5 ms·

No. God already understood the human experience. He became human to prove to us, beyond all doubt, that He does understand.

omarfarooq 5y ago
"Beyond all doubt" is doubtful since, taking your assertions for granted, he only manifested himself to an infinitesimally small cross-section of humanity.
- theonething 5y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your argument. So because he only manifested himself to a relatively small number of people, he can't prove that he understands us? We have his teachings in writing. Do you only believe in knowledge that is personally manifested to you? If so, then you wouldn't believe in any history.
  - omarfarooq 5y ago
    > I'm not sure I follow your argument. So because he only manifested himself to a relatively small number of people, he can't prove that he understands us? I'm referring to the miracles attributed to him, which are used as the conclusive evidence that he was God in the flesh. > We have his teachings in writing. How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have his teachings? You do not even know the historical identities of the authors of the gospels. Nor do you have his teachings in the original language that he spoke.
    - theonething 5y ago
      > How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have his teachings? "The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript "Most historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection.[108]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Histo... To your point about the miracles attributed to him, again, because he didn't manifest those miracles to everyone ever, they didn't happen? More readings on this topic: https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-histori... https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-...
      - omarfarooq 5y ago
        > To your point about the miracles attributed to him, again, because he didn't manifest those miracles to everyone ever, they didn't happen? Recall that I responded to a GP that said all this is "beyond doubt." You're arguing a strawman with me. (On a personal note, I do believe in many of the miracles attested to Jesus, but that isn't evidence to me that he was God in the flesh.) As for your links, I counter suggest you read the works of Dr. Bart Ehrman.
        theonething 5y ago
        Your assertion was that GP's statement is not beyond all doubt because Jesus only manifested to a small group of people. [1] I don't think your reason for your assertion is valid. Jesus only manifesting to a relatively (relative to all of humanity) small group of people doesn't invalidate or cast doubt on anything. You might have other reasons for doubting His divinity, but I don't think the one you've professed is a good one. [1] "Beyond all doubt" is doubtful since, taking your assertions for granted, he only manifested himself to an infinitesimally small cross-section of humanity.
        omarfarooq 5y ago
        You've responded with an ipse dixit and didn't provide any substantiation. > Jesus only manifesting to a relatively (relative to all of humanity) small group of people doesn't invalidate or cast doubt on anything. Of course it does. You now rely on the testimony of these small of group of people (who you do not even know the identities of), rather than Jesus himself, or witnessing him directly.
        theonething 5y ago
        As I clearly indicated in parenthesis, my use of the word small was relative to all of humanity. Jesus appeared to many people, over five hundred after his death and resurrection and we do know the identities of many including of course the original 12 disciples. [1] > You now rely on the testimony of these small of group of people So according to you, Jesus would have to manifest to many more people to pass your belief test. How many more would do? More than 500? 1000? Your requirement seems arbitrary to me. > rather than Jesus himself, or witnessing him directly. Again, if that's your requirement, then you should discount all of history. [1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_814.cfm https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_...
- chernevik 5y ago
  The doubt is removed for those who believe Jesus was God. How they came to believe this is another matter.

omarfarooq 5y ago

"Beyond all doubt" is doubtful since, taking your assertions for granted, he only manifested himself to an infinitesimally small cross-section of humanity.

theonething 5y ago
I'm not sure I follow your argument. So because he only manifested himself to a relatively small number of people, he can't prove that he understands us? We have his teachings in writing. Do you only believe in knowledge that is personally manifested to you? If so, then you wouldn't believe in any history.
- omarfarooq 5y ago
  > I'm not sure I follow your argument. So because he only manifested himself to a relatively small number of people, he can't prove that he understands us? I'm referring to the miracles attributed to him, which are used as the conclusive evidence that he was God in the flesh. > We have his teachings in writing. How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have his teachings? You do not even know the historical identities of the authors of the gospels. Nor do you have his teachings in the original language that he spoke.
  - theonething 5y ago
    > How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have his teachings? "The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript "Most historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection.[108]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Histo... To your point about the miracles attributed to him, again, because he didn't manifest those miracles to everyone ever, they didn't happen? More readings on this topic: https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-histori... https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-...
    - omarfarooq 5y ago
      > To your point about the miracles attributed to him, again, because he didn't manifest those miracles to everyone ever, they didn't happen? Recall that I responded to a GP that said all this is "beyond doubt." You're arguing a strawman with me. (On a personal note, I do believe in many of the miracles attested to Jesus, but that isn't evidence to me that he was God in the flesh.) As for your links, I counter suggest you read the works of Dr. Bart Ehrman.
      - theonething 5y ago
        Your assertion was that GP's statement is not beyond all doubt because Jesus only manifested to a small group of people. [1] I don't think your reason for your assertion is valid. Jesus only manifesting to a relatively (relative to all of humanity) small group of people doesn't invalidate or cast doubt on anything. You might have other reasons for doubting His divinity, but I don't think the one you've professed is a good one. [1] "Beyond all doubt" is doubtful since, taking your assertions for granted, he only manifested himself to an infinitesimally small cross-section of humanity.
        omarfarooq 5y ago
        You've responded with an ipse dixit and didn't provide any substantiation. > Jesus only manifesting to a relatively (relative to all of humanity) small group of people doesn't invalidate or cast doubt on anything. Of course it does. You now rely on the testimony of these small of group of people (who you do not even know the identities of), rather than Jesus himself, or witnessing him directly.
        theonething 5y ago
        As I clearly indicated in parenthesis, my use of the word small was relative to all of humanity. Jesus appeared to many people, over five hundred after his death and resurrection and we do know the identities of many including of course the original 12 disciples. [1] > You now rely on the testimony of these small of group of people So according to you, Jesus would have to manifest to many more people to pass your belief test. How many more would do? More than 500? 1000? Your requirement seems arbitrary to me. > rather than Jesus himself, or witnessing him directly. Again, if that's your requirement, then you should discount all of history. [1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_814.cfm https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_...
chernevik 5y ago
The doubt is removed for those who believe Jesus was God. How they came to believe this is another matter.