A Question

[Rogue Scholar]

Christians,

In a world full of scams, deceptions, exaggerations, honest mistakes and outright lies, why is it reasonable to believe that a man who supposedly lived 2,000 years ago (when there was little organized communication or skepticism compared to today) was a deity in the flesh?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[Athanasius]

Christians,

In a world full of scams, deceptions, exaggerations, honest mistakes and outright lies, why is it reasonable to believe that a man who supposedly lived 2,000 years ago (when there was little organized communication or skepticism compared to today) was a deity in the flesh?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

If the world is so full of scams, deceptions, exaggerations, honest mistakes and outright lies, why is it reasonable to believe that he wasn't?

[Rogue Scholar]

Thanks for your reply, Xel'Naga.

Originally posted by Xel'Naga:
"If the world is so full of scams, deceptions, exaggerations, honest mistakes and outright lies, why is it reasonable to believe that he wasn't?"

Because a man possessing divine power (like Jesus Christ demonstrated in the Bible) is far beyond what we see of humans - and therefore should be approached with greater scrutiny.

It's kinda like if someone tells you that his cousin is 10 feet tall and bulletproof. Since everyone knows that no human has been documented at 10 feet tall and completely invulnerable to gunfire, it would be wise to approach the claim with skepticism.

If, however, he said his cousin is 5'8'' and invulnerable to water guns, that's a different story. A lot of people fit that description, and therefore there's no immediate reason to be skeptical.

So that's my answer to your question.

[Scubadude]

Thanks for your reply, Xel'Naga.



Because a man possessing divine power (like Jesus Christ demonstrated in the Bible) is far beyond what we see of humans - and therefore should be approached with greater scrutiny.

It's kinda like if someone tells you that his cousin is 10 feet tall and bulletproof. Since everyone knows that no human has been documented at 10 feet tall and completely invulnerable to gunfire, it would be wise to approach the claim with skepticism.

If, however, he said his cousin is 5'8'' and invulnerable to water guns, that's a different story. A lot of people fit that description, and therefore there's no immediate reason to be skeptical.

So that's my answer to your question.

Kind of sounds like you are already convinced Jesus is 5'8", soaking wet. And not 10' and indestructible. My thought is you won't listen when someone tells you his size is immeasurable and power unending.

[Rogue Scholar]

Thanks for your reply, Scubadude.

Originally posted by Scubadude:
"Kind of sounds like you are already convinced Jesus is 5'8", soaking wet. And not 10' and indestructible. My thought is you won't listen when someone tells you his size is immeasurable and power unending."

There is a difference between listening (or reading, I guess) and agreeing with someone. If I happen to disagree with your logic (and I probably will) it doesn't mean I'm closed-minded.

My point about elaborate claims deserving greater scrutiny than ordinary claims is perfectly reasonable. I am sure you frequently apply the same logic in your day-to-day life, or else you may have a room full of bogus products that were promised to produce all kinds of results.

[xeno]

Jesus had a public ministry of three years. In light of that, isn't it more logical that He was who He claimed to be (God in the flesh) than just a "good man"?

After all, if Jesus were just an ordinary man, He would've been long forgotten by now, don't you think?

[Athanasius]

Thanks for your reply, Xel'Naga.

Because a man possessing divine power (like Jesus Christ demonstrated in the Bible) is far beyond what we see of humans - and therefore should be approached with greater scrutiny.

It's kinda like if someone tells you that his cousin is 10 feet tall and bulletproof. Since everyone knows that no human has been documented at 10 feet tall and completely invulnerable to gunfire, it would be wise to approach the claim with skepticism.

If, however, he said his cousin is 5'8'' and invulnerable to water guns, that's a different story. A lot of people fit that description, and therefore there's no immediate reason to be skeptical.

So that's my answer to your question.

It's an answer, however, it seems to skirt around my question. It's one thing to be skeptical of someone claiming to be bulletproof, even if they are 10 feet tall. It's quite another thing to be skeptical of someone claiming to be God, even as they demonstrate (and those demonstrations are documented) they are God, which is something you yourself have said. In the former case we have a claim, in the latter case a claim and actions in support of that claim.

So I must ask the same question again. In light of demonstrations in support of a claim, why do you believe it reasonable to be skeptical? Would you remain skeptical of a man whom you shot with your own gun, while he wore no clothes, only to see the bullet bounce of his body?

[ilovemetal]

Christians,

In a world full of scams, deceptions, exaggerations, honest mistakes and outright lies, why is it reasonable to believe that a man who supposedly lived 2,000 years ago (when there was little organized communication or skepticism compared to today) was a deity in the flesh?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

It's kinda like if someone tells you that his cousin is 10 feet tall and bulletproof. Since everyone knows that no human has been documented at 10 feet tall and completely invulnerable to gunfire, it would be wise to approach the claim with skepticism.

