How does my belief about Christ impact the historicity of Genesis for instance? Out of curiousity.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Historical Accuracy in Scripture
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
My point was that it is not a passing grade on a history quiz that is required for Salvation in Christianity.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The four Judaisms are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstruction. There is no such thing as Christian Judaism -- if it's Christian, it cannot be Judaism.
Compare this mere four to the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Forgive me, I'm not trying to be pushy, but this answer is ambiguous. I really need a Yes/No from you. Do you believe in the historical death of Jesus for your sins and his literal resurrection? Yes/No
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Oh, I agree that a person can be Christian and understand that Genesis 1 is a creation myth. My question was about the belief that he died for your sins and bodily resurrected from the dead.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Since you refuse to answer after stating the question twice, I'm going to move on.
I believe it on faith, I don't have any independently verifiable evidence to share.
I'm sorry. I didn't know I was on a clock. I'll do better next time.
And that is still my point.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
So basically you confirm my statement that Christianity depends on Jesus historically dying for you sins and bodily rising from the dead. Thanks.
That part sure. But even that doesn't have evidence and must be taken on faith.
I believe I said that in my first response to you. Perhaps I wasn't clear.
I'm just not one of those "Christians" that have willed themselves super powers and can go around deciding who is and who isn't a believer or what others in different religions believe.
Something is going on with my feed. This post of yours wasn't wasn't there until just now. A post I made disappeared. Perhaps our seeming reasons for snark has a cause independent of either of us.
That's not an opinion. The inaccuracies in the bible -- some of them major inaccuracies -- are clear, consilient and acknowledged by scholars in relevant fields -- including Biblical history and theology.
They can produce a lot of strong evidence supporting their hypotheses, and overwhelming evidence for many of the inaccuracies.
The contradictions, of course, are often pretty obvious; the edits, mistranslations, additions and deletions. less so.
They know more of the history than the Bible relates.Do historians know everything about the kingdoms that surrounded Israel and of which the Bible gives us so many details? Are they completely sure that everything they say about the History is true?
The Bible was compiled, largely written by, and edited by believers, with an agenda. Why would you expect it to be more accurate than any other propaganda?
Good point. The percentage of atheists increases in step with education, especially so in relevant fields. Atheists are also more knowledgeable about religion than most religious people are. They're even more knowledgeable about the Bible than most Christians.
Depends on one's concept of better. It's kind of a red-pill vs blue-pill question.
Highly educated in what? Apparently not in history, critical thinking or logic.This people of Jehovah's Witnesses is a highly educated international community like the one you will not find any other. I am proud to be an active member.
I do admire their strong adhearance to principle, and to Jesus' social teachings, but they don't tolerate dissidence or skepticism within their community.
S/he doesn't. S/he feels it's accurate.
The truth is that I'm not interested in your Byzantine diatribes ... but if you want someone to believe something you say, stop your drama and start presenting real evidence.
As for me, that was all I have to tell you.
Good bye.
What do you mean by a real history account? How would such an account differ from ordinary historical scholarship?Maybe because you have not a real History account to compare it to.
Many modern Jews would disagree.That's as fake as a 6 dollar bill.
If there was not Moses, nor Jews Kings, nor Abraham, nor ................... there is not any Judaism.
During the early years of Christianity, it never occurred to the faithful that they were not a sect of Judaism. The schism was a later, political movement.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Oh I get it. It is a matter of faith for you. That's fine, and honest too.
I simply didn't reply to that particular remark because it wasn't relevant to my statement.
"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
Jesus said to him, You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."
Matthew 22:36-40 (NKJV)
Last edited:
The truth is that I'm not interested in your Byzantine diatribes ... but if you want someone to believe something you say, stop your drama and start presenting real evidence.
As for me, that was all I have to tell you.
Good bye.
Byzantine diatribes? I'm just citing well-evidenced facts on a debate thread.
OK, challenge accepted. Lets start with the Noachim flood.
Aron Ra has a series of YouTube videos debunking the story from eight different disciplines. Google, watch, and get back with your commentary.