christainity depends the bible being historic factural

[ebgebg]

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).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Christianity arguements start with biblical archaeology.

Rubbish.

 

[SonofSonofGod]

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.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the Bible is not historical fact then all Christians including myself are simply wasting our time.

Then you have a serious problem.

 

[Quintessence]

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

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.

 

[nazz]

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

 

[danieldemol]

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.

Lol, the resurrection takes up a very small portion of Gospel space, you are effectively saying that;

a) Most of the gospel is worthless
b) There is no value to the belief in immortality of the spirit

Whilst both are subjective statements, a) would indicate that there is not much in Christianity you find worthwhile if it's entire value can be reduced to one part of it, and b) is a nonsense statement because the immortality of the soul values Christ by establishing the futility of the actions of His enemies.

 

[ebgebg]

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.

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

 

[danieldemol]

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

What I understand Quintessence to be hinting at is that many people believe in non-factual things.

 

[ebgebg]

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.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I love the Tanakh and accept that it is mythology and this does not affect me although I am not a religious person to begin with

 

[danieldemol]

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?

 

[ebgebg]

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?

Then you are talking what type of evidence does a personnel needs to convience him or her about events being historical truth. Direct evidence, documentation, expert? Does a person needs to be convienced beyond doubt?
First..is there document evidence in ancient non religious documents that a person named jesus lived? Second..is there document evidence in ancient non religious documents that the person named jesus was cruxified by the romens?

 

[danieldemol]

Then you are talking what type of evidence does a personnel needs to convience him or her about events being historical truth. Direct evidence, documentation, expert? Does a person needs to be convienced beyond doubt?
First..is there document evidence in ancient non religious documents that a person named jesus lived? Second..is there document evidence in ancient non religious documents that the person named jesus was cruxified by the romens?

Well they are interesting points for debate although there are other threads covering them.

Besides which I accept that;
a) Jesus lived
b) Jesus' crucifixion was executed by the Romans

So it would be a very short debate if purely between you and me.

So let's move onto the purpose of this thread;
c) Is there reasonable evidence to suggest that after Jesus was crucified to physical death, His physical body got up and started walking, talking and living in general again?

 

[ebgebg]

Well they are interesting points for debate although there are other threads covering them.

Besides which I accept that;
a) Jesus lived
b) Jesus' crucifixion was executed by the Romans

So it would be a very short debate if purely between you and me.

So let's move onto the purpose of this thread;
c) Is there reasonable evidence to suggest that after Jesus was crucified to physical death, His physical body got up and started walking, talking and living in general again?

What is reasonable evidence as judged by the indiviual?

For example: a person can be convicted of murder just by circumstantail evidence alone.
Motive, opportunity, means is enough without direct evidence of a body or weopon.

Unlike criminal court..only a ponderence of evidence is needed to convience people of a truth.

Through biblical archeology, and historic research of ancient documents..we can show that the bible is consistent in historic accuracy of events.


Now, we may never have direct evidence (like a video tape) of the resurrection, but by circumstance the indiviual can decide for themself what is the truth.


4. Is the historic ancient non-religious documents of which verifies an empty tomb was found?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Myth can be more powerful than history.

 

[Quintessence]

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

One thing that is good to understand is that in a religious context, the word "myth" means something very different than how we tend to use it in common parlance. In common parlance, we (unfortunately, in my mind) use the word "myth" to indicate "lie or falsehood." In religion, myths are sacred stories infused with deep meaning and truths of that tradition. They teach values and ethics, hopes and dreams, relationships, and more; they teach a way of life and a worldview. The meaningfulness of a religion's mythos is not dependent on it's literal or factual truth; it stands regardless. In fact, mythos is not intended to be taken literally in the first place, and if you're taking it literally, you're probably missing the point of the story (or at the very least, you're missing some of its depth).

All of that said, I won't claim that there aren't Christians who choose to take their mythology literally, but this approach is a relatively recent phenomena and definitely not one shared by all Christians across the globe. Christians are a diverse lot, as are members of any religious demographic. Unless you're a mythological literalist, it doesn't make any difference if the story of Jesus is mythos or historical fact. It's lessons and inspiration stand regardless of this. Further, the sum total of the Christian religion doesn't boil down to it's mythology. The role the religion serves in its followers lives is bigger than that: there's community, there's virtuous living, there's meaningfulness.

There are others around the forums that could go into the fine points of this better than I if this topic really interests you.

 

[danieldemol]

What is reasonable evidence as judged by the indiviual?

For example: a person can be convicted of murder just by circumstantail evidence alone.
Motive, opportunity, means is enough without direct evidence of a body or weopon.

In Australia in 2011 alone there were 244 murders, I hope you are not suggesting that dead bodies coming back to life is anwhere near within the common range of human experience comparable to murder. There are obvious reasons why murder is much more believable than resurrection.

Nontheless you're summary of the conviction process doesn't really do it justice anyway imo. Anyone who doubts that should simply read the following article in it's entirety;
Murder conviction without a body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Through biblical archeology, and historic research of ancient documents..we can show that the bible is consistent in historic accuracy of events.

Let's not bring up a hundred and one unrelated biblical events, let's talk about the purpose of this thread - resurrection of dead bodies, for which there is no evidence of the sort mentioned above.

Now, we may never have direct evidence (like a video tape) of the resurrection, but by circumstance the indiviual can decide for themself what is the truth.


4. Is the historic ancient non-religious documents of which verifies an empty tomb was found?

More importantly, is an empty tomb evidence that a dead body got up and started living again? There are other perfectly natural possiblilities, for example the body could have been moved whilst still dead, or they could possibly have identified the wrong tomb as the holy Sepulchre. As far as I know no church makes acceptance of the church of the holy Sepulchre an article of Christian faith, and I'm inclined to think that although it possibly is, the lack of certainty asserted by some of Christianity's most dogmatic supporters suggests that to use this empty tomb as reasonable evidence of resurrection is perhaps not so well founded.

To re-phrase my earlier question, would you accept the witness testimony of 4 or 5 witnesses as sufficient evidence to believe that my grandfather is stretching his legs after a stint in the grave?

UNODC homicide statistics

 

[ebgebg]

So now we come to the point of witness testimony...creditbility? Yes..witness testimony is acceptable. Are you saying that witness testimony is not viable as to convience someone as to a truth?

Also..an empty tomb doesn't infer resurrection...but the establish fact of an empty tomb allolws the following question on how it became empty.

Is there historic non-religious evidence that the tomb was empty?

 

[ebgebg]

All of that said, I won't claim that there aren't Christians who choose to take their mythology literally, but this approach is a relatively recent phenomena and definitely not one shared by all Christians across the globe. Christians are a diverse lot, as are members of any religious demographic. Unless you're a mythological literalist, it doesn't make any difference if the story of Jesus is mythos or historical fact. It's lessons and inspiration stand regardless of this. Further, the sum total of the Christian religion doesn't boil down to it's mythology. The role the religion serves in its followers lives is bigger than that: there's community, there's virtuous living, there's meaningfulness.

There are others around the forums that could go into the fine points of this better than I if this topic really interests you.

Christianity isn't based on a a phylosophy of life. Good morals and ethics were debated upon before jesus time. Christianity cannot be based on a belief of jesus being a seeker of truth. 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.