How do we know Jesus is God?

[Sochi]

I’d take methodical faith over irrational doubt any day of the week.

Thank you for your time, Amandil.

That most do not have methodical faith because they do not have methodical doubt is my point. “Methodical faith” given what most people believe, of any religion, is what I claim doesn’t prevail despite what in many cases, particularly the Catholic, is a very highly developed methodology as the arguments of the Church. And that is fine, despite, well, much. But inherent in that greatly admirable edifice of intellectualism is, from my perspective, a fatal flaw. One point it might be seen to start is Mark 4, 33,34. I have in many posts named others, in particular that about the last thing the “faithful” do is critically examine the nature of faith itself, as a phenomenon. So what I’m saying here only appears contrary in some sense because it is devoted primarily to one faith. My questions aren’t.

And I really don’t care if you agree with them or not, because if you are as set as you seem to be in your faith, that is wonderful for you. But then you aren’t the one of the few I might be talking with. Faith has its use, despite many drawbacks well treated of elsewhere even than these fora. Yet it is great if it is doing what you want it to for you. But this is a Philosophy forum, and ideas contrary to the entrenched position of may may be aired here. And jeez, what if I come back to the Church by being here?

 

[josephback]

It would be near impossible to “produce” a body, even if he isn’t God.
It was contrary to Roman custom, so far as we can tell, to allow for a decent burial of a crucified man.
Many ancient sources cite the practice of letting the bodies remain on the cross:
Horace, Epistle 1.16.46-45; Petronius Satyricon 111-112; Artemidorius’s Dream Handbook 2.53; The Church History of Eusebius 5.1.61-62 and more.
Or…of putting them in a common grave: Plutarch’s Moralia 307C; Tacitus Annals 6.26, Suetonius Augustus 13, and others.

.

What about the disciple’s enthusiasm post crucifixion? They at least were convinced.

 

[josephback]

I want to convert question. What will we gain if Jesus is God but not just a prophet.

İslam know Jesus as a prophet(in Qur’an) and Messiah(in Hadiths not in Qur’an). Jesus will come back on the world in times near the end of the world and He will struggle towards Dejjal(anti faith and anti religion) and Jesus will defeat Dejjal and will raise faith and reconcile between Christianity and İslam.

I think question must be “Why does Jesus cannot be God!”

Jesus being God is necessary for the redemption of the world, which presupposes the Christian doctrine of original sin. There’s a class offered on Islam at the university I’m transferring too. I’ve thought about getting a Religious Studies minor, and it would be interesting to look into Islamic perception of Jesus and also the Mahdi.

 

[josephback]

According to traditional Hindu beliefs God periodically incarnates as a human being to teach and save human beings. So such a belief that Jesus was a God incarnate is not as outlandish as Jews and Muslims would claim.

Is that why the folks who write books on Gnosticism claim he spent time in India? Interesting.

 

[josephback]

The teaching of Jesus is either divine or human. If it is not divine how did it originate?

I don’t know. That’s something worth looking into.

 

[tonyrey]

The teaching of Jesus is either divine or human. If it is not divine how did it originate?

It may lead further than you expect!

 

[POJIUJH]

POJIUHJ, you have a point. But it wasn’t a question; the question in it was pointing out that the author simply dismissed my statement without considering that there may be an at least valid background to my position.-] In other words, I agree with you, yet looking at so much on here one must conclude that there is a far greater investment in self verification than in actually perhaps learning something. I’m already quite clear on Linusthe2nd’s position, having strongly espoused it myself at one time. He has no clue of mine./-]

Linusthe2nd’s comment to me started out “Oh, please…” which in my circles is equivalent to saying “you’re and idiot” -]and went on in that vein, demonstrating exactly what I was trying to get to, that part of a strongly inculcated faith is a certain quality of arrogance. Do you know the root derivation of arrogance? It means "without question(ing). That includes a rapid and unthinking dismissal of the fact, right or wrong according to some Catholics perceptions, that there do exist other ways of looking at things from other perspectives that are on their own either internally valid, (as are the arguments of the Church) or more Universally valid. /-]

-]So, you are right, I got a bit frustrated. On the other hand, I’ve had at least one, maybe more statements similar to yours made on my behalf by Catholics on here to other Catholics. So there was also an element in my words of crediting the object of my comment with skin at least as thick as mine. But as I said, still, you have a point. Thanks./-]

Sochi, I’m sorry to say this, but it seems your tone was clear enough, you are just arrogant.

You quoted Butaperson, who was clearly writing to the OP. Just because you write a comment before somebody else does doesn’t mean they must certainly have been replying to you.

And he is still right. Jesus very distinctly claimed divinity and His Apostles very clearly believed Him. The resurrection is very well grounded, it isn’t just something taken on faith. It would do well to research these things, as well as your concern about Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of Man.

But would that interest you? Because you don’t seem care for information that comes from other people. It is much more preferable for you to fight with people, claim subjectivism to any thought except your own, rambling with pretentious, insulting statement after statement and try to polish it off by attempting to write with difficult language because it makes you feel clever.

If you have some great philosophical point to make, go and make your own thread, put it into an argument and accept criticism. Being dead set on irrational doubt without questioning is crazy, and contradictory. Persisting in it and fitting insults around ramble in reply is wasting peoples time and patience.

Apologise to them, actually sincerely and straight this time. I’m subscribed to this thread - so you can go and rattle.

 

[Sochi]

Sochi, I’m sorry to say this, but it seems your tone was clear enough, you are just arrogant.

You quoted Butaperson, who was clearly writing to the OP. Just because you write a comment before somebody else does doesn’t mean they must certainly have been replying to you.

And he is still right. Jesus very distinctly claimed divinity and His Apostles very clearly believed Him. The resurrection is very well grounded, it isn’t just something taken on faith. It would do well to research these things, as well as your concern about Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of Man.

But would that interest you? Because you don’t seem care for information that comes from other people. It is much more preferable for you to fight with people, claim subjectivism to any thought except your own, rambling with pretentious, insulting statement after statement and try to polish it off by attempting to write with difficult language because it makes you feel clever.

If you have some great philosophical point to make, go and make your own thread, put it into an argument and accept criticism. Being dead set on irrational doubt without questioning is crazy, and contradictory. Persisting in it and fitting insults around ramble in reply is wasting peoples time and patience.

Apologise to them, actually sincerely and straight this time. I’m subscribed to this thread - so you can go and rattle.

Thank you for your comments, POJIUJH