Mithrae wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:33 am
If all we had was the Tanakh - two thirds of the canon - we probably wouldn't consider any
of those to be major or consistent messages. We'd read about God's various covenants with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses, Joshua and David, and probably understand "sin" simply as breaking the particulars of such a covenant (the word itself
apparently coming from "a primitive root; properly, to miss"); not as some kind of ultimate metaphysical taint or barrier, and least of all one requiring human sacrifice to remove!
It's difficult to find any passage in the Old Testament where people are not sinning. It's a constant theme. At the same time we also see God trying to draw people away from sin and into a relationship with Him.
As for the nuances of what exactly is sin, actually, I agree with you that sin has more the connotation of missing the mark. Even in the Greek it's more of that concept. But, even with this definition, my statement that people sin stands, and probably even more so.
Jesus didn't tell the guy to just have 'faith' in him or in God
My list of core doctrines is not meant to be exhaustive and there are of course more. Yes, there are many things that Jesus taught. But without faith in him, that is believing his words are true and that he is who he claims to be, it would be impossible to go on to the next steps of accepting and obeying what he taught.
Christianity is defined by Christians...
But, if a practice is not based on the Bible, it's hard to argue that it would be legitimate Christianity. This was the main point of the Reformation. Even if the Pope himself declares what should be true Christianity, should people accept it? And on what authority can people dispute the Pope? Same goes with any pastor, bishop, professor or any other person in authority.
By necessity, from both God's perspective and our perspective, there should be some written document to serve as the ultimate authority. God knew there'd be no way to objectively counter people who abuse their power without a written source of authority. So, God provided the Bible as the means to be the authority over the church.
Imagine trying to tell someone they're just a 'cultural Hindu' if they find community, context, ethics, peace and transcendence from their religion but don't believe all the stories about Krishna or consider the Bhagavata Purana 'authoritative.'
This is a major difference between Hinduism and Christianity. There is no absolute authority in Hinduism. A Hindu can basically believe anything he/she wants and don't really have any doctrines or standards of belief. They take all their scripture as sacred, but they are not used to establish a set of doctrine that all Hindus must adhere to.
If you do tell a Hindu they are just a cultural Hindu, I would highly doubt any of them would disagree. Hinduism and their culture highly overlap with one influencing the other. In the case of Christianity, the culture might influence and shape us, but we are called to be more influenced by the Bible. And if the culture supercedes what is written in the Bible, I would argue they/we are cultural Christians.
If its purpose were exchanging information and learning new things, then surely you'd be glad to have discovered something new?
I operate this forum because I believe Christianity is true. If Christianity is false, I'll let someone else run another forum (and save a lot of my money and time as well).
A global flood is falsifiable to a point of near certainty, and obviously has been falsified - despite some folks' reluctance to admit it - but small scale events from ancient history will always be pretty uncertain one way or the other
Yeah, I do realize it'll take a lot of work on my part to sway people otherwise.
Absolute falsification may be impossible, but at what level of confidence do you think a resurrection conclusion could be rationally reached?
discovering the bones of Jesus (though it might be practically impossible to do), but I would consider that to be a defeater of Christianity.
As you said earlier regarding biblical inerrancy, and as Tam responded regarding 'authority,' the resurrection could be true even if the bible is not authoritative: On the other hand, it seems the bible cannot be authoritative if the resurrection is not true, meaning it's irrational to accept the conclusion of biblical authority any more than the extent of rational proof for the resurrection.
If the resurrection of Jesus did not happen, it's not just the authority of the Bible that is in question, all of Christianity is falsified.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.
As for proof, there won't be any 100% conclusive proofs for anything - whether it be God exists or not, Jesus was resurrected or not, a global flood did or did not occur, or the Bible is authoritative or not. Each person will have to make their own decision given the arguments and evidence.