How do we know that the information in the Bible is the Truth?

[Spirithound]

The “truth” is purely a matter of faith - there is nothing else to go on.

Similar to one of your previous posts, this is relativist language. I beg your pardon if i’m putting words in your mouth, but…
You’re attempting to discredit the authorities we have that we can depend on. There are histories, Christian, Roman, and Jewish that mesh perfectly with the Gospels, epistles, Acts. To not only put truth in quotation marks but to say that it’s purely a matter of faith and not fact, is pure ignorance.

 

[patg]

Similar to one of your previous posts, this is relativist language.

Which applies perfectly in this case.

I beg your pardon if i’m putting words in your mouth, but…

That’s fine as long as they are true words

You’re attempting to discredit the authorities we have that we can depend on.

You don’t have any objective authorities - you have a few authors who already believed. And just why do you depend on those authorities? BECAUSE you have FAITH that the events, stories, and teachings are accurate even though there is no way of verifying that accuracy.

There are histories, Christian, Roman, and Jewish that mesh perfectly with the Gospels, epistles, Acts.

Actually, there is almost nothing outside the Gospels, epistles, or Acts which supports them.

To not only put truth in quotation marks but to say that it’s purely a matter of faith and not fact, is pure ignorance.

To pretend that you believe the tenets of Christianity for any reason other that faith is pure ignorance.

 

[mlchance]

To pretend that you believe the tenets of Christianity for any reason other that faith is pure ignorance.

I believe the tenets of Christianity for reasons related to history, logic, philosophy, personal experience, and, yes, faith. Does that make me ignorant, a pretender, or both?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[patg]

I believe the tenets of Christianity for reasons related to history, logic, philosophy, personal experience, and, yes, faith. Does that make me ignorant, a pretender, or both?

I merely stated that the truth of the church is always a matter of faith - does that make me ignorant?

Reasons related to history, logic, philosophy, and personal experience are certainly part of the overall equation that makes up what you believe. However, the bottom line always comes down to faith. There is no objective proof of any of the tenets of Christianity. People will say that we have solid documentation but what that means is that they have faith that the few writings we have are accurate and that the church is correct. No one can prove the historicity of the resurrection, Jesus’ miracles, the assumption, the ascension, the consecration, etc. and yet we all believe in them because we have faith in the authors’ writings and faith in the teachings of the church.

 

[mlchance]

I merely stated that the truth of the church is always a matter of faith - does that make me ignorant?

No. Reductionist certainly, because your statement is not necessarily true. There is truth taught by the Church which is not a matter of faith (e.g., that murder is wrong).

Reasons related to history, logic, philosophy, and personal experience are certainly part of the overall equation that makes up what you believe. However, the bottom line always comes down to faith.

Generalizations are always false. The bottom line is not always faith.

There is no objective proof of any of the tenets of Christianity.

One of the tenets of Christianity is that Jesus was a real person. There’s no “objective proof” of this? Makes me wonder how you define “objective” (and further demonstrate that your definition is the only acceptable one).

No one can prove the historicity of the resurrection, Jesus’ miracles, the assumption, the ascension, the consecration, etc. and yet we all believe in them because we have faith in the authors’ writings and faith in the teachings of the church.

You continue to overstate your case. I believe in the historicity of the Resurrection because (1) the available evidence supports the event and (2) none of the counter-evidence offers a more convincing alternative that explains all of the evidence in toto. Therefore, the case for the Resurrection is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, which in history, much like a court of law, is an acceptable standard.

Your constant attempts to reduce Christianity to mere fideism is irrational.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[patg]

No. Reductionist certainly, because your statement is not necessarily true. There is truth taught by the Church which is not a matter of faith (e.g., that murder is wrong).

Ok, you are right. I will just state as you did that for reasons related to history, logic, philosophy, personal experience, and, yes, faith that the statement is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Generalizations are always false.

Yes, like this one you just made…

The bottom line is not always faith.

What else is there when there is no proof of something which is clearly outside the realm of human experience?

One of the tenets of Christianity is that Jesus was a real person. There’s no “objective proof” of this? Makes me wonder how you define “objective” (and further demonstrate that your definition is the only acceptable one).

Now who is generalizing??? I never said nor implied that Jesus was not a real person.

You continue to overstate your case.

I believe in the historicity of the Resurrection because (1) the available evidence supports the event

Of course there is no significant evidence.

and (2) none of the counter-evidence offers a more convincing alternative that explains all of the evidence in toto.

