mark kennedy said:
So it would be a lie to say that credible evidence supported the ressurection right?
If by evidence you mean hard, concrete, observable, scientific evidence, it certainly would be. We don't have that kind of evidence.
Peter himself tells us so in Acts 10: 40-41
....but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear,
not to all the people, but to us who are chosen by God as witnesses and who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
All the rest of us, those of us who did not eat and drink with Jesus after his resurrection, are entirely dependant on the testimony of the apostles. We have nothing but faith in their testimony as the basis of our faith.
(Quickly read through all Peter's sermons in the first 10 chapters of Acts and see how in every one he mentions that the apostles are chosen witnesses.)
[BIBLE]Acts 17:31[/BIBLE]
How can you possibly call this "evidence"?! What evidence do we have that a day has been appointed? What evidence do we have that there will be a resurrection and a judgement. What is the ground of our assurance? All of these we believe, to be sure, but not on the basis of evidence.
The gospel seems a little more tangible to me, in fact it is precedented on events like the incarnation and the ressurection being historical. It is far deeper then intellectual assent, faith is being fully persuaded facts that if historical, could be affirmed or falsified by evidence.
Well sure. But "could be" affirmed and falsified is a long way from "is" affirmed or falsified. I believe both the incarnation and resurrection to be historical. And certainly the resurrection could be affirmed or falsified if we had access to the resurrection body of Jesus. But we don't. So we do not have the evidential means to affirm or falsify the resurrection. I am not sure that we even could affirm or falsify the incarnation. What tangible evidence would there be that a man is the incarnation of God?
Of course you are talking about the internal wittness of the Holy Spirit that convicts us of sin, righteouness and judgment, or at least I hope so.
Of course. And who articulates prayers for us that we can only groan, and who guides us into all Truth and affirms God as 'Abba' and so on and so forth.
The last part gets a heartfelt amen from me but I'm not sure if you mean scientific postivists or logical postivists.
Both actually.
We are first of all called to believe that the one who makes the promise is faithfull, even if the message seems impossible.
In other words, we are called to have faith. Isn't that what I have been saying?
I think one thing is for sure, faith is relavant to origins theology:
[bible]Hebrews 11:3[/bible]
Amen to that. It is one of my favorite verses. I don't know of any TE who would disagree with it.