Jesus' Divinity

[rom422]

Credo in Deum (Post #6) suggested that we all read the arguments of Fulton Sheen. Credo in Deum gave a link. I find it to be a very good read. Did anyone else?

 

[Cristiano]

Thought_Officer:

Well, I mean, that’s a poorly reasoned argument whether you apply my criteria or not (we can infer that we exist because there is evidence of our existence; cogito ergo sum, and all that noise). I would say (just to tidy up the analogy), that since we have never seen a universe come into existence before, we conclude not that it doesn’t exist, but that we don’t know how it came to exist–that’s a fair statement. But as you see, I’m applying a similar principle of caution over interpreting the existence of the universe as with Jesus’ divinity…

I agree with you that the extrapolation to the fact that I do not exist is poor reasoning from that argument. I was being sarcastic with my last statement and I should have used a smiley to indicate sarcasm. But I am glad to see that you agree that if we use that logic we cannot say that the universe came to exist.

 

[clmowry]

Thought_Officer:

I’m not following. Why bother to discuss what?

Jesus’ Divinity. You’ve simply declared it an impossiblity. So why are you engaged in the conversation. Any conversation on this forum for that matter?

Chuck

 

[Philthy]

Thought_Officer:

I’m not fussy, any kind of proof of resurrection would be fine.

What about the testimony of the martyrs? St Peter new Christ personally and had witnessed his Resurrection and went to his death rather than deny his faith. Or did you mispeak when you said “…any kind of proof of resurrection would be fine.”

I’m saying we cast serious doubt on other claims of people being the messiah (which we must necessarily do so in order to confirm Jesus as the real McCoy),

And which is more easily accomplished - and hence more reasonable - due to the lack of evidence, lack of prophecy and lack of witnesses to these others you speak of.

Belief in Jesus’ resurrection is therefore a faith-based enterprise, not one that’s going to be supported by evidence.

Both are required - and this is true for ANY claim to having been resurrected. The fact of the matter is that there is more evidence and validity surrounding the Resurrection of Christ than any of the others you allege, and this is what distinguishes Him from the others.

In keeping with the thread theme, Jesus’ divinity must surely also be a purely faith-based assertion.

I disagree. The fact that an itinerant preacher from nowhere who died an ignoble, public death at the hands of his enemies manages to have his writings preserved and his influence spread by his unimpressive disciples and their followers over 2000 years is unreasonable to attribute to mere luck. I cannot think of any other person who has accomplished this and reason compels me to understand how it happened. We know the effect, but what caused it? One reasonable answer is that he possessed a power none of them did. Further, it appears according to some in this thread, that many others of his time had claimed to be the Messiah and to have resurrected during his time. The inquiring mind wishes to know why, exactly, His is a name that continues to shape the course of history today and not one of the others has had even the slightest influence on the course of humanity. I would not call someone who comes to believe that He was, in fact, what He claimed to be a “purely faith-based assertion”. It requires faith but it also has elements of reason within it and it does not contradict reason.

 

[Philthy]

Thought_Officer:

I didn’t misspeak. Any kind of proof; not any kind of testimony.

An eye witness testimony is not a “kind of proof”? I’m not sure what you mean by “any kind of proof”. Please provide two examples of the proof you seek with respect to any other personal historical event from, say, 1000 years ago. I don’t believe it exists. And if it does not, then does that mean we simply cannot believe that they existed or that it is unreasonable to believe so or does it simply mean that we cannot prove it?

If I told you I was resurrected last summer, would you believe me? No, absolutely not. You might attribute the unbelievability of my claims to the dearth of testimonial, writing, and longevity around them. But none of those things add credibility to an otherwise unbelievable claim. A myth believed for a long time is still a myth.

This is not the situation we are dealing with. You were not publicly executed and then found walking the earth, speaking with those who had witnessed your death, and those who witnessed the events gave their lives rather than recant their testimony. When you have all that in place around your story then you’ll have made a point. Until then, you don’t. You have made the point that people can lie. That is not the situation before us regarding Christ’s Resurrection.

Well, I’m suggesting the lack of development around other claims can’t be a reason to rule them out.

And it is a weak point.

He is distinguished only by the sheer mass of literature around his name.

Really? There is nothing else which distinguishes Christ from these other mere mortals? It appears that you have not actually given any thought to some of the fundamental differences between them.

I see that you’re in awe of the probabilities. But these are probabilities calculated a posteriori. Large groups of people have believed many things over the course of history, and the story of Jesus is a victorious one—just as there have been other victorious stories that have had their season and passed

.
Which of these beliefs - exactly - held by large groups of people still survives today? I’d like to compare your selection of the very best and most believable of these stories to all the info surrounding Christ so that I can test the veracity of your claim.
What I see is that you are struggling to deal with the true magnitude of the facts surrounding Christ and attempting to marginalize them with vague claims of “other victorious stories” when, in fact, you will nothing even remotely similar.

