The Tension of Faith

Sorry that I havent been able to respond to all of the posts but I have been following the discussion. I think that you are showing that your point is invalid. What you call is information is evidence. If it wasnt there would be no longer the need to look for further information to either verify or discount the original account. Once again, it is about the strength of the evidence.As far as supporting evidence for the Gospel accounts there is actually quite a bit. For example here is a quote from Pauls first letter to the Corinthians written between 20 and 25 years after the crucifixion. Many of the eye witnesses would still be alive.

quote:

---

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born

---

There was enough evidence for Paul that he gave up a life of privilege to serve Jesusmessage to his ultimate death after spending considerable time in prison for it.There were numerous messianic movements in the 200 year period after the Maccabees and all of them, failed when their leaders were put to death. Some of those failed messiahs had achieved some military success. Nobody later assumed that their messianic movement should continue. In Jesus we see a messiah who not only didn't achieve any military success but suffered the most shameful, humiliating death possible at the hands of not only the Romans but His own people. Paul is very aware of that by saying that he is not ashamed to preach a crucified messiah.The rise of the early church is also evidence. As far as crucifixion is concerned, it was considered a curse by the Jews, and as Paul says folly to the Gentiles. Obviously something happened post resurrection, otherwise there is no reasonable explanation for the rise of the church. The simplest explanation is to take at face value the NT claims of a resurrected Jesus.So, not only do we have the evidence of the Gospel accounts but we have supporting evidence in the Epistles and in the rise of the early Christian church.

Good point, but his conversion didn't mention resurrection, but just that some how or other Jesus still existed, and He wanted Paul to stop persecuting His followers. Presumably Paul's understanding of the resurrection came from the accounts of Jesus followers and the evidence that they presented. My point wasn't about why the first Christians should hold the beliefs outlined in the Gospel accounts, but why we should consider them credible today.However, there must have been some good reason for them to believe and live as they did. It is more of a belief than an assumption. I would add that the leaders of those various groups can in general be shown to have a motive for what they instituted. As near as I can tell there is no discernible motive for the NT authors. I certainly don't deny though in later years there were many Christians, who in spite of the Gospel message, benefited greatly from their misuse of the Christian message. In the last few decades we only have to look at the lavish life styles of the televangelists.

I'm not really sure why this is more clear than what I wrote but I'm fine with it put that way. I disagree. What you are looking for is further evidence to either confirm or question the reliability of the original evidence. I agree with your understanding of Paul's message. I only mentioned the military succeses of the failed messianic movements because the Jews of that era predominately believed that the messiah would lead them militarily against their enemies. Jesus, as you say preached a message of loving your neighbour, and your enemy for that matter, and that ultimately love is all that defeats evil.

They kinda did. Early Christians had a lot of enemies and many died because of their faith. (I also think you meant Charles Russel. There was a Frank as well but he was second string.) Pretty fine line eh. I make plans for next week assuming I'll still be alive. I believe I'll still be alive based on past experience. However, I agree that there is very little difference. Of course we don't know who the authors were but here is an account of what happened to the twelve apostles from National Geographic. How Did the Apostles DieIt is one thing to promote the Gospels today but it was dangerous business then.

Just wanted to make a comment.I'm not sure I agree with that. I think that we can say that Genesis is evidence of there being a flood. Other ancient stories such as Gilgamesh are secondary evidence. We also can tell by geographic evidence that there was no world wide flood, so the evidence would point to there being some came of major, but local flood that inspired the stories to be written.Is the evidence conclusive. Of course not but I think that it is a fair conclusion that there was a flood of some kind but not one a world wide one.

I'm afraid that what you are saying just doesn't make sense. Modulous isn't saying, nor am I for that matter, that what is written in the Gospels about miracles causes us to KNOW that miracles happened. However, the fact that someone wrote the Gospels with the intent of having them believed is evidence, no matter how weak or strong that evidence is.

