My Journey From Being an Atheist to an Agnostic to an Calvinist Christian

[Scipio]

Google will help you out, tons of information available for those who choose to seek it.

I have read the works of; evangelical scholars, moderate scholars and liberal scholars and historians. Different opinions on many things, but there is significant agreement as well.

Here is what the majority of NT scholars and historians agree on regarding the NT:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had a following
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, it is up for grabs and the historical credibility of the NT in regards to anything else is in serious question. Most objective historians would agree, the bible is not a book of historical accuracy (although bits and pieces are likely accurate), it is instead, a book of theology.

Google doesn't help me in finding whom you regard as "credible scholars and historians". Which is what I am asking for.

 

[bhsmte]

Google doesn't help me in finding whom you regard as "credible scholars and historians". Which is what I am asking for.

This will help you sift through as much bias as possible.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/believewho.shtml

 

[Faith Unites]

This just in! Most biblical scholars are christians. shocking I know.

 

[Faith Unites]

"Here is what the majority of NT scholars and historians agree on regarding the NT:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had a following
-Jesus was crucified"


They also believe that the tomb was empty and that his followers believe he was resurrected

 

[bhsmte]

"Here is what the majority of NT scholars and historians agree on regarding the NT:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had a following
-Jesus was crucified"


They also believe that the tomb was empty and that his followers believe he was resurrected

People believe a lot of things and the historians know there is a difference from believing something and whether it is historically credible.

 

[bhsmte]

This just in! Most biblical scholars are christians. shocking I know.

No kidding, which is one reason, why getting an objective take on the bible has not been an easy task.

But, one can call themselves a Christian and still claim much of the bible is simply not credible, from a historical standpoint.

The scholars and historians that have been extremely bias, are the one's who have been employed by theological institutions, who have mission statements that say something like; "we believe the bible is error free and the divine word of God". Quite predictable, what those folks opinion will be, especially if they want to keep getting a paycheck.

Sort of like having the tobacco company scientists, telling us smoking is not bad for you.

 

[dhh712]

Objective evidence does exist though. We have the entire Bible at our disposal. One needs only to go through the process of exegesis to gain a more historical understanding of it. I can't post link yet but reclaimingthemind.org offers all sorts of classes on different topics and all of which are taught by seminary grads. Everything in history leaves a footprint. Often times these footprint are erased by time. The history of Christianity has not been.

I think objective evidence does exist, I just wouldn't be able to provide them with it; as of yet I have a very rudimentary knowledge of the Bible. Definitely know it's out there--I'm convinced every single thing that is written of in the Bible has objective evidence somewhere in the world and we either know of it or if not it just has been obscured or corrupted in some way.

 

[BL2KTN]

I'm afraid you are badly mistaken. You will find no objective evidence of talking snakes tricking rib women into eating magic fruits.

 

[bhsmte]

I think objective evidence does exist, I just wouldn't be able to provide them with it; as of yet I have a very rudimentary knowledge of the Bible. Definitely know it's out there--I'm convinced every single thing that is written of in the Bible has objective evidence somewhere in the world and we either know of it or if not it just has been obscured or corrupted in some way.

Objective evidence is verifiable and the bible can not be verified independent of itself to be historically credible.

Which is why, people need to take it on faith.

 

[Cearbhall]

I'm afraid you are badly mistaken. You will find no objective evidence of talking snakes tricking rib women into eating magic fruits.

I appreciate that the Catholic Church doesn't claim that all of this actually happened, unlike certain denominations.

 

[dhh712]

Objective evidence is verifiable and the bible can not be verified independent of itself to be historically credible.

Which is why, people need to take it on faith.