Again, what evidence? There are zero resurrection stories - not a single one. There are a few inconsistent appearance stories which occur in a couple of dependent sources - sources which are not of the historical genre and written long after the fact.

Therefore, the case for the Resurrection is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, which in history, much like a court of law, is an acceptable standard.

I hope you are kidding - this is beyond irrational (and I hope you never serve on a jury). Do you know what constitutes a scholarly analysis of historic events - what is considered eveidence and how the reconstruction is performed? That is what I am referring to - real history. If the resurrection of a dead body (or the 500 which wandered out of their graves after the crucifixion) was considered real history, every academic historian on earth would mention it in every history book ever written! It is clearly *not *an element of human history.

Your constant attempts to reduce Christianity to mere fideism is irrational.

Mere fideism?? That sounds irrational too. I’m pretty sure we aren’t going to get anywhere with this but I enjoy the discussion and maybe others are entertained by two irrational believers trying to debate each other… and since the church doesn’t require belief in either of our positions, we can just have fun.

 

[mlchance]

Now who is generalizing??? I never said nor implied that Jesus was not a real person.

You did say:
"patg:

There is no objective proof of any of the tenets of Christianity.

Isn’t that Jesus was a real person a tenet of Christianity? If so, then according to you, there is no objective proof. Right?

There are zero resurrection stories - not a single one. There are a few inconsistent appearance stories…

Make up your mind. Are there zero such stories or a few of them?

I hope you are kidding - this is beyond irrational (and I hope you never serve on a jury).

Ah, yes. I disagree with your obviously flawed assertions, so thereore I must be kidding or untrustworthy.

Do you know what constitutes a scholarly analysis of historic events - what is considered eveidence and how the reconstruction is performed?

I am an historian. You?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[patg]

Make up your mind. Are there zero such stories or a few of them?

There are zero *resurrection *stories and a few post-resurrection appearance stories - which is what I stated.

Ah, yes. I disagree with your obviously flawed assertions, so thereore I must be kidding or untrustworthy.

Disagreement like this without evidence or proof or reason is mere polemics.

I am an historian. You?

Yes, many years…

 

[mlchance]

There are zero *resurrection *stories and a few post-resurrection appearance stories - which is what I stated.

Mea culpa. The misunderstanding probably resulted from what is a semantic quibble.

Disagreement like this without evidence or proof or reason is mere polemics.

You’re the one who insisted that I must be kidding because otherwise I’d be unfit for jury selection.

Yes, many years…

Then you ought to realize the silliness of statements (complete with weasel words) like this:

patg:

That is what I am referring to - real history. If the resurrection of a dead body (or the 500 which wandered out of their graves after the crucifixion) was considered real history, every academic historian on earth would mention it in every history book ever written!

When did the unanimous agreement by “every academic historian on earth” become the requirement for something to be “real history”?

Now, back to the question you’ve not answered. You said:

patg:

There is no objective proof of any of the tenets of Christianity.

Isn’t that Jesus was a real person a tenet of Christianity? If so, then according to you, there is no objective proof. Right?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[patg]

Isn’t that Jesus was a real person a tenet of Christianity?

Yes, you are correct. Again, probably semantics, I was focusing on the supernatural aspects/tenets of Christianity as the areas that require faith. Even though there are a few who would argue he didn’t really exist, I am not one and there is enough evidence for him.

What I am intrigued by is your assertion that there is hard evidence which beyond a doubt proves the historicity of the resurrection. I disagree but I’m not sure it matters why one believes the truth.

Empty tombs don’t prove anything, except to insiders. Nor do reports of appearances of risen leaders. In the gospels the risen Jesus appears only to those who already believe in him. Those who see him after his resurrection are those who followed him during his lifetime. John’s gospel originally ended with a blessing for those who believe in Jesus without needing to see him firsthand. John’s implication is that it takes little faith to believe when one has seen the risen Lord in person. Matthew, however, does not agree. At the very end of Matthew’s gospel is a fascinating and unexpected statement. He reports that even some of the apostles who personally encountered the risen Jesus had their doubts. Just before Jesus sent forth the Eleven with the Great Commission, they prostrated themselves before Jesus, “but some doubted” (28:17). This gospel thus closes with a cryptic admission that even some of these ultimate insiders were not convinced by a face-to-face encounter with the risen Lord. Matthew’s abrupt comment comes as a complete surprise and its precise meaning is puzzling. But this much at least is clear: Whatever else the gospels may teach about the resurrection, faith in the risen Jesus requires more than stories about him, no matter how convincing these stories may be to some insiders.