believing biblical accounts

[alphaparticle]

The question I want to explore, more particularly, are the biblical accounts about Jesus. The reason is because first, the Christian faith is about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus- things if they did not really occur would entail that Christians are wasting our time (1 cr 15:19). If Jesus was resurrected from the dead Christianity is almost certainly true, if He was not it is certainly false.The second reason is, when the basic historicity of these events is established then authority is given to the rest of the Bible insofar as Jesus implicitly took it as authoritative in His ministry (the OT anyway), and that the rest attests to the gospel. And the third and possibly most important factor is that when someone accepts the gospel then the Holy Spirit starts to help them out on these questions also. Jhn 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Which is gained by believing in the gospel: eph 1:13: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit

 

So I think there is a real question here- why would anybody believe what the Bible says about Jesus, or specifically, about His death and resurrection? I think it should be obvious that just because it's written down doesn't lend the account credibility. Lots of incredible things are written down, that we all know to be untrue. There are many things in the Bible which seem quite incredible.
 

What I suggest is this. A pretty good case can be made for these basic events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection using ordinary historical criteria, the same which would be applied to any ancient writing to try to tease out historical facts: Jesus' existence, Jesus' basic message and understanding of Himself as sent by God, Jesus' crucifixion and death at the hands of the Romans, the disciples believing Jesus' tomb to be empty, the disciples believing to have seen and heard Jesus physically resurrected and the disciples convinced enough of that to commit their lives to a dangerous and unpopular cause. Please note my wording here. At this point in the case I am presenting I am not claiming to be able to establish that Jesus was in fact resurrected using ordinary historical criteria, merely that the disciples believed He was, and believed strongly enough to commit themselves fully to the cause.

 

The second part to this is that this body of facts is enough to give rational reason to suspect the resurrection is a historical event. The resurrection certainly explains a lot. I have come to believe that fully accepting this in part involves interaction with God,but even if you do not believe in God, could give interesting pause for thought!

Edited September 10, 2013 by alphaparticle

[RobbyPants]

If Jesus was resurrected from the dead Christianity is almost certainly true, if He was not it is certainly false.

I wouldn't entirely agree with you on that one. I would certainly agree that Christianity as most people know and accept it would be false, but if Jesus weren't resurrected, it wouldn't necessarily end the following of Christ. Whether he was a person or the Son of God, if you believe he existed and had certain teachings, he could still be followed. This is a lot like the "Jeffersonian Bible" (I think it was called something like The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, or something) was Thomas Jefferson's attempts to take all of the moral teachings of Jesus absent of all of the supernatural accounts.

Of course, most Christians would consider that heretical, but in the strictest sense of the words, I think it would be logically possible to "follow Jesus" without a resurrection.

So I think there is a real question here- why would anybody believe what the Bible says about Jesus, or specifically, about His death and resurrection? I think it should be obvious that just because it's written down doesn't lend the account credibility. Lots of incredible things are written down, that we all know to be untrue. There are many things in the Bible which seem quite incredible.

Well, for me, personally, it's because it's what I was told when I was quite young. I simply accepted what I was told about Christianity for the first twenty or so years of my life without question. That's just me. 

The second part to this is that this body of facts is enough to give rational reason to suspect the resurrection is a historical event. The resurrection certainly explains a lot. I have come to believe that fully accepting this in part involves interaction with God,but even if you do not believe in God, could give interesting pause for thought!

I'm curious: what body of facts are you pointing to? Are you referring to something outside of the Gospels, or just the Gospels themselves?

[Butch5]

The question I want to explore, more particularly, are the biblical accounts about Jesus. The reason is because first, the Christian faith is about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus- things if they did not really occur would entail that Christians are wasting our time (1 cr 15:19). If Jesus was resurrected from the dead Christianity is almost certainly true, if He was not it is certainly false.The second reason is, when the basic historicity of these events is established then authority is given to the rest of the Bible insofar as Jesus implicitly took it as authoritative in His ministry (the OT anyway), and that the rest attests to the gospel. And the third and possibly most important factor is that when someone accepts the gospel then the Holy Spirit starts to help them out on these questions also. Jhn 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Which is gained by believing in the gospel: eph 1:13: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit

 

So I think there is a real question here- why would anybody believe what the Bible says about Jesus, or specifically, about His death and resurrection? I think it should be obvious that just because it's written down doesn't lend the account credibility. Lots of incredible things are written down, that we all know to be untrue. There are many things in the Bible which seem quite incredible.

