No, nobody said anything remotely like this. The statement was "The authenticity of Christian theology is not based on the historical accuracy of the scriptures." If you think about it for a few moments, it should be quite evident why any assertion that Christianity is fully rooted in the gospel narratives is absurd. Well, I tested your assertion by making all elements of the scripture historically inaccurate. And you appear to agree (or at least don't immediately and clearly disagree) with the claim that, absent Jesus's existence, life, and death, Christian theology would not exist as we know it. Therefor, Christian theology must be based in at least some of the Gospels being historically accurate on several counts. I suppose I could see an argument that it'd still be true on some inaccessibly high plane of existence, like the Grecian urn buried and forgotten is yet beautiful, but I don't even buy that. If no one died for your sins, then how can the central claim of Christian theology (of salvation through Jesus's death and resurrection) be correct? Feel free to correct me if you think I'm that far off on what I consider the central claim, of course.
If you're making an epistemological inquiry, then a broader investigation of epistemology is definitely relevant. Only if I'm defending the epistemological superiority of Plato, which I'm not. You made a claim, and I'm asking you to support it. Generally, pointing out that some other, unrelated claim might be false is irrelevant to whether your claim is true or not.
Yes, well I have indeed made the assertion without an argument yet. But I'm just giving you the opportunity to consider why this is obviously the case. Just think about it for a minute. How could the Christian religion at its core possibly be based on the New Testament? Can causality go backwards? So delete the entirety of the New Testament from historical reality (and we'll presume for the moment that the OT/Torah/Pentateuch/whateveryouwanttocallit is, at the very least, an accurate and true metaphor). Again, does Christian theology exist in this new world we've created? Not so far as I can see, not in any form we'd recognize as members of our world peering through the window to the New Testament-less world. I hate quoting scripture because I'm always fairly certain I get it wrong, as again, I'm no expert, but I'll hazard a shot here: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Christian theology (and again, I consider soteriology the central claim of the faith) is absolutely dependent on the accuracy of certain elements of the Gospels.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 05:37 (UTC)Well, I tested your assertion by making all elements of the scripture historically inaccurate. And you appear to agree (or at least don't immediately and clearly disagree) with the claim that, absent Jesus's existence, life, and death, Christian theology would not exist as we know it. Therefor, Christian theology must be based in at least some of the Gospels being historically accurate on several counts. I suppose I could see an argument that it'd still be true on some inaccessibly high plane of existence, like the Grecian urn buried and forgotten is yet beautiful, but I don't even buy that. If no one died for your sins, then how can the central claim of Christian theology (of salvation through Jesus's death and resurrection) be correct? Feel free to correct me if you think I'm that far off on what I consider the central claim, of course.
If you're making an epistemological inquiry, then a broader investigation of epistemology is definitely relevant.
Only if I'm defending the epistemological superiority of Plato, which I'm not. You made a claim, and I'm asking you to support it. Generally, pointing out that some other, unrelated claim might be false is irrelevant to whether your claim is true or not.
Yes, well I have indeed made the assertion without an argument yet. But I'm just giving you the opportunity to consider why this is obviously the case. Just think about it for a minute. How could the Christian religion at its core possibly be based on the New Testament? Can causality go backwards?
So delete the entirety of the New Testament from historical reality (and we'll presume for the moment that the OT/Torah/Pentateuch/whateveryouwanttocallit is, at the very least, an accurate and true metaphor). Again, does Christian theology exist in this new world we've created? Not so far as I can see, not in any form we'd recognize as members of our world peering through the window to the New Testament-less world. I hate quoting scripture because I'm always fairly certain I get it wrong, as again, I'm no expert, but I'll hazard a shot here: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Christian theology (and again, I consider soteriology the central claim of the faith) is absolutely dependent on the accuracy of certain elements of the Gospels.