What you no doubt view as a sort of divine destiny could have developed into anything however. The Gnostic forms of Christianity, for example, proliferated prodigiously in the early centuries, and there were so many sects with differing views (and scripture) on Jesus that it could not have been determined at the time which one would eke out a lasting influence. It can’t be attributed to mere luck, but then luck in the sense that you’re using it is a misnomer.

I’ll wait to hear your best representation of “other victorious stories” to address what appears to me to be another denial of the uniqueness of Christ.

I understand that it is a reasoned position. I’m not of the ilk to say “ah, it’s irrational, it’s irrational!” My difficulty with any faith-based element—even if it is componential, rather than the whole of what solidifies our belief—an appeal for faith can be made to any claim and on any grounds. Reason discriminates, but faith does not. They are not incompatible, but they also don’t have any obligation to stand in reference to one another. Between faith and reason, no proportion exists.

Reason discriminates imperfectly, just as faith does. This simply leads us to the conclusion that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty (ie agnostic) or, for some, to the conclusion that truth does not exist. You seem to have applied the former concept selectively to Christ while denying it’s application to the rest of what we commonly refer to as history.

Truth exists independent of our ability to apprehend it, to preserve it or to demonstrate it. Our desire for it, however, despite these limitations is something worth reflecting upon.

 

[clmowry]

Thought_Officer:

Ah, yeah. I thought that’s where this was going. The thread topic is on Jesus’ divinity: I find it an interesting topic on which to engage. I’ve reasoned that Jesus divinity isn’t supported by tales of resurrection; it’s not technically impossible, just dubious. You figure that I have a starting position and I eke out my reasoning for the position on forum grounds just to be in opposition. I’m here for the same reason as everyone: to expand on my understanding of Catholicism, and to interrogate the aspects of it that I find puzzling.

Is that a sufficient reason for wanting to post here?

I want to invite you to consider something: that when a conversation isn’t going as planned, according to members, people will often invoke the “Why are you even here” question to make this unwelcomed space. You don’t have to like my position, but I’m entitled to have it. I’ve defended it, after all.

Of course your welcome to post your thoughts.

I’m just trying to undertand why one would bother if they’d ruled the subject an impossibility.

Here you reverse that position from “impossible” to “dubious.”

I can understand why you would ingage in discussion on a subject you find “dubious.”

I can’t think of any positive motivation, however, for engaging in a discusion that starts with: I won’t accept any evidence because what you propose is impossible.

I was hoping you could provide me with one.

Chuck

 

[AJB328]

Thought_Officer:

I’ve heard the argument numerous times that Jesus was either a liar, lunatic, or the son of God. I tend to think that those aren’t the only options though. You can be heavily misinformed, or delusional, without being a lunatic. It poses a false trilemma, if you will.

I’m interested in knowing how Catholics distinguish Jesus from the other alleged Messiah’s performing miracles and resurrecting themselves during that time (and prior).

The problem with other alleged Messiahs is that for the most part, their stories are being rewritten all the time by “mythicists” (atheists who try to debunk Jesus as a real person).
Horus is a great example of this.

According to ancient accounts he was born at Harvest time towards the end of October. His mother was not a virgin, she was a widow who raised her husband from the dead and conceived her son, and he never healed anyone, he didn’t teach anyone, he never died and therefore was never resurrected. He spent most of his time fighting his uncle. The real story looks much more like Hamlet than anything you’ll read in the Gospels. And this is the guy who is constantly claimed to be the direct inspiration for Jesus.

Same thing with Krishna and Dionysus who bear even less resemblance. Neither were born on December 25th, (which by the way is a tell tale sign someone is making up a story because Jesus himself wasn’t born on December 25th, the church, lacking specific evidence for the real date chose to replace a pagan holiday with the birth of Jesus) Neither were born to a virgin (dionysus was sewn up in Zues’ thigh) and neither died to be resurrected.

There is a saying, dead men tell no tales, well mythical Gods of ancient times tell even fewer. People can get creative with the lives of these little known gods and people will take it at face value. If it weren’t for a few Ancient mythology classes I took in college I wouldn’t know what to think.

 

[Philthy]

Thought_Officer:

I will give you one example with two parts: consider that Muslims destroyed the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem shortly after 1000ce

.
OK, I have considered it. Now prove it.

There is archeological evidence for this:

We don’t want evidence, we want proof. Any kind of proof…

signs of destruction and re-construction are innumerable.

