The Minimal Facts for the Resurrection of Christ.

[aeon]

You are 100% free to doubt any of the facts... What fact would you like to start with? I'd be happy to discuss why scholars of all religious backgrounds affirm that particular fact.

There are no facts to doubt, so I do not doubt.

I don’t care about scholars, numbers, or authority.

You, or anyone else, can say there are facts.

That doesn’t make it so.

You have opinions, and ones you hold dear. You have a faith, which is, as you said in your book, part of your self-identity.

I don’t doubt that, nor do I question it. If you say you believe, I believe that is so.

But facts? No, there are none to be found.

You may disagree. That’s fine. You are entitled to your opinion. You can say something is factual, and I will say that which is presented without evidence may be summarily dismissed without evidence.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[QuickTwist]

There are no facts to doubt, so I do not doubt.

I don’t care about scholars, numbers, or authority.

You, or anyone else, can say there are facts.

That doesn’t make it so.

You have opinions, and ones you hold dear. You have a faith, which is, as you said in your book, part of your self-identity.

I don’t doubt that, nor do I question it. If you say you believe, I believe that is so.

But facts? No, there are none to be found.

You may disagree. That’s fine. You are entitled to your opinion. You can say something is factual, and I will say that which is presented without evidence may be summarily dismissed without evidence.

Cheers,
Ian

Earlier, you made it seem like all we have are copies of copies of copies... That is plainly false. We have better historical documentation for the NT than any other ancient work. So, you are free to throw out all of ancient history and say we can't know anything about the ancient world (which you do), but this is a skeptical bar that most anyone does not hold to. You are the exception because of your equally deeply held presuppositions that are neither normalized nor match what almost all scholars believe. But, I am sure you are smarter than all these scholars, which is the only conclusion that can be reached from your view.

 

[QuickTwist]

The problem with peoples presumed views on orthodoxy is that doubt cannot destroy what is in the heart once God has chosen you.

Jesus did not let Peter sink into the water.

Peter even denies Jesus three times.

Yet Jesus still accepts him.

Jesus said to Peter: This is the rock upon which I found my church.

Salvation is eternal.

Which is exactly why this whole thread is silly

That's a Free Grace heresy, as I already explained earlier. People can hold whatever heresies they want. They may be very earnest in believing such heresies. There have been heresies since the time the NT was written. That does not mean I can or should call them a Christian at that point. When all of Christian history and all modern denominations agree unanimously that some group calling themselves Christians is actually out, like one of the very few things they all agree on, I'm simply going to default to that position.

 

[aeon]

Earlier, you made it seem like all we have are copies of copies of copies... That is plainly false. We have better historical documentation for the NT than any other ancient work. So, you are free to throw out all of ancient history and say we can't know anything about the ancient world (which you do), but this is a skeptical bar that most anyone does not hold to.

I’m not throwing anything out. I am simply saying to regard all of it for what it is—a historical record, which is not fact. Opinions about those records are not facts. Nothing is being dismissed. Everything is being regarded for what it can be known to be.

Also, you ascribed something to me which is inaccurate. I asked you before to stop doing that, yet you have persisted.

Your way is rude. You wilfully dishonor boundaries.

You are the exception because of your equally deeply held presuppositions that are neither normalized nor match what almost all scholars believe

I certainly am an exception for a few reasons, but not for this one. I’m not sure what presuppositions you are referring to. I have no belief. I make no claim.

But, I am sure you are smarter than all these scholars, which is the only conclusion that can be reached from your view.

Could be, but it’s not a dick-measuring contest.

You can appeal to letter, or title, or numbers all you like. It’s immaterial if we are talking about facts.

And we aren’t. We have only shared opinions.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Fruiteloop]

I guess you need to burn me at the stake then.

The biggest persecutors of Christians has always been other Christians.

very sad

 

[Wyote]

That's a Free Grace heresy

I assumed you would say as much.
Where then would you draw the line of acceptability as far as Godly works is concerned?
What is "enough" according to you? Or according to your current understanding of consensus, doctrine etc.

 

[QuickTwist]

I’m not throwing anything out.

You are. You dismiss that we can have some sort of knowledge about the past.

I am simply saying to regard all of it for what it is—a historical record, which is not fact. Opinions about those records are not facts. Nothing is being dismissed. Everything is being regarded for what it can be known to be.

Why are these considered "historical facts" and not mere opinions by virtually all scholars regardless of their religious background? Because they are based on EARLY EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY which is about the strongest form of evidence there is for historical record. You can say those writings are biased all you want, but if I want to know about the revolutionary war, I am not going to throw away George Washington's journal because he is biased or whatever. It would absolutely be the best source to use. Now, you have said that there are no "facts." I want to know what you mean by that. Because they are not facts in terms of certainty, but in terms of probability, just as science is done. There does not exist scientific "facts" because science is always revising itself. In the same way, these facts are thought of as such because of the sources they come from. You can dismiss them and say, "All history is simply narrative." You can do that. But historians today do no such thing as we talked about earlier.

Also, you ascribed something to me which is inaccurate. I asked you before to stop doing that, yet you have persisted.

Please tell me what I ascribed to you which is not accurate so I can see if I did such thing so I can apologize. I have asked you these sorts of things about what my offense against you was and you never actually say what or where I offended you, which makes apologizing impossible.

I certainly am an exception for a few reasons, but not for this one. I’m not sure what presuppositions you are referring to. I have no belief. I make no claim.

You are an exception because you disagree with virtually all scholars. I thought I made that clear...