 

What I suggest is this. A pretty good case can be made for these basic events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection using ordinary historical criteria, the same which would be applied to any ancient writing to try to tease out historical facts: Jesus' existence, Jesus' basic message and understanding of Himself as sent by God, Jesus' crucifixion and death at the hands of the Romans, the disciples believing Jesus' tomb to be empty, the disciples believing to have seen and heard Jesus physically resurrected and the disciples convinced enough of that to commit their lives to a dangerous and unpopular cause. Please note my wording here. At this point in the case I am presenting I am not claiming to be able to establish that Jesus was in fact resurrected using ordinary historical criteria, merely that the disciples believed He was, and believed strongly enough to commit themselves fully to the cause.

 

The second part to this is that this body of facts is enough to give rational reason to suspect the resurrection is a historical event. The resurrection certainly explains a lot. I have come to believe that fully accepting this in part involves interaction with God,but even if you do not believe in God, could give interesting pause for thought!

I would put forward Prophecy as evidence that the Scriptures are reliable. The Dead Sea scrolls contain copies of prophecy that can be dated prior to Christ.

[alphaparticle]

Robby- Thanks for the response.

 

For your first point, I agree, there are people who are attached to the abstracted teachings of Jesus, but I think they are wasting their time and I don't get it at all. I suppose you could be an atheist and get something from the Sermon on the Mount, but basic Christianity is far more radical than that. What I have in mind is what I'd call the bare gospel, and according to Paul in 1 Corinthians that is the belief in the resurrection (if you disagree here that is fine and won't affect things, so long as you know what I have in  mind).

 

Your second point, yeah I understand that. What I mean by my rhetorical question is why would an unmotivated unbeliever take any of this seriously?

 

Your third point. What I have in mind is taking apart the Bible and finding individual historical sources in the way that historians, including secular ones who study the NT, do. As I'm sure you are aware, the bible isn't a single writing, it's a collection of writings from multiple authors, and sometimes the authors themselves draw on even other sources. So for instance, we could look at how the gospels were written, attempt to analyze each pericope (event/saying) in the gospels, and see how many sources support it, using the notion of Markan priority, as that is the standard view among scholars. And, actually, Paul's writings are considered the earliest, and his writings similarly analyzed. Each one of the facts I presented above could be established and vetted by looking at each *source* individually. You needn't give any special place to the Bible or treat it any differently from any other historical source. As I mentioned in my OP, the Bible's special authoritative place would only be established *after* establishing the truth of what I've called the basic gospel- the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Edited September 10, 2013 by alphaparticle

[alphaparticle]

 

The question I want to explore, more particularly, are the biblical accounts about Jesus. The reason is because first, the Christian faith is about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus- things if they did not really occur would entail that Christians are wasting our time (1 cr 15:19). If Jesus was resurrected from the dead Christianity is almost certainly true, if He was not it is certainly false.The second reason is, when the basic historicity of these events is established then authority is given to the rest of the Bible insofar as Jesus implicitly took it as authoritative in His ministry (the OT anyway), and that the rest attests to the gospel. And the third and possibly most important factor is that when someone accepts the gospel then the Holy Spirit starts to help them out on these questions also. Jhn 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Which is gained by believing in the gospel: eph 1:13: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit

 

So I think there is a real question here- why would anybody believe what the Bible says about Jesus, or specifically, about His death and resurrection? I think it should be obvious that just because it's written down doesn't lend the account credibility. Lots of incredible things are written down, that we all know to be untrue. There are many things in the Bible which seem quite incredible.

 

What I suggest is this. A pretty good case can be made for these basic events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection using ordinary historical criteria, the same which would be applied to any ancient writing to try to tease out historical facts: Jesus' existence, Jesus' basic message and understanding of Himself as sent by God, Jesus' crucifixion and death at the hands of the Romans, the disciples believing Jesus' tomb to be empty, the disciples believing to have seen and heard Jesus physically resurrected and the disciples convinced enough of that to commit their lives to a dangerous and unpopular cause. Please note my wording here. At this point in the case I am presenting I am not claiming to be able to establish that Jesus was in fact resurrected using ordinary historical criteria, merely that the disciples believed He was, and believed strongly enough to commit themselves fully to the cause.

 

The second part to this is that this body of facts is enough to give rational reason to suspect the resurrection is a historical event. The resurrection certainly explains a lot. I have come to believe that fully accepting this in part involves interaction with God,but even if you do not believe in God, could give interesting pause for thought!

