christainity depends the bible being historic factural

[Quintessence]

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.

Beg your pardon, but you have a pretty narrow definition of Christianity. You're free to your own convictions of what makes a "real Christian" of course, but I'd recognize that both scholars and many Christians are not going to agree with how you're painting the religion. They disagree that mythological literalism is required. If it was, I'd wager at least half of people who identify as Christian in the world would suddenly not be "real Christians" according to you.

 

[nazz]

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?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...732-rational-defense-belief-resurrection.html

 

[gilligan8914]

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).

Why pick on christianity? The same can be said of every religion that relies on words written on paper instead of personal experience.

 

[ebgebg]

Beg your pardon, but you have a pretty narrow definition of Christianity. You're free to your own convictions of what makes a "real Christian" of course, but I'd recognize that both scholars and many Christians are not going to agree with how you're painting the religion. They disagree that mythological literalism is required. If it was, I'd wager at least half of people who identify as Christian in the world would suddenly not be "real Christians" according to you.

Three signs of Gnosic beliefs (that being trying to harmonizing
philosophy as biblical teachings)

1)the founder has spiritial contact with angels
2)only a certain group has secret and special knowledge of the bible
3)Jesus is "de-throwned" from being devine and instead is replaced has a great teacher or philosopher.

Christianity is a narrow definition, but it's not an exclusive sect.

 

[ChristineES]

The minute Christians realize the Bible is not real the better. 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

You are not going to convince any Christians that our scriptures are fake, including me.

 

[Willamena]

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

If (the story of) Christianity is historical, then reality is very scary.

 

[danieldemol]

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?

I think a lot of people would accept that the type of evidence required depends on the nature of the claim made.

Additionally, in the case of the witnesses you refer to it is up for debate whether their statements were allegorical or literal.

Even for a relatively ordinary experience such as murder witness testimonies only launch an investigation and are not enough to solely bring about conviction.

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?

I would have to say not that I know of. If you are reffering to the testimony of the guards originally posted at the tomb after the entombment, they didn't record it themselves, religious people did which makes it a witness testimony of the religious, instead of non-religious evidence.

Do you know of any historic non-religious evidence?

 

[ChristineES]

Why pick on christianity? The same can be said of every religion that relies on words written on paper instead of personal experience.

They use Christianity (a lot of people) because Christianity is the most familiar religion to them. And Christianity can be a more... "in your face" kind of religion in certain cases. Most other faiths and religions don't actively proselytize.

 

[fantome profane]

ok, I will be the one to say it.

The discussion about the relative merit of eye witness testimony is irrelevant because we don't have eye witness testimony. Not for the crucifixion, not for the resurrection, and not for the empty tomb.

 

[ebgebg]

I would have to say not that I know of. If you are reffering to the testimony of the guards originally posted at the tomb after the entombment, they didn't record it themselves, religious people did which makes it a witness testimony of the religious, instead of non-religious evidence.

Do you know of any historic non-religious evidence?

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

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 histiorn, but I did read about it.

So...if historical there was a jesus, he was cruxified by the romans,he was buried in atomb, and the tomb was found empty...the question becomes historically how did the tomb become empty?

 

[fantome profane]

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

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 histiorn, but I did read about it.

So...if historical there was a jesus, he was cruxified by the romans,he was buried in atomb, and the tomb was found empty...the question becomes historically how did the tomb become empty?

No,there isn't any eye witness testimony about the tomb being empty. All we have is you claiming you read something sometime that said something. That is hardly impressive.

 

[ebgebg]

ok, I will be the one to say it.

The discussion about the relative merit of eye witness testimony is irrelevant because we don't have eye witness testimony. Not for the crucifixion, not for the resurrection, and not for the empty tomb.

Does biblical archeololgy and historic ancient religious and non-religious document verify the bible being historic truth? Though we use the anallogy of court procedures..the true question becomes "if the bible is found to be consistently historically accurate, would you as an indiviual judge the bible to be creditable as a source of God's word?

 

[fantome profane]

Does biblical archeololgy and historic ancient religious and non-religious document verify the bible being historic truth? Though we use the anallogy of court procedures..the true question becomes if the bible is found to be consistently historically accurate, would you as an indiviual judge the bible to be creditable as a source of God's word?

It does not work that way. Yes the Bible is historically accurate on some matters. That does not mean it is accurate on all matters. And as an analogy to court procedures if you are in court listening to someone give testimony you might believe part of what they say, all of what they say, or none of what they say. A single witness can tell the truth about one thing, and lie about something else, or just be in error.

And no, personally I do not think the Bible is "creditable as a source of God's word". And although it is sometimes an interesting and useful historical document I don't even think it is "consistently historically accurate". It is at best "occasionally historically accurate".

And I will repeat myself once again, there are no eye witness accounts of an empty tomb.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And I will repeat myself once again, there are no eye witness accounts of an empty tomb.

Even if there were truly eye witnesses of an empty tomb of Jesus, many things could have happened to His body. That doesn't prove Jesus physically resurrected.

 

[fantome profane]

Even if there were truly eye witnesses of an empty tomb of Jesus, many things could have happened to His body. That doesn't prove Jesus physically resurrected.

Agreed.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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

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 histiorn, but I did read about it.

So...if historical there was a jesus, he was cruxified by the romans,he was buried in atomb, and the tomb was found empty...the question becomes historically how did the tomb become empty?

The Bible says there were people who saw Jesus after Crucifixion. But in many cases 'Seeing' means, seeing with spiritual eye, meaning recognizing the Truth, and that they saw He was the Messiah. 'Seeing' does not always interpreted literally in the scriptures.

 

[fantome profane]

The Bible says there were people who saw Jesus after Crucifixion. But in many cases 'Seeing' means, seeing with spiritual eye, meaning recognizing the Truth, and that they saw He was the Messiah. 'Seeing' does not always interpreted literally in the scriptures.

And those are not eye witness accounts. Those are claims reported to us second hand (third hand, forth hand etc). Our friend here edgebg wants to make analogies to court procedures, and in court such testimony would be rejected as hearsay. To be fair from a historical perspective we do accept such testimony because it is often the best we can expect about events from thousands of years ago. But they are not eye witness accounts.

 

[ebgebg]

It does not work that way. Yes the Bible is historically accurate on some matters.
And no, personally I do not think the Bible is "creditable as a source of God's word". And although it is sometimes an interesting and useful historical document I don't even think it is "consistently historically accurate". It is at best "occasionally historically accurate".

And I will repeat myself once again, there are no eye witness accounts of an empty tomb.

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%

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And those are not eye witness accounts. Those are claims reported to us second hand (third hand, forth hand etc). Our friend here edgebg wants to make analogies to court procedures, and in court such testimony would be rejected as hearsay. To be fair from a historical perspective we do accept such testimony because it is often the best we can expect about events from thousands of years ago. But they are not eye witness accounts.

Yes, and how would a just God expect people to believe in something that cannot be verified?

 

[fantome profane]

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%

Sorry, but I read this post over a few times, and I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that for you if the Bible is not 100% historically accurate then it is not the word of God? Is that what you are saying?

As for me the percentage does not enter into it. I believe there are contradictions between one Gospel and another, and between the Gospels and other books in the Bible, so it is impossible for it to be 100% historically accurate.

And I am an Atheist, the concept of the word of God is just a non-starter for me.

And one more time, just for fun - We do not have eye witness accounts of the empty tomb.