But Jesus was documented...

and then we're left with 3 options.

1)Liar
2)Truth teller
3)Crazy

[Scubadude]

There is a difference between listening (or reading, I guess) and agreeing with someone. If I happen to disagree with your logic (and I probably will) it doesn't mean I'm closed-minded.

Um, without hearing my opinions you already said you are probably going to disagree. That is the definition of closed minded.

Yeah, I noticed the difference between listening and accepting when I was a kid and dad said "don't touch the hot stove". Weather you are closed minded or not is none of my concern. There is a difference between grasping someones spiritual thoughts and intelctualizng a subject.

My point about elaborate claims deserving greater scrutiny than ordinary claims is perfectly reasonable. I am sure you frequently apply the same logic in your day-to-day life, or else you may have a room full of bogus products that were promised to produce all kinds of results.

So, what's your point? You think I ought to view my God as a K-mart? If he doesn't give me what I paid for, than the seller is flawed? You are already approaching the "question" from a biased point of view. It doesn't matter what my answer would be, with that first strike comment "I probably won't agree" you are saying you have a hidden agenda. Planing on a good disagreement, you are. (i can't do a good Yoda imitation.)

I'm not going to convince you of anything. But I already am suspicious you are just trying to hone your argumentation skills with a bunch of Christians. Aren't you? Try a question you haven't asked before. Is there one?

[Rogue Scholar]

Originally posted by Xel'Naga:
"It's an answer, however, it seems to skirt around my question. It's one thing to be skeptical of someone claiming to be bulletproof, even if they are 10 feet tall. It's quite another thing to be skeptical of someone claiming to be God, even as they demonstrate (and those demonstrations are documented) they are God, which is something you yourself have said. In the former case we have a claim, in the latter case a claim and actions in support of that claim."

When I say documented, I'm referring to cases that are verifiable to everyone with an interest. It is documented, for example, that Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States in 1863. No sane person would dispute that statement.

Your definition of documented is not the same. If it is, then it is also documented that many people have been abducted by alien beings from other planets. There's plenty of documented, detailed evidence regarding it and various accounts from supposed abductees.

But where do you draw the line when it comes to the major specifics that cannot be verified?

Originally posted by Xel'Naga:
"So I must ask the same question again. In light of demonstrations in support of a claim, why do you believe it reasonable to be skeptical? Would you remain skeptical of a man whom you shot with your own gun, while he wore no clothes, only to see the bullet bounce of his body?"

To answer the first question, I stand by my same point after elaborating on my definition of "documented" cases.

As for the second question, I would certainly find it bizarre and would want others to see it as well. I would want the man tested in controlled conditions by ballistics experts to see if he's legitimately bulletproof or if I were duped or witnessed some sort of freak occurrence.

Originally posted by Scubadude:
"Um, without hearing my opinions you already said you are probably going to disagree. That is the definition of closed minded."

No, it's not. Otherwise, no one would ever change their mind on any issue, would they?

Originally posted by Scubadude:
"Yeah, I noticed the difference between listening and accepting when I was a kid and dad said "don't touch the hot stove". Weather you are closed minded or not is none of my concern. There is a difference between grasping someones spiritual thoughts and intelctualizng a subject."

And the problem with that is there's countless spirtual thoughts (as well as intellectual arguments) that contradict each other - often significantly. It is clear that they can't all be right or genuine. Someone has to be wrong, and it could be everyone.

Originally posted by Scubadude:
"So, what's your point? You think I ought to view my God as a K-mart? If he doesn't give me what I paid for, than the seller is flawed? You are already approaching the 'question' from a biased point of view.

I'm not treating God like anything - because God has never spoken to me (audibly or in some emotional form). I don't believe there's a God to speak to. But my point is that fantastic claims that go well beyond what we see in our day-to-day lives should be scrutinized, and I apply that to religion.

Things that sound too good to be true usually are, and I think the idea of everlasting life with a divine father figure and all of our loved ones fits that bill. It's certainly more attractive than the alternative - that we will simply die, our consciousness will cease, our bodies will decompose, and that we will never again see our loved ones, though that's all we appear to witness whenever someone dies.

Originally posted by Scubadude:
"I'm not going to convince you of anything. But I already am suspicious you are just trying to hone your argumentation skills with a bunch of Christians. Aren't you? Try a question you haven't asked before. Is there one?"

If you would rather not discuss my question, then don't. But please do not send my thread off on a tangent. I asked a legitimate question, and I am looking forward to every answer.

[Scubadude]

If you would rather not discuss my question, then don't. But please do not send my thread off on a tangent. I asked a legitimate question, and I am looking forward to every answer.

Good luck with that, then.

[Athanasius]

When I say documented, I'm referring to cases that are verifiable to everyone with an interest. It is documented, for example, that Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States in 1863. No sane person would dispute that statement.

