The Black Legend

[Guest astralis]

EPH,

[munari]

No, this is circular reasoning...

Q: Where does it say the Bible is the word of God?

A: In the Bible.

Q: Who wrote the Bible?

A: God wrote the Bible.

Q: And where does it say God wrote the Bible?

A: In the Bible.

Shall we throw this out too?

[munari]

As far as citing the BBC on that documentary, its not listed on their web page. My advice is for you to look at the library for it, I can't post a video on here. This should be enough info for you to find it:

"The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E

[Lanakila]

That is circular reasoning to prove the Bible and its ineffective in witnessing to the lost. Only Christians would fall for that kind of reasoning. Jesus rose from the dead proving every word he said is true. Even if someone were to say the Bible isn't the Word of God the historical aspect of it alone is amazingly accurate. Jesus is the word and those who discount the resurrection are going to be a hard sell on the Bible. But there are other arguements (not meant in a bad context) for the existance of God out there. Norm Geisler's book on Skepticism is a good place to start to get info to be able to pre-evangelize those who are either atheist or agnostic.

[munari]

Lan,

You're right, that's why I posted it, it does not work. And your example of Christ proving it is true because he rose from the dead is also part of that circular reasoning, where does it say he rose from the dead? In the Bible. There aren't really any reliable sources for that outside of the Bible, except other Christian writings.

I asked if we should throw out the Bible for the fact that it IS based upon circular reasoning. Of course, I would say no, its a matter of faith more than a matter of logic when it comes to accepting the Bible.

[Lanakila]

If you will check out this thread on the resurrection there is other evidence out there for the crucifixion, plenty of it. The reason we have no non-Christian witnesses (books, writings) is probably because if someone actually witnessed the resurrection they believed, wouldn't you. Those who didn't believe wouldn't write that he was resurrected either. They would do everything to disprove it, the way its done today.

http://www.worthynews.com/worthyb....rection

I know this has nothing to do with the thread topic, but you brought up the circular reasoning Munari.

[munari]

I didn't bring up circular reasoning, EPH did. I'm not trying to say the Bible is false, don't get me wrong. And when it comes to historical books, the Bible was written closer to the events than any book on ancient history. So, the Bible has that going for it. However, the Bible's claim that it was inspired by God is only found in the Bible and in Tradition.

As far as that other thread goes, I agree with those reasons, but they are still bound by circular reasoning because they are found within the text of which they attempt to prove as being true.

Kind of like when a kid asks their parents, "why do I have to take out the trash" and the parent says, "Because I said so," that's the beginning of circular reasoning because any question the kids acts will be supported by what the parent says and not based on any other outside support.

Another great book about proving Chirst's existence and resurrection is "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

[munari]

I need to concede the fact of the crucifixion because of the Talmud, which I do. Didn't want you to think that I missed that in the posts...