christainity depends the bible being historic factural

[ebgebg]

the problen with internet forums is that people jumb in the middle without understanding what has already been said...what as already been discussed...what has already been agreed upon and disagreed upon. This thread only lasted 4 pages before the conversation regressed back to already been said.

 

[fantome profane]

the problen with internet forums is that people jumb in the middle without understanding what has already been said...what as already been discussed...what has already been agreed upon and disagreed upon. This thread only lasted 4 pages before the conversation regressed back to already been said.

Welcome to the forum.

Some threads on the board go on for hundreds of pages (depending on your settings). This one is still quite small, and I have read it all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

the problen with internet forums is that people jumb in the middle without understanding what has already been said...

... or initiate a thread without knowing what they're talking about. :yes:

 

[danieldemol]

So, we can accept witness testimony, subject to an indiviual judgement upon the creditbility of claim and witness character?

To avoid confusion let's call it a chain of transmission instead of a witness.

I would say we could accept that as a personal belief that an event happened in history. To accept it as a scientifically historical fact it would have to have evidence (not merely testimony) such that no other conclusion could reasonably be considered possible.

As Investigate Truth pointed out, we also have to consider whether we are receiving a literal event through this chain of transmission or an allegorical event.

Yes, as per expert testimony of historians, there is non-religious documentation of the tomb being empty. I don't have the specifics, and I don't recall the book or historian, but I did read about it.

I have to agree with Fantome on this one, it is necessary for you to do some homework and present these claims more thoroughly so that they may be subject to analysis if you want us to draw conclusions on the basis of this.

 

[Ingledsva]

So..your saying jesus christ dying on the cross..and raising from the dead makes no diffeerence to christain belief if its a myth or a historic fact. If it's a myth..then christianity is a lie, but if it's a fact..then christianity is ver real. There is no in between...either jesus was divine olr he wasn't

Actually the verses concerning Jesus do not say he is God, or Divine, when read in the original language.

Christians can call themselves Christians - followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ - without any belief in the trinity doctrine.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Suppose hypothetically a dead body getting back up and walking around actually occurred in history, people who did not witness the event would have no way of knowing if such an event was factually true or not when they were told the story after it.

Assume hypothetically that my dead Grandfather just climbed out of his grave and started walking around again. If I just told you about it would you believe it to be true even if it had actually happened say 5 minutes ago for arguments sake?

Yes, plus graves opening up and other dead people wandering around would have sparked a lot of witness stories - and we have none.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

So the indiviual's judgement as to the creditbility of the bible being historical accurate as to what events transpired is the issue? What percentage of the bible being a reliable source of historically accuracy does the probability that the bible is the word of god is correct? 50%? 75% for me it's 100%

NO percentage would prove such! Any historical accuracy in the Bible - would not in any way prove the invisible God - rising Jesus - or talking snakes and donkey parts.

*

 

[Sunstone]

Christian faith is dependent upon the bible being a historic fact.

1. Jesus was cruxified...and died for our sins
2. Jesus raised himself from the dead.
3. Jesus was deity

christianity cannot be a philosophy like budism...because christianity
depends upon that Jesus dying on the cross and raising himself from the dead is
a historic fact.

Christianity arguements start with biblical archaeology. Historian research of ancient document (where ordinary people do not read material of this kind).

I've heard people argue along your lines before. If I recall, they explained themselves more or less this way: The sole justification or necessity for Christ to enter the world and be sacrificed was in order to redeem mankind. Moreover, the necessity to redeem mankind was because of the fall of Adam and Eve. Hence, if any of those facts are not actually facts (e.g. Adam and Eve didn't really exist), then Christianity is in some significant sense a false religion.

Is that an adequate way of stating your own views, ebgebg?

 

[Thief]

Caught a radio preacher yesterday....defining Christian faith.

The creeds are basic but dogmatic.

As for historical reference....none on paper or stone.

But to say no one was first ...in humanity and spirit...is poor logic.
Someone had to be first.

That Genesis couples that event with other events doesn't take any of that away.

Seems the difficulty believing in Adam and Eve is not that lack of terms on stone.
It seems more to allowing God to 'tweak' His creation.

Man as a species...Day Six....so it is written.
Male and female...no names...no garden....no law....

THEN Chapter Two.