It may not be until Christ returns that it will be verifiable; I think much of it has been corrupted so we can't understand it for what it is now because of the entrance of sin into the world (which is why faith is needed. Before the fall though, God could be understood directly as man was able to commune with Him; I would think that at that time, no objective evidence was needed--or if it was, it could be had very plainly. Therefore at His return, it will be the same way for having salvation means to be able to have communion with God eternally). Yet some things such as Christ's death and resurrection (or that He simply had lived) are definitely objectively verifiable. Many of the historical events which are recorded in the Bible surely can be verified by evidence as well.

 

[BL2KTN]

I appreciate that the Catholic Church doesn't claim that all of this actually happened, unlike certain denominations.

Instead it teaches that wine magically turns into zombie god blood which people drink like vampires... unless you were to test this inebriated substance, in which case it would go back to wine.

 

[woodpecker]

There is no such thing as a "Calvinist Christian". If you are a child of God you are born again.

You are not a follower of man, but Christ. You are a child of God.

God died for all the world, not just a few...

 

[Faith Unites]

People believe a lot of things and the historians know there is a difference from believing something and whether it is historically credible.

We were talking about what historians agreed upon. The list would have been much longer if I had said what christians believe. Also, each book in the new testament stands and falls on its own. The new testament isn't one big story. The first canon wasn't formed until something like 170 a.d

 

[bhsmte]

It may not be until Christ returns that it will be verifiable; I think much of it has been corrupted so we can't understand it for what it is now because of the entrance of sin into the world (which is why faith is needed. Before the fall though, God could be understood directly as man was able to commune with Him; I would think that at that time, no objective evidence was needed--or if it was, it could be had very plainly. Therefore at His return, it will be the same way for having salvation means to be able to have communion with God eternally). Yet some things such as Christ's death and resurrection (or that He simply had lived) are definitely objectively verifiable. Many of the historical events which are recorded in the Bible surely can be verified by evidence as well.

Bits and pieces of the bible can be verified as historically accurate. Other parts can be verified to historically inaccurate and other parts are simply not objectively verifiable.

If you claim the resurrection can be objectively verified, we must have a different definition of objective verification.

 

[bhsmte]

We were talking about what historians agreed upon. The list would have been much longer if I had said what christians believe. Also, each book in the new testament stands and falls on its own. The new testament isn't one big story. The first canon wasn't formed until something like 170 a.d

What Christians believe is not the same as what can be historically verified, but I'm sure you knew that.

Which is why, most historians call the bible, a work of theology, vs a work of historical accuracy.

 

[Scipio]

What Christians believe is not the same as what can be historically verified, but I'm sure you knew that.

Which is why, most historians call the bible, a work of theology, vs a work of historical accuracy.

Some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, others are not. It doesn't have to be, and it's not as a matter of fact, that historians treat the Bible either as an entirely abstract work which is meant to convey theological concepts OR as a piece of history containing nothing else but facts about the world(s) it is meant to describe.

 

[Cearbhall]

Instead it teaches that wine magically turns into zombie god blood which people drink like vampires... unless you were to test this inebriated substance, in which case it would go back to wine.

That's a common misconception. The RCC doesn't claim that it turns into human cells. It's about the essence of what it is, not what it would be if you put it under a microscope.

 

[BL2KTN]

That's a common misconception. The RCC doesn't claim that it turns into human cells. It's about the essence of what it is, not what it would be if you put it under a microscope.

"Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the change whereby, according to Catholic doctrine, the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in reality the body and blood of Christ.[1][2] The Catholic Church teaches that the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood,[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the outward appearances - species[4][5][6] in Latin) remains unchanged." -- Transubstantiation

 

[bhsmte]

Some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, others are not. It doesn't have to be, and it's not as a matter of fact, that historians treat the Bible either as an entirely abstract work which is meant to convey theological concepts OR as a piece of history containing nothing else but facts about the world(s) it is meant to describe.

Historians treat any writing the same way, they apply the historical method to what the writings claim. If the claims can be verified with some confidence using the historical method, they will deem it as being historically credible. If the claims can not be verified using the historical method, they will state the claim can not be verified as historically accurate.