. I assume since you capitalized the phrase you are referring to a book title or something?
I'd also note that I'm not so certain that the issue here is whether people believe that there was a guy named Jesus that people followed who claimed to be God and challenged the Pharisees and was crucified around 25 C.E./AD 25. Instead, I think the issue being discussed is whether God actually exists and sent his son - who is also God - to Earth to walk around as human-like and die in order to open the gates of heaven. Respectfully, those are grossly distinct issues.
Personally, I think it is possible if not probable that there was a guy named Jesus and that he was crucified and people wrote about him in the decades following. I think because of his claims and the fact he drew followers he was likely notable and was then naturally written about. To compare him to modern day, he could easily have been a prominent figure like L. Ron Hubbard, Ghandi, Adolf Hitler, or David Koresh (any of whom, for all we know, could be deified in the next few centuries as they were notable figures who annoyed rulers, sparked a following, and have been written extensively about). A historical comparison is Muhammad (who also very probably existed).
So, if the proffer is that the Jesus figure is mentioned in secular writings in the first or second centuries - like by a Pliny the Younger or something - I don't find that surprising and wouldn't argue that it is some evidence that Jesus existed because, again, I find it quite possible that a guy named Jesus existed. I nonetheless don't find it compelling evidence that Jesus is God mainly because it is not compelling evidence that God exists (i.e. that some guy named Jesus claimed to be a son of H/him in 25 C.E.).
1) The secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ is a Literal person in History.
2) The Secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ existed, died on the Cross and that His followers believed that He is God.
3) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings prove that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be rejected by HIs own people. betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and that He would rise again.
4) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings affirm that He performed countless miracles, healed the sick, made the lame to walk, walked on water, turned water into wine, made the blind to see, predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again.
5) Had Jesus Christ not really died and rose from the dead, then He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then and there, BUT what we actually see is that there was an explosion of Christianity right AFTER the resurrection.
6) Those who believed in Him were willing to die rather than deny His resurrection. Some might die for a lie, but no one will willingly die for what they know to be a lie, and if Jesus Christ didn't really rise again, then His followers would know that they were dying for what they knew to be a lie. That's why God allowed them to be Martyred I believe to prove it.
7) Yes Dr Nelson Price does list many of the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ, but not all. The writings of Josephus also talk about Jesus Christ. There are also Early Church Writings that give some history. I am sure there are other writings as well other than those listed by Dr Nelson Price.
Jesus Christ is God.