The Christian Rationale for Retaining Belief

[POI]

For debate:

1) Aside from the claims for a Jesus resurrection, what otherwise falsifiable (events/claims) from the Bible must also be demonstrated accurate and correct to retain faith?
2) If any of the above stated/given (events/claims) were to instead be falsified, (to your own personal satisfaction), would you then logically denounce your Christian faith, or, would you instead pivot/adject and remain in faith?
3) Are you willing to have any of these expressed/given (claims/events), from the Bible, challenged?

[POI]

I don't believe because of anything the bible says. I believe because God revealed his existence to me such that I can't even doubt it.

I'm willing to be that had you been exposed to another religion, you would attribute this experience to the opposing god or god(s) you instead speant time with.

He later did the same for his incarnation and resurrection.

The same can be said for any competing resurrection storyline. So?

The only other thing he granted me the supernatural ability to know, is to follow the RCC.

Others claim that god told them to follow opposing sects. They cannot all be right. But they can all be wrong. What distinguishes yours true above and beyond anyone else's personal testimonial(s), which garners the same conviction(s) as yours?

But supposing that it were possible to prove that Christ did not resurrect, that would cause a contradiction in my experience. God revealed to me that Jesus rose, and then proof says he didn't. I am not sure what I would do with that. It would cause great spiritual distress, I am sure. However, it is impossible to provide reasonable evidence that Christ didn't raise. It is impossible to provide evidence that God didn't exist, or that he didn't incarnate.

I then cannot think of any evidence that could cause me to denounce my faith. However, I know it is possible for one to lose faith. I hope that never happens to me because losing faith in Christianity doesn't mean Christianity is false.

Yes. The resurrection claim is not falsifiable. Hence, you can cleave to it, no matter what.

[POI]

For debate:

1) Aside from the claims for a Jesus resurrection, what otherwise falsifiable (events/claims) from the Bible must also be demonstrated accurate and correct to retain faith?
2) If any of the above stated/given (events/claims) were to instead be falsified, (to your own personal satisfaction), would you then logically denounce your Christian faith, or, would you instead pivot/adject and remain in faith?
3) Are you willing to have any of these expressed/given (claims/events), from the Bible, challenged?

Just asking POI,

If the bible were not the right source of the Christian faith, how would it have impacted the three questions you have premised above?

Maybe I'm tired, and I do not follow? Can you elaborate upon your question?

[OneJack]

For debate:

1) Aside from the claims for a Jesus resurrection, what otherwise falsifiable (events/claims) from the Bible must also be demonstrated accurate and correct to retain faith?
2) If any of the above stated/given (events/claims) were to instead be falsified, (to your own personal satisfaction), would you then logically denounce your Christian faith, or, would you instead pivot/adject and remain in faith?
3) Are you willing to have any of these expressed/given (claims/events), from the Bible, challenged?

Just asking POI,

If the bible were not the right source of the Christian faith, how would it have impacted the three questions you have premised above?

Maybe I'm tired, and I do not follow? Can you elaborate upon your question?

My understanding of the three questions you posed for debate is that the Bible is the sole basis and source of the Christian faith. Did I get it right? If I did get it right, my question is this: If the Bible were not the right and absolute source of the Christian faith, what would be the impact of this revelation on the three questions you posed for debate?

[POI]

For debate:

1) Aside from the claims for a Jesus resurrection, what otherwise falsifiable (events/claims) from the Bible must also be demonstrated accurate and correct to retain faith?
2) If any of the above stated/given (events/claims) were to instead be falsified, (to your own personal satisfaction), would you then logically denounce your Christian faith, or, would you instead pivot/adject and remain in faith?
3) Are you willing to have any of these expressed/given (claims/events), from the Bible, challenged?

Just asking POI,

If the bible were not the right source of the Christian faith, how would it have impacted the three questions you have premised above?

Maybe I'm tired, and I do not follow? Can you elaborate upon your question?

My understanding of the three questions you posed for debate is that the Bible is the sole basis and source of the Christian faith. Did I get it right?

The aim here is to challenge falsifiable claims, from the Bible, in which the believer believes actually happened; where a skeptic instead says that it likely did not happen. So far, I brought up "The Exodus" to an interlocutor. This is a claim from the Bible. One interlocutor has responded, in saying that this claim being proven false for him would not sway his belief? I have yet to understand, that if this storyline were completely fiction, how any believer could still accept the claims from this collection of book(s), as the Exodus looks to be a necessary part of the storyline? By (removing/omitting) it completely, the believer is left with a gaping hole to try and still piece together successfully or even reconcile?

If the Bible were not the right and absolute source of the Christian faith, what would be the impact of this revelation on the three questions you posed for debate?

Does the above clarify? If not, even if the Bible was not the absolute source, how would a believer grapple with or reconcile, moving forward, while knowing a major event, which seems necessary to the entire storyline, never actually happened?

[POI]

I don't believe (think) that FAITH in the Christian theology involves proving in the literal sense something to be true but rather having enough information to be personally convinved that something is true.

The degree and nature of said information may vary from person to person , but faith involves a personal conviction that that which we have learnt reflects reality.

I have an honest question for you JW. Why respond to my topic posts if you will not engage me for debate/discussion? There are plenty of other topics you can address, where you actually engage/debate the OP-er of the topic for discussion.

Speaking of 'faith', I still have faith that you will engage.

In response to your post, as I alluded to bjs1, I cannot currently see how any amount of person-to-person leniency will work, if the believer were to find out that "the Exodus" storyline were fiction?