 

[QuickTwist]

I assumed you would say as much.
Where then would you draw the line of acceptability as far as Godly works is concerned?
What is "enough" according to you? Or according to your current understanding of doctrine etc.

I already gave my criteria for that...

Do you confess Christ? Do you hold to orthodox beliefs? Do you take your faith seriously more than just another thing you tack onto your identity as an example?

I've mentioned that the Bible has many passages about falling away and passages about apostasy. I said earlier I simply take these passages at face value rather than reinterpreting them.

I also mentioned that salvation is not gained by doing good works or lost by doing one too many sins. It's based on a willful hardening of the heart toward God over time where you quench the Spirit to the point that you reject grace.

There are no orthodox traditions of Christianity who say that if you reject Christ you are still saved. Free Grace is not orthodox. For starters, they reinterpret the word repent. They think simply saying the words, "I believe in Christ" is enough to save someone whether they said it with their heart or not. The book of James says, "Can simply saying you are a Christian mean you are saved?" It's a rhetorical question and the answer is "No, simply saying you are a Christian is not enough for saving faith." The Bible describes this as "Christians in name only."

 

[Wyote]

Do you confess Christ? Do you hold to orthodox beliefs? Do you take your faith seriously more than just another thing you tack onto your identity as an example?

So if this is your criteria than you have no argument as far as calling anything Free Grace Heresy
You call it such simply because you assume others aren't as Christ-like as you are
Your reference is just yourself

Thanks for clearing that up

 

[Fruiteloop]

God makes the heart what it is.

God loves a person would not let them go easily.

 

[Wyote]

Gotta love how "scholars" "the majority of scholars" in your world just means whoever you've cherry picked to support your own biases

 

[QuickTwist]

So if this is your criteria than you have no argument as far as calling anything Free Grace Heresy
You call it such simply because you assume others aren't as Christ-like as you are
Your reference is just yourself

Thanks for clearing that up

That's not what I said. I said earlier, if all of Christianity says you are out, then you are IMO. That is a perfectly reasonable position to hold. I'm not making the rules. I think if you believe in the deity, death, and resurrection of Christ, and what follows from that (the Trinity and repentance of sins, for example) then you are saved. Why did I even add that you have to take your faith seriously? Because of what Jesus Himself says about those who are "Luke warm," saying "I will spit you out of my mouth," which obviously means that they are no longer saved.

 

[QuickTwist]

God makes the heart what it is.

God loves a person would not let them go easily.

I never said anything to the contrary of that...

 

[Wyote]

That's not what I said

It is exactly what you said
You just don't fully realize it

 

[QuickTwist]

Gotta love how "scholars" "the majority of scholars" in your world just means whoever you've cherry picked to support your own biases

I'm not cherry picking anything... I'm going by what Free Grace theologians say themselves. I'm also making a pretty wide net on who gets in. It's definitely NOT "if you disagree with me on Christianity, you are out." There are some issues I disagree with very strongly that I do not think are salvific issue. For example, I don't think the Bible anywhere teaches a pre-tribulation rapture, but I don't think if you believe in dispensationalism you are a heretic. I do not believe in evolution to the point that I came from a fish, but I believe that there are some Christians who are theistic evolutionists who are saved.

 

[QuickTwist]

It is exactly what you said
You just don't fully realize it

What part of "willfully hardening your heart" do you not understand? I believe God will never leave us or forsake us. I do not believe that the Bible says anywhere that we cannot ourselves walk away from the faith and the many, many verses on apostasy are proof of that.

 

[Wyote]

You are going off on some weird tangents now
I'm done with whatever this is kthxbye

 

[Fruiteloop]

It is hard to communicate.

But so long as accusations happen or are perceived to happen you do not get what you want.

saying "You hardened your heart" is not a way of helping people. It does the opposite.

that lesson is to be learned I suppose.

 

[aeon]

You are. You dismiss that we can have some sort of knowledge about the past.

By definition, no we cannot. We may arrive at an understanding of the past, but we cannot know it, in the gnostic sense of knowing.

You can say those writings are biased all you want, but if I want to know about the revolutionary war, I am not going to throw away George Washington's journal because he is biased or whatever.

I have said nothing about bias.

Now, you have said that there are no "facts." I want to know what you mean by that. Because they are not facts in terms of certainty, but in terms of probability, just as science is done.

No, it is not like science at all in the way you suggest.

By fact, I mean knowable in the present. Verifiable. Testable. Provable. Quantifiable. Traceable. Repeatable. Reasonable.

No historical record meets that standard.

There does not exist scientific "facts" because science is always revising itself.

Indeed, and part of what I see as beautiful in science is free inquiry, review, proof, and revision as data is gathered. Hypothesis leads to theory. We think a certain way until we think otherwise.

In the same way, these facts are thought of as such because of the sources they come from.

That’s fine. My standards are far more rigorous. The world is full of charlatans, after all.

Please tell me what I ascribed to you which is not accurate so I can see if I did such thing so I can apologize. I have asked you these sorts of things about what my offense against you was and you never actually say what or where I offended you, which makes apologizing impossible.

Absolutely not. In the beginning of the thread, I made it quite clear what you had done, and even let you know I was open to an apology.

I was ignored.

I won’t set myself up for that for a second time.

Fool me once, and all that. Consider this a formal refusal. You are not to be trusted in this way.

You are an exception because you disagree with virtually all scholars. I thought I made that clear...

Fair enough.

They are suspect, because they have mortgages to pay. Trust no one for truth if their employment is contingent on a consensus narrative.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[QuickTwist]

saying "You hardened your heart" is not a way of helping people. It does the opposite.

You are constantly putting words in my mouth...