3 ms·

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 o

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_...
- omarfarooq 5y ago
  Again... you're still arguing a strawman against me. My response to the GP was that there is still doubt (and major, massive doubt when you read Ehrman's work) in this when you are relying on he said, she said; as opposed to witnessing Jesus directly himself.
  - theonething 5y ago
    This is the third time I will be answering to your point of relying on witness testimony vs first person testimony. If that's your standard to believe something, that it has to first person, then you need to discount most of history recorded in history books. In a court of law, witness testimony is valid evidence (unless proven to be a lie). You seem to discount this kind of testimony. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. > major, massive doubt when you read Ehrman's work If I rely on Ehrman's work, aren't I relying on he said/she said? And you seem to be moving goal posts here. First you said that there is doubt because of the small number of witnesses "only manifested himself to an infinitesimally small cross-section of humanity" Now you're casting doubt based on the type of witness (eye witness vs self witness) You've brought up the term strawman twice now without explanation. Care to explain exactly how I'm arguing a strawman?
    - omarfarooq 5y ago
      You are arguing a strawman because I replied to the claim that it is beyond doubt that God came in the flesh. It is NOT beyond doubt. You haven't proven how there is absolutely NO DOUBT to these claims. > And you seem to be moving goal posts here. How am I moving goalposts? The two types of witnessing have been there in my reasoning since the beginning. There is doubt since you didn't eyewitness him yourself, and then there is doubt that the hearsay that reached you regarding him is true. One follows the other since you have to rely on the one you have access to. Again it's a strawman because I never said I discount witness testimony. You're making the case that just because witness testimony can be true, therefore witness testimony in the case of Jesus, must be true. That doesn't follow.
      - theonething 5y ago
        Thanks. > You haven't proven how there is absolutely NO DOUBT to these claims. That hasn't been my aim all along though. I would never argue or try to prove there is no doubt to these claims. I fully accept there is a large element of faith to religious claims. And I readily admit as believer, my faith is not perfect and I have doubts. But my ratio of faith to doubt is high enough to get me over the fence to belief. As an aside, I always argue that everyone everywhere live their lives by faith. [1] My assertion has been your reason for your doubt, namely that Jesus only manifested to a relatively small group of people, is not valid. But I think we can agree to disagree at this point. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29710355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29710355
        omarfarooq 5y ago
        > My assertion has been your reason for your doubt, namely that Jesus only manifested to a relatively small group of people, is not valid. That's an odd thing for you to say. In the absence of certainty, there is always doubt. No matter how infinitesimal.

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_...

omarfarooq 5y ago
Again... you're still arguing a strawman against me. My response to the GP was that there is still doubt (and major, massive doubt when you read Ehrman's work) in this when you are relying on he said, she said; as opposed to witnessing Jesus directly himself.
- theonething 5y ago
  This is the third time I will be answering to your point of relying on witness testimony vs first person testimony. If that's your standard to believe something, that it has to first person, then you need to discount most of history recorded in history books. In a court of law, witness testimony is valid evidence (unless proven to be a lie). You seem to discount this kind of testimony. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. > major, massive doubt when you read Ehrman's work If I rely on Ehrman's work, aren't I relying on he said/she said? And you seem to be moving goal posts here. First you said that there is doubt because of the small number of witnesses "only manifested himself to an infinitesimally small cross-section of humanity" Now you're casting doubt based on the type of witness (eye witness vs self witness) You've brought up the term strawman twice now without explanation. Care to explain exactly how I'm arguing a strawman?
  - omarfarooq 5y ago
    You are arguing a strawman because I replied to the claim that it is beyond doubt that God came in the flesh. It is NOT beyond doubt. You haven't proven how there is absolutely NO DOUBT to these claims. > And you seem to be moving goal posts here. How am I moving goalposts? The two types of witnessing have been there in my reasoning since the beginning. There is doubt since you didn't eyewitness him yourself, and then there is doubt that the hearsay that reached you regarding him is true. One follows the other since you have to rely on the one you have access to. Again it's a strawman because I never said I discount witness testimony. You're making the case that just because witness testimony can be true, therefore witness testimony in the case of Jesus, must be true. That doesn't follow.
    - theonething 5y ago
      Thanks. > You haven't proven how there is absolutely NO DOUBT to these claims. That hasn't been my aim all along though. I would never argue or try to prove there is no doubt to these claims. I fully accept there is a large element of faith to religious claims. And I readily admit as believer, my faith is not perfect and I have doubts. But my ratio of faith to doubt is high enough to get me over the fence to belief. As an aside, I always argue that everyone everywhere live their lives by faith. [1] My assertion has been your reason for your doubt, namely that Jesus only manifested to a relatively small group of people, is not valid. But I think we can agree to disagree at this point. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29710355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29710355
      - omarfarooq 5y ago
        > My assertion has been your reason for your doubt, namely that Jesus only manifested to a relatively small group of people, is not valid. That's an odd thing for you to say. In the absence of certainty, there is always doubt. No matter how infinitesimal.