That is not proof, it’s evidence of a suggestion of what may have happened. I don’t know how the fact that something was constructed and destructed proves that Muslims - or anyone else for that matter - did it. Furthermore I asked for “a personal historical event”. Can you prove that a single Muslim was involved in this incident - Y or N?

Archeological evidence serves a good function, as eye witness testimony does when the events are realistic or can be verified.

The topic, unfortunately, is not archeology. Most facts do not have archeological support for them. Providing an example of a type of proof that doesnt exist for most things is not realistic and not relevant.
You claim a Muslim was in existence in 1000 ce. I ask you again to provide “proof” of that fact just as you required for the case of Christ. When you do, then I will understand what you are looking for as “proof” in the case of the resurrection of Christ.

 

[Philthy]

Thought_Officer:

As I said, tell me what’s unique about Jesus. But better than that, tell me why his story’s uniqueness provides evidence of his divinity.

I’d like to. The context of the uniqueness of his story, however, is in it’s distinction from the other nameless resurrected messiahs of his time that you (or maybe the OP)introduced as mitigating it. So in order for you to be told “what’s unique about Jesus” we need to hear just one of these alleged stories of a resurrected messiah so that we can compare Jesus’ story to it and expose those unique aspects. Without that, you and others will simply maintain that since others have made similar claims historically, that “there is nothing unique about Jesus” Well, it’s time for us to review the very best, most credible story out there so that we can see for ourselves how comparable the claims are and whether or not the evidence suggests Christ is merely one among many or something entirely different. Where are these other messiahs?

 

[rom422]

Thought_Officer:

I’ve heard the argument numerous times that Jesus was either a liar, lunatic, or the son of God. I tend to think that those aren’t the only options though. You can be heavily misinformed, or delusional, without being a lunatic. It poses a false trilemma, if you will.

OK, so let’s add the other options and revise the sentence as “Jesus was either heavily misinformed, delusional, liar, lunatic, or the Son of God.” The argument still stands. If He was none of the other alternatives, then He could only be the Son of God.

I’m interested in knowing how Catholics distinguish Jesus from the other alleged Messiah’s performing miracles and resurrecting themselves during that time (and prior).

How was Jesus different from others who performed miracles?

First, His coming was pre-announced, a point made by Fulton Sheen in the text referred to us by Credo. The pre-announcement is on Old Testament texts, which may be taken as archaeological evidence for it.

Second, Christ claimed to be God, not just teacher, prophet, savior or messiah. Other so-called “messiahs” performed miracles and were revered as divine by their followers, but they themselves did not claim that they were God. Christ, on the other hand, did not merely perform miracles, but He categorically claimed to be the Son of God, equal to the Father in divinity.

Third, Christ did not come into this world merely to demonstrate His power by performing miracles, healing the sick, etc. Christ came primarily to redeem us, - not from poverty, suffering and ignorance, - but from sin. He was a moral and spiritual redeemer, not merely a wonder worker, healer, or political leader. The purpose of His coming into the world, and the way He would save us from sin - by death on the Cross - were also matters foretold in Old Testament prophecies.

All the above are some of the reasons why we Catholics hold Christ to be different from other alleged messiahs. The list is not exhaustive, but I don’t want to make this post too long.

 

[clmowry]

Thought_Officer:

I’m suggesting that historical evidence (archaeology as I’ve suggested, just by example) is the closest rendering of proof available. We can discount the evidence, and thus the ‘proof,’ of other events because, while historical tellings may be suggestive of the event, reason directs our attention to whether the event is even possible (Holy Fire, for example, not being possible, and coincidentally, having no good evidence in its favour).

How would there be any “archaeology” that would provide evidence for (or against) the “resurrection” or “divinity” of Chirst (or anyone else)?

Chuck

 

[Philthy]

Thought_Officer:

I’m suggesting that historical evidence (archaeology as I’ve suggested, just by example) is the closest rendering of proof available.

As I stated, you proved nothing and failed to meet your own standard of proof. Furthermore, as I pointed out, I asked you for a “personal historical event” that you could prove. You have now twice avoided provided anything remotely related to my request. I’m suggesting that you have created an impossible standard and that your claim of “any kind of proof” was, in fact, a misstatement on your part.

We can discount the evidence, and thus the ‘proof,’ of other events because, while historical tellings may be suggestive of the event, reason directs our attention to whether the event is even possible

Again, you have created your own idea of what is “reasonable” and have decided based upon said fallible reason whether an event is possible. I don’t accept your assessment of what is reasonable and therefore reject your line of reasoning.

(Holy Fire, for example, not being possible, and coincidentally, having no good evidence in its favour).

It’s kind of funny to see you attempting to establish what is “not…possible”. I’ve heard that some things considered impossible happened nonetheless at Fatima. No doubt the fact that they happened would not dissuade your assessment that because they are “impossible” they did not happen.