I would put forward Prophecy as evidence that the Scriptures are reliable. The Dead Sea scrolls contain copies of prophecy that can be dated prior to Christ.

 

You could talk about prophecies, sure, but that isn't the tactic I'm taking here. That the DSS contain copies that predate Christ doesn't seem directly relevant to me.

[RobbyPants]

Your third point. What I have in mind is taking apart the Bible and finding individual historical sources in the way that historians, including secular ones who study the NT, do. As I'm sure you are aware, the bible isn't a single writing, it's a collection of writings from multiple authors, and sometimes the authors themselves draw on even other sources. So for instance, we could look at how the gospels were written, attempt to analyze each pericope (event/saying) in the gospels, and see how many sources support it, using the notion of Markan priority, as that is the standard view among scholars. And, actually, Paul's writings are considered the earliest, and his writings similarly analyzed. Each one of the facts I presented above could be established and vetted by looking at each *source* individually. You needn't give any special place to the Bible or treat it any differently from any other historical source. As I mentioned in my OP, the Bible's special authoritative place would only be established *after* establishing the truth of what I've called the basic gospel- the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Gotcha. Thanks!

[Butch5]

 

 

The question I want to explore, more particularly, are the biblical accounts about Jesus. The reason is because first, the Christian faith is about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus- things if they did not really occur would entail that Christians are wasting our time (1 cr 15:19). If Jesus was resurrected from the dead Christianity is almost certainly true, if He was not it is certainly false.The second reason is, when the basic historicity of these events is established then authority is given to the rest of the Bible insofar as Jesus implicitly took it as authoritative in His ministry (the OT anyway), and that the rest attests to the gospel. And the third and possibly most important factor is that when someone accepts the gospel then the Holy Spirit starts to help them out on these questions also. Jhn 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Which is gained by believing in the gospel: eph 1:13: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit

 

So I think there is a real question here- why would anybody believe what the Bible says about Jesus, or specifically, about His death and resurrection? I think it should be obvious that just because it's written down doesn't lend the account credibility. Lots of incredible things are written down, that we all know to be untrue. There are many things in the Bible which seem quite incredible.

 

What I suggest is this. A pretty good case can be made for these basic events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection using ordinary historical criteria, the same which would be applied to any ancient writing to try to tease out historical facts: Jesus' existence, Jesus' basic message and understanding of Himself as sent by God, Jesus' crucifixion and death at the hands of the Romans, the disciples believing Jesus' tomb to be empty, the disciples believing to have seen and heard Jesus physically resurrected and the disciples convinced enough of that to commit their lives to a dangerous and unpopular cause. Please note my wording here. At this point in the case I am presenting I am not claiming to be able to establish that Jesus was in fact resurrected using ordinary historical criteria, merely that the disciples believed He was, and believed strongly enough to commit themselves fully to the cause.

 

The second part to this is that this body of facts is enough to give rational reason to suspect the resurrection is a historical event. The resurrection certainly explains a lot. I have come to believe that fully accepting this in part involves interaction with God,but even if you do not believe in God, could give interesting pause for thought!

I would put forward Prophecy as evidence that the Scriptures are reliable. The Dead Sea scrolls contain copies of prophecy that can be dated prior to Christ.

 

You could talk about prophecies, sure, but that isn't the tactic I'm taking here. That the DSS contain copies that predate Christ doesn't seem directly relevant to me.

 

What is it you're looking for?

[missmuffet]

The question I want to explore, more particularly, are the biblical accounts about Jesus. The reason is because first, the Christian faith is about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus- things if they did not really occur would entail that Christians are wasting our time (1 cr 15:19). If Jesus was resurrected from the dead Christianity is almost certainly true, if He was not it is certainly false.The second reason is, when the basic historicity of these events is established then authority is given to the rest of the Bible insofar as Jesus implicitly took it as authoritative in His ministry (the OT anyway), and that the rest attests to the gospel. And the third and possibly most important factor is that when someone accepts the gospel then the Holy Spirit starts to help them out on these questions also. Jhn 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Which is gained by believing in the gospel: eph 1:13: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit

 

So I think there is a real question here- why would anybody believe what the Bible says about Jesus, or specifically, about His death and resurrection? I think it should be obvious that just because it's written down doesn't lend the account credibility. Lots of incredible things are written down, that we all know to be untrue. There are many things in the Bible which seem quite incredible.