[OneJack]

For debate:

1) Aside from the claims for a Jesus resurrection, what otherwise falsifiable (events/claims) from the Bible must also be demonstrated accurate and correct to retain faith?
2) If any of the above stated/given (events/claims) were to instead be falsified, (to your own personal satisfaction), would you then logically denounce your Christian faith, or, would you instead pivot/adject and remain in faith?
3) Are you willing to have any of these expressed/given (claims/events), from the Bible, challenged?

Just asking POI,

If the bible were not the right source of the Christian faith, how would it have impacted the three questions you have premised above?

Maybe I'm tired, and I do not follow? Can you elaborate upon your question?

My understanding of the three questions you posed for debate is that the Bible is the sole basis and source of the Christian faith. Did I get it right?

The aim here is to challenge falsifiable claims, from the Bible, in which the believer believes actually happened; where a skeptic instead says that it likely did not happen. So far, I brought up "The Exodus" to an interlocutor. This is a claim from the Bible. One interlocutor has responded, in saying that this claim being proven false for him would not sway his belief? I have yet to understand, that if this storyline were completely fiction, how any believer could still accept the claims from this collection of book(s), as the Exodus looks to be a necessary part of the storyline? By (removing/omitting) it completely, the believer is left with a gaping hole to try and still piece together successfully or even reconcile?

If the Bible were not the right and absolute source of the Christian faith, what would be the impact of this revelation on the three questions you posed for debate?

Does the above clarify? If not, even if the Bible was not the absolute source, how would a believer grapple with or reconcile, moving forward, while knowing a major event, which seems necessary to the entire storyline, never actually happened?

Thanks for your statements POI. Regarding the issue of Exodus, if it were to completely disappear from the pages of the Bible due to being untrue, it would only create a hole, and the believer would try to patch up to continue without fear in their professed faith in God. If we were to place the entirety of the Bible [which I think, based on your 3 questions, is the sole basis and source of faith in God for those who claim to be biblical Christians] as not the true basis and source of true faith in God, because only the living and true Lord Jesus Christ is the sole basis and source of true faith for Christians; wouldn't it be that in this situation, there's no need to cover up any hole because all faith of those who claim to be biblical Christians would become meaningless, as they only draw from the Bible for everything about their faith in God? So, the issues of Exodus [if it truly didn't happen] and the Bible [based on my presentation] would be a hard thing that would ultimately shatter the solid faith of those who claim to be biblical Christians, in my view.

[POI]

Thanks for your statements POI. Regarding the issue of Exodus, if it were to completely disappear from the pages of the Bible due to being untrue, it would only create a hole, and the believer would try to patch up to continue without fear in their professed faith in God.

It would create more than just a "hole". And even if "the Exodus" was never mentioned in the pages of the Bible, the storyline leading to Jesus, cannot happen without it being fundamentally true.

If we were to place the entirety of the Bible [which I think, based on your 3 questions, is the sole basis and source of faith in God for those who claim to be biblical Christians] as not the true basis and source of true faith in God, because only the living and true Lord Jesus Christ is the sole basis and source of true faith for Christians; wouldn't it be that in this situation, there's no need to cover up any hole because all faith of those who claim to be biblical Christians would become meaningless, as they only draw from the Bible for everything about their faith in God? So, the issues of Exodus [if it truly didn't happen] and the Bible [based on my presentation] would be a hard thing that would ultimately shatter the solid faith of those who claim to be biblical Christians, in my view.

The problem here is that Jesus himself is also said to mention elements of 'Moses and The Exodus'.

[OneJack]

I cannot currently see how any amount of person-to-person leniency will work, if the believer were to find out that "the Exodus" storyline were fiction?

Christian believers, at present, are divided into 2 groups: 1) Christians who follow the real and forever living Christ Jesus, and 2) self-proclaimed Biblical Christians whose faith is always based on the Bible. The first group listens to and follows no one but the real and forever living Lord Jesus Christ, who is always beside everyone at all times, just not visible now. Your view that ‘you cannot currently see how any amount of person-to-person leniency will work if the believer were to find out that "the Exodus" storyline were fiction’ would be 'no big deal' to them because the Bible isn't the basis and sole source of their faith in God, but the real and forever living Christ Jesus, who is their only Pastor and Teacher, for all generations of humanity.

On the other hand, your said view might be a big blow to Biblical Christians because they consider themselves full gospel Christians, but eventually [in my view, having gone through the Biblical Christian phase myself] they might just set aside the issue of Exodus, whether true or not, because their fear of the Bible, which they believe has the breath of God, would still prevail, in my view.

[POI]

the real and forever living Christ Jesus, who is their only Pastor and Teacher.

Focusing here... Does the 'living Jesus' teach this group that "the Exodus" was a real event in history, or not?

[OneJack]

the real and forever living Christ Jesus, who is their only Pastor and Teacher.

Focusing here... Does the 'living Jesus' teach this group that "the Exodus" was a real event in history, or not?

Yes, the Lord Jesus Christ confirmed [to us] that the ‘parting and crossing of the Red Sea’ is true in relation to the Exodus of the Israelites during Pharaoh’s time. One of the movies the Lord commanded us to watch [in this regard and during [His] tutorial lessons He conducted with us] was ‘The Ten Commandments,’ with emphasis on the ‘parting of the Red Sea’ to show God’s might and power over Pharaoh of Egypt.