Equating Man and his spiritual beginnings....and the manipulation performed in the Garden...seems too much to believe.
And yet, for thousands of years people relate the story generation after generation.

Can you see yourself at campfire and hearing of a man laid to sleep...
and a rib cut from his body...
and he did not die.

Only in these more current days of science....can we know it is possible.
In the days of Moses.....was it beyond belief?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Caught a radio preacher yesterday....defining Christian faith.

The creeds are basic but dogmatic.

As for historical reference....none on paper or stone.

But to say no one was first ...in humanity and spirit...is poor logic.
Someone had to be first.

That Genesis couples that event with other events doesn't take any of that away.

Seems the difficulty believing in Adam and Eve is not that lack of terms on stone.
It seems more to allowing God to 'tweak' His creation.

Man as a species...Day Six....so it is written.
Male and female...no names...no garden....no law....

THEN Chapter Two.

Equating Man and his spiritual beginnings....and the manipulation performed in the Garden...seems too much to believe.
And yet, for thousands of years people relate the story generation after generation.

Can you see yourself at campfire and hearing of a man laid to sleep...
and a rib cut from his body...
and he did not die.

Only in these more current days of science....can we know it is possible.
In the days of Moses.....was it beyond belief?

Can you see yourself by a campfire and hearing of a woman who made love to a swan and bore its children? Or that a great turtle carried the world, or that from two pieces of wood came man? Or there once existed a man who was the son of the Gods who performed twelve labors of strength. Or a man whose only weakness was his heel??

 

[sojourner]

Christian faith is dependent upon the bible being a historic fact.

1. Jesus was cruxified...and died for our sins
2. Jesus raised himself from the dead.
3. Jesus was deity

christianity cannot be a philosophy like budism...because christianity
depends upon that Jesus dying on the cross and raising himself from the dead is
a historic fact.

Christianity arguements start with biblical archaeology. Historian research of ancient document (where ordinary people do not read material of this kind).

1) Jesus was crucified, not "cruxified."
2) Jesus didn't "raise himself" from the dead.
3) Xy doesn't "depend upon Jesus dying on the cross and raising himself from the dead" as an historical fact.

 

[sojourner]

If the Bible is not historical fact then all Christians including myself are simply wasting our time. Saying that I do not understand Christians who do not take the Bible literally as the Bible is rendered effectively worthless if the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is not taken literally.

Then you have a serious problem.

I was just gonna say...
Thanks for beating me to it!

 

[sojourner]

I'm afraid a decent number of Christians must have missed your memo, because they're doing just fine in their faith/religion without this.

thank you

:clap

Indeed!

 

[sojourner]

If it's a myth..then christianity is a lie

Oh? Really!
Jesus is far more influential as a paradigm than as an historical figure.

 

[sojourner]

But christianity is a conviction upon the 'divinity of jesus christ being the truth..and that the events of resurrection is a historic fact. More then just a belief as to a a life style.

"The divinity of Christ" can be true without being "historically accurate."

 

[sojourner]

Christian believe is the convection that jesus died on the cross and payed for our sins and raised himself from the dead. As a christian..the trinity is a position that a truth.

No. Many, many of us don't believe that. The Trinity does not support that position.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Didn't Paul say though that if Christ was not raised then it was all for nothing?

 

[sojourner]

... or initiate a thread without knowing what they're talking about. :yes:

:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[Ingledsva]

Didn't Paul say though that if Christ was not raised then it was all for nothing?

Maybe those later people that wrote the gospels misunderstood Jesus' teachings, and embellished what they though it meant.

He taught that all were "dead" and had to be "raised."

Belief in his teaching is supposedly the dividing line between death and "life."

He is the first to "rise."

So we next have the story of him going down to the graves to teach those already in the grave, so they can "rise." Then we have the story of graves opening and the dead "rise."

I think they misunderstood something meant to be spiritual, happening in the "other" world, and turned it into a witness story.

*

 

[danieldemol]

Didn't Paul say though that if Christ was not raised then it was all for nothing?

Yes, but I think from memory it was Paul who addressed the early church saying, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." (1Corinthians 12:27).

Since the early church was the "body of Christ", obviously if the body had not been raised then the sacrifice Jesus made was all for nothing if the church died with Him.