Your definition of documented is not the same. If it is, then it is also documented that many people have been abducted by alien beings from other planets. There's plenty of documented, detailed evidence regarding it and various accounts from supposed abductees.

But where do you draw the line when it comes to the major specifics that cannot be verified?

When I say documented, I'm referring to cases that are documented, most likely in print. Whether or not they are verified (I would probably call this sort of document a 'verified document') is a different though related question, presumably the one you really wish to discuss. I would 'draw the line' in keeping the distinction I talk about above. In equivocating between 'documented' and 'verified,' I believe you are assuming your conclusion. That is, your definition precludes Scriptural witness.

That makes for a Sophist, but does it make for a scholar?

In any case, I do believe you are justified in being skeptical of the Scriptural claims of Jesus, don't get me wrong. I just do not believe you are actually interested in the question so much as you are interested in arguing over the issue for the sake of arguing. We have documented claims about the person of Jesus, those claims would need to be examined before we can come to any sort of conclusion about why you should believe belief in Jesus to be "reasonable". I believe Scripture's witness to be accurate, presumably you do not. As you're taking the negative and there could be any number of reasons you don't accept Scripture, rather than create a straw man of your position, I will wait until you outline why you reject Scripture and we can go from there.

To answer the first question, I stand by my same point after elaborating on my definition of "documented" cases.

As for the second question, I would certainly find it bizarre and would want others to see it as well. I would want the man tested in controlled conditions by ballistics experts to see if he's legitimately bulletproof or if I were duped or witnessed some sort of freak occurrence.

It's a wonder why skeptics are almost never skeptical about their skepticism. Oh, and I'm probably just as skeptical as you are

That said, we really must get to the issue, rather than skirt around it with bad definitions and hypothetical situations.

[watchinginawe]

Christians,

In a world full of scams, deceptions, exaggerations, honest mistakes and outright lies, why is it reasonable to believe that a man who supposedly lived 2,000 years ago (when there was little organized communication or skepticism compared to today) was a deity in the flesh?

It doesn't seem reasonable, does it. But that 2,000 years is not a gap without reference to Jesus. We had the Gospels being referenced by many 2nd century writers. So we could re-phrase your point by 1,900 years or so. So would it be more reasonable to believe Jesus was who he said he was if he supposedly lived 100 years ago? That was the question the second century skeptics faced. But then we have the texts themselves, which reference the evangelism in the years just after Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension; and how the Gospel met the resistance of skeptics. For example, read Acts 17:15-34. But then the texts even mention those contemporary with Jesus and the skepticism He Himself met. For example, read Mark 6:1-6.

So there isn't a period of time where at least some folks thought Jesus to make an unreasonable claim of Himself.

The Apostle Paul offered:

II Timothy 2:11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:

12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

What we resonably observe won't change the truth of the matter.

God Bless!

[tango]

Christians,

In a world full of scams, deceptions, exaggerations, honest mistakes and outright lies, why is it reasonable to believe that a man who supposedly lived 2,000 years ago (when there was little organized communication or skepticism compared to today) was a deity in the flesh?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

It seems to me you've got two questions embedded in there. Firstly, did Jesus Christ the man ever exist at all. Secondly, assuming he did, was he really God incarnate.

To address the first one is a matter of history. Others here can give you more details than I can off the top of my head, but suffice to say that to argue that the man Jesus Christ never existed is as historically pointless as to argue that Julius Caesar never existed.

So if we move on to the second point, whether this man who claimed to be God really was God. When someone makes a claim, however mundane or outlandish, we can summarise the truthfulness quite easily, on the basis that one and only one of the following can apply.

A. The statement is true
B. The statement is not true

We can break (B) down into two further options

B1. The person believes it to be true (i.e. they are mistaken or deluded)
B2. The person knows it to be false (i.e. they are lying)

So when Jesus said he was God, he was either a liar, or a madman (I'll rule out mistaken, that's not the sort of thing you forget about the way you forget where you left your keys), or he was telling the truth.


If he was a liar it is inconceivable he would have suffered the agony and humiliation of a public crucifixion for something he knew was a lie.

If he was a madman he would never have agitated the religious leaders of the day to the point they had him executed. He'd have been an irritation and soon forgotten.

In either of the above scenarios his claims would soon have been forgotten. Many people have made claims to divinity, usually promising great rewards to their followers, and when they die their followers move on to something else. Jesus preached a message of putting others before yourself, of being last in order to be first - the exact opposite of what the world wants to hear. So something must have happened to keep that message alive. Which leads me on to the third option.

If Jesus was telling the truth, if Jesus was God, and if Jesus is the only way to God (as he said directly in John 14:6), how are you going to respond?

[Firefighter]

Can you think of any single man that has changed the world more that Jesus Christ? To deny the impact He has made on the history of the world would be downright silly. That alone puts Him above every human that has ever existed.