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