 

What I suggest is this. A pretty good case can be made for these basic events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection using ordinary historical criteria, the same which would be applied to any ancient writing to try to tease out historical facts: Jesus' existence, Jesus' basic message and understanding of Himself as sent by God, Jesus' crucifixion and death at the hands of the Romans, the disciples believing Jesus' tomb to be empty, the disciples believing to have seen and heard Jesus physically resurrected and the disciples convinced enough of that to commit their lives to a dangerous and unpopular cause. Please note my wording here. At this point in the case I am presenting I am not claiming to be able to establish that Jesus was in fact resurrected using ordinary historical criteria, merely that the disciples believed He was, and believed strongly enough to commit themselves fully to the cause.

 

The second part to this is that this body of facts is enough to give rational reason to suspect the resurrection is a historical event. The resurrection certainly explains a lot. I have come to believe that fully accepting this in part involves interaction with God,but even if you do not believe in God, could give interesting pause for thought!

Lets just get to the bottom of this whole thing.Do you believe what the Holy Bible says?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

The question I want to explore, more particularly, are the biblical accounts about Jesus. The reason is because first, the Christian faith is about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus- things if they did not really occur would entail that Christians are wasting our time (1 cr 15:19). If Jesus was resurrected from the dead Christianity is almost certainly true, if He was not it is certainly false.The second reason is, when the basic historicity of these events is established then authority is given to the rest of the Bible insofar as Jesus implicitly took it as authoritative in His ministry (the OT anyway), and that the rest attests to the gospel. And the third and possibly most important factor is that when someone accepts the gospel then the Holy Spirit starts to help them out on these questions also. Jhn 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Which is gained by believing in the gospel: eph 1:13: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit

 

So I think there is a real question here- why would anybody believe what the Bible says about Jesus, or specifically, about His death and resurrection? I think it should be obvious that just because it's written down doesn't lend the account credibility. Lots of incredible things are written down, that we all know to be untrue. There are many things in the Bible which seem quite incredible.

 

What I suggest is this. A pretty good case can be made for these basic events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection using ordinary historical criteria, the same which would be applied to any ancient writing to try to tease out historical facts: Jesus' existence, Jesus' basic message and understanding of Himself as sent by God, Jesus' crucifixion and death at the hands of the Romans, the disciples believing Jesus' tomb to be empty, the disciples believing to have seen and heard Jesus physically resurrected and the disciples convinced enough of that to commit their lives to a dangerous and unpopular cause. Please note my wording here. At this point in the case I am presenting I am not claiming to be able to establish that Jesus was in fact resurrected using ordinary historical criteria, merely that the disciples believed He was, and believed strongly enough to commit themselves fully to the cause.

 

The second part to this is that this body of facts is enough to give rational reason to suspect the resurrection is a historical event. The resurrection certainly explains a lot. I have come to believe that fully accepting this in part involves interaction with God,but even if you do not believe in God, could give interesting pause for thought!

I would put forward Prophecy as evidence that the Scriptures are reliable. The Dead Sea scrolls contain copies of prophecy that can be dated prior to Christ.

 

You could talk about prophecies, sure, but that isn't the tactic I'm taking here. That the DSS contain copies that predate Christ doesn't seem directly relevant to me.

 

What is it you're looking for?

 

 

My assertion is this, it's possible to build a case for the resurrection of Jesus without first assuming that the Bible has supernatural authority, or without believing in God at all. It's basically a development of the "if the disciples didn't really see and talk to the resurrected Jesus, why would they sacrifice their lives to the cause?" type of consideration. Hopefully that provides a bit of clarification.

[Diatheosis]

In the similar way, if one cannot take events mentioned here as real, then most of what has been recorded of our history as written must be dealt similarly. Whilst some critics is understandable of course, what chance have we then to say anything about things of the past? Then we might as well dismiss all of our recorded history. That said, of course I recognize it having to do with the nature of them.

 

Disciples' witness could be dealt as eyewitness in the court case (recorded, though). I mean, when one is not supernaturally given revelation of what happened is not just some distant singular event in the past, but started an on-going process of salvation of mankind to the date.

 

When one does not come from a Christian or any sort of spiritual background, this sort of historical approach is probably the most reasonable one and at least precedes that of supernatural. I remember being young when started reading the Old Testament and could not proceed so before I stopped considering I cannot take it seriously. It took years of study of different spiritual traditions, philosophies, sciences, and experiences of supernatural before I actually could come to the Bible and realize I won't find anything better than what's in there. And not just as written, but experienced and lived.

 

But each come to the Word through their own way. I mean, Jesus is the way, but how one approaches is of personal matter.