I'm just going on what you said. You claimed that you will know miracles are real when there is evidence. Both Modulous and I say that the Gospel accounts are evidence. Ergo.... Logic then dictates that I, (and I'll stop speaking for Modulous), know that the miracles are real.People look at the evidence of the miraculous accounts in the Gospel and with that evidence choose by faith whether to believe that they accurately reflect what happened or not. But you have only decided that they are lies based on further evidence. Of course it's about faith, but without the evidence of the Gospel accounts we would nothing to have faith in. It is like the story of a world wide flood. The account of the event is in the Bible. That is evidence, but based on other evidence I don't have belief or faith that the story is an accurate depiction of what happened.

That then is true for all his historical written accounts. Some may have certain physical evidence as well but written accounts by your definition are useless as evidence. You would have to define what you mean by that. Are you referring to the social gospel message or are you referring to the historical veracity of the Gospel accounts?

Certainly there are some Christians who believe that the faith is all about where we wind up when this life comes to an end, and that is decided by whether or not one gives ascent to a specific version of Christian doctrine.Scripture actually says that it is about the heart choosing to love our neighbour and even our enemies sacrificially, regardless of our doctrinal beliefs. That is what draws us closer to God. Most of the world outside of North American fundamentalists would be in agreement with that understanding of the Christian faith.Just one example would be, (as I pointed out earlier in this thread), the story of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were pretty much despised by the Jews. My contention is that if Jesus was telling that parable today it would be the parable of the good Muslim.

Firstly no one to the best of my knowledge has ever written an account of those 3 individuals that suggested that they are anything but fictional. The Gospels were obviously written with the intent that they be taken as historical. That is then evidence that can be accepted or rejected on it's own merits. That is true of all historical accounts. Some can be backed up by physical evidence to varying degrees. In this case we can start with the fact that all theists and deists for that matter believe in the idea that there is the miracle of creation, and this being the case other miraculous events can't be discounted. Also, we can look at the rise of the early Christian church as supporting evidence.In the end however it is a faith.

In many cases the accounts are very critical of the early leaders of the movement. The Epistles support the Gospel accounts so obviously they believed that the accounts were historical. The style in which they are written gives no indication that the accounts are anything but historical. The beginning of Luke essentially states that the accounts are to be taken as historical.

The discussion is about what constitutes evidence. The fact that the "Book of Morman" was written with the intent that it be accepted as non-fictional is evidence in itself. Is there sufficient evidence in itself, or is there sufficient collaborating evidence to cause me to believe it? No. The fact still remains however that it is evidence.

Yes, but the Gospel accounts of miracles certainly appear to be written to say that the miracles are historical, that they actually happened at a specific time and place. That constitutes evidence. We can choose to accept the accounts as historical, metaphorical, falsified or mistaken.I think there is some non-specific collaborating evidence. Firstly as a theist I accept that this world and our lives are the result of a miracle or miracles. (I believe these took place through a series of mostly or all random processes.) Therefore I accept that miracles are possible.I also believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is by far the best explanation for the rise of the early church. As I believe that then I am prepared tentatively to accept the accounts of miracle as essentially historical, (with likely a bit of colour added. )Obviously none of that is conclusive and particularly as these occurrences aren't part of our experience it does become a matter of faith, but as I said before I found no other set of beliefs that make sense of my life and the world of my experience. The very nature of a miracle is that it is not of the natural world and can't be tested scientifically.

Well first the BofM was written by one man. The Gospels were written from multiple sources and compiled while there were still witnesses.In my mind though that is a minor issue. Religions are all the reults of mankind attempting to understand the nature of God and how that should impact our lives. When I read the Gospels I find that the god whose nature is perfectly embodied in Jesus is a god that I am prepared to worship. I believe God to be a god of love, justice and peace. I don't see that in the rather confused picture of the god that we would see in the polygamous, power seeking person of Joseph SmithI know that you reject my conclusion but hopefully it answers your question.

A miracle would be historical if it actually happened.