Classroom Update
Okay, so I'm assuming that you're all going to want an update on how things went in class today because of my post from last week. Nothing particularly exciting happened. I put my quote up on the board before class started, so we started class by talking about the quote I put up. I had to restate what my point was defend it (as best I could). The result was that the prof said he didn't think that reflected needing historical proof, but that it was theological and he stood his ground. He did however say that it was a valiant effort and that he doesn't mind if people oppose him as long as they can back up what they say.
posted by L @ 8:03 PM
2 Comments:
At Thursday, September 28, 2006 2:17:00 AM,
Strange Man in a Strange Land said…
Historical proof is needed because if the historicity of Christianity is doubted, there is no root nor reason for our faith. The death and resurrection of Christ is the focal point of all Christendom. Without the sacrifice of the cross, there is no forgiveness of sins, and without the empty tomb there is no hope of resurrection. What brings it from the theological to the historical, is that because the historical setting of the Bible has not been disproven it gives more credence to the theology of the Bible, therefore making faith in the death and resurrection easier. If we cannot historically prove that Christ was God made flesh, we have no reason to preach a gospel that has the power to change the world.
If you want more information about this, Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, and Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell are great tools for reasons why the historicity of the Bible is so crucial to the Gospel of Christ.
Keep up the good fight Liz.
At Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:02:00 AM,
L said…
that was pretty much my arguement. i don't see the two things a separate, but i'm not going to sit there repeating myself when someone isn't listening. i'm not all that gifted when it comes to debating.
Post a Comment
<< Home