Introduction to Christology - Lesson 2

[@downenout8705]

"Facts" seriously, there no "facts" pertaining to the Christology of Jesus. All you have is a collection of stories written in the third person by anonymous authors decades after the supposed events and two thousand years of apologetics. Remember if you are considering a reply all you need to do to put this Psalm fourteen atheist in their proper place, is to provide a single sentence containing just a mustard seed's worth of empirical evidence supporting the biblical resurrection claim. I am however as confident as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow, this you will never do, because you can't because there is none.

[@KildaltonTheologicalStudies]

Your entire premise is flawed as it is built on an empiricist epistemology. Empiricism (nor rationalism, existentialism, positivism etc.) cannot account for itself, let alone the necessary preconditions of Intelligibility: The Laws of Logic, The Laws of Morality, The Reliability of Sense Perception and the Uniformity of Nature. The Bible itself asserts that some will not believe even IF given empirical evidence, even seeing Christ risen from the dead, "‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16: 31). This is why when Jesus appeared many believed but "some doubted." (Matthew 28:17) But, if you are interested, I can provide resources from those who began an unbelievers but became Christians when they did an honest investigation.

[@downenout8705]

@KildaltonTheologicalStudies Obviously I don't use the appalling epistemology of Hebrews 11: 1 faith to determine the truth of any proposition. I use scepticism, critical thinking and methodological naturalism. I withhold my belief in the truth of any proposition until I have sufficient evidence to justify a belief in that proposition. All you have done is assert without evidence or reason that my epistemology cannot account for certain things, yet you yourself are reliant on the technological comforts that are a product of minds that also used my epistemological tools. You need to read Matthew 7: 1-5 and do better. Fyi asserting "my god did it because it says so in my holy book" isn't accounting for anything and makes you no different to a Muslim pointing to the Quran or a Hindu pointing to the Vades. It's also very convenient that you have a book that tells you in Matthew 7: 6 that I won't accept evidence and you can use that verse as an excuse not to provide the evidence that I say you don't have. I however, have no interest in this intellectual dishonesty, I am interested in evidence and again you offer nothing, other than telling me what the Bible says. Fyi I am very familiar with the story, I am simply not convinced that it is true. I have spent most of my life identifying as a Christian so if you are interested I can recommend lots of resources where Christians became unbelievers when they did an honest investigation. Telling don't you think, that instead of giving the reasons why you first came to Christ you want to defer to others? If you don't consider your reasons good enough to convince me, why were they good enough to convince you? Having said all of this I do appreciate your intellectual honesty in accepting that your belief in the truth of the claim in 1 Corinthians 15: 14 has no empirical evidence based foundation, just blind Hebrews 11: 1 faith. As to my reasons for leaving the faith, the acceptance that I didn't have good reasons or sufficient evidence to justify my god beliefs and reading the Bible with an open mind.

[@KildaltonTheologicalStudies]

As I said, your worldview cannot account for the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. Scepticism (a form of rationalism) and methodological naturalism (a form of empiricism) are a flawed epistemology. The Biblical Christian Worldview, on the other hand, does provide a justifiable basis for the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. You BEGIN with your flawed epistemology and when any assertion does not meet the criteria of your presuppositions you cannot see it. It is like wearing a set of glasses and unless something cannot be seen through the lens it does not exist. But, the truth is, as Richard Dawkins readily admits even IF he heard the voice of God or saw Jesus risen from the dead he would not believe it. Why? Because admittedly really does not follow the scientific method but rather his presupposed Atheist worldview.

[@downenout8705]

@@KildaltonTheologicalStudies Wow, you are incapable of listening. I say again asserting that an epistemology that has produced millions of peer reviewed and published scientific papers on a multitude of subjects and that has produced the technological world that you are dependent on, is flawed, without providing a shred of evidence to support such an utterly absurd assertion, is unbelievably arrogant. I am not Richard Dawkins, all I asked of you as a Christian, was for a single sentence, nothing else, but your Pslam fourteen bigotry and hatred towards me is so great that you couldn't even do that. But that's the difference between us as I would never promote as good and true any literature that said such disgusting things about you simply because you don't share my lack of belief in your god. Please don't concern yourself however I'll simply add you to my very long list of Christians who happily defecate all over 1 Peter 3: 15, offer you the last word and move on. Please don't stop, however as it is Christians like you who are doing so much good work in helping to drive Christianity towards extinction.

[@KildaltonTheologicalStudies]

I don't hate you. I am just pointing out that you assert a presupposed epistemology that cannot account for the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and if the Christian worldview cannot meet the criteria of your presupposed epistemology then you will not believe in it. Your rationalist-empiricist dialect is flawed. I offered to provide you with resources of those who began as skeptics who then then did extensive research and came find find historical claims of the Bible to be trustworthy. The hostility is yours. It seems you were probably raised in some sort of Christian faith and now you are on a campaign to do drive-bys on the comment sections of Christian KZbin channels. Not to prove them wrong, but in an attempt to establish a justification your continuing in your current trajectory. Why do I believe in the Christian worldview? Is it based on empirical observation? Rationalist deduction? An existential experience? No. I believe in the Biblical Christian Worldview because all else leads to futility. Only the Christian worldview can provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility such as the universal laws of logic, the uniformity of nature and a universal transcendent standard for ethics and morality. All other worldviews are operating on borrowed capital as they have to assume that which their own worldview cannot provide. I recommend checking out the Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein debate here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJbKc3ljn96leLs