Christian belief and the value of the study of the shroud of Turin

Until the day comes that pretty much all biblical, historical, anthropological scholars come up with the irrefutable proof that Christ was an actual person...

Since 99.999999999......% of persons who ever lived cannot be irrefutably proven to have existed, it is an enormous burden of proof to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that a particular obscure Galilean prophet lived (even if his followers published some extraordinary claims about him). What can be shown, on the other hand, is that the mythicist arguments of, say, Richard Carrier, are significantly flawed.

Since 99.999999999......% of persons who ever lived cannot be irrefutably proven to have existed, it is an enormous burden of proof to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that a particular obscure Galilean prophet lived (even if his followers published some extraordinary claims about him). What can be shown, on the other hand, is that the mythicist arguments of, say, Richard Carrier, are significantly flawed.

Don't know this guy. Did a quick look. Are you saying that the preponderance of evidence is that this Jesus person did exist?  However, if so, that there's a god and that he's this god's son, is highly suspect?

as a means for explaining existence kind of like comparing a 2 year old's scribbling to the complexity of the art created by the greatest masters in terms of what's really going on.

Yet it strikes me that some of our era's most interesting non-materialist ideas (pan-psychism, simulation hypo, Kastrup's Idealism, Process Philosophy) are re-framings of very, very old ideas.

The point is that the bible calls for and encourages such acts or shows such acts as being okay. Yes technically they are not about "love" but they are certainly considered "good" which is the reason I said it.

For example:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=21

Take your pick.

You trust what sceptics say about biblical interpretation???  I wonder if you trust what they say about paranormal phenomena?  I doubt it.  Your confirmation bias shows through loud and clear.  I don't have time to answer your points but it would help to read things in their correct context and in the context of the whole if you are to ever get an idea of what biblical Christianity is all about - and not get it from people who are simply antagonistic towards it and will interpret it however they want!  A whole history of christians who have read the bible say that you are wrong mediochre - and many of your posts say that you are wrong because you are an angry man and your anger is hurting you.

It's...complicated.

Traditionally, there are four broad soteriological ("doctrine of salvation") paradigms in the Christian tradition:

Exclusivism - The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus offers the only path toward liberation of humanity from its bondage to sin and death, and this path can only be trod by those who acknowledge Jesus in this life.

Inclusivism - Salvation through Jesus, as above, except it is possible for those who do not adopt Christian convictions. Variations on this idea are the post-mortem offer of salvation or God's condescension to judge persons insofar as they respond to the "light" they receive. Justin Martyr, 2nd century AD, is the earliest clear case of an inclusivist theologian.

Universalism - All will be saved through Jesus, one way or another, eventually. Explicit support as far back as Origen (2nd-3rd centuries), arguably back to St. Paul. 

Pluralism - A more contemporary approach in our more globalized world; supposes that God has laid out many paths of return and the way of faith in Christ is but one of the paths. Precedent can be found at least as far back as Nicholas of Cusa in the Renaissance period.

When I said "those who believe in the biblical Jesus Christ" I meant those who believe in the Jesus Christ that said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me"  The apostle Paul understood this to mean "...there is no other name under Heaven, given to man, by which we must be saved"  and the other NT writers agreed that salvation only comes through faith in Jesus. .

I don't wish to debate theology so I'm backing out.

Don't know this guy. Did a quick look. Are you saying that the preponderance of evidence is that this Jesus person did exist?  However, if so, that there's a god and that he's this god's son, is highly suspect?

No, I would say any conclusions about the existence of God or about Jesus' potential relationship with God are non sequiturs from the probable demonstration that he was a historical figure. Evaluations of the latter will be based on a combination of one's plausibility structure and assessment of the historical validity of the early witnesses to Jesus, which are almost entirely the New Testament documents.

When I said "those who believe in the biblical Jesus Christ" I meant those who believe in the Jesus Christ that said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me"  The apostle Paul understood this to mean "...there is no other name under Heaven, given to man, by which we must be saved"  and the other NT writers agreed that salvation only comes through faith in Jesus. .

I don't wish to debate theology so I'm backing out.

I didn't consider my outline as a salvo in a theological debate. Consider what I presented more as an ethnographic taxonomy of Christian doctrines, not an attempt at making some normative claim.

It strikes me as a common hang-up that many persons will define terms by anecdotal and parochial reference. "Biblical" Christianity is one such term, as it is usually identified with the theological and hermeneutical trajectories of evangelical Protestantism. But that tradition is only a few centuries old, and none of the figures I cited in the previous post would have considered themselves to be "un-biblical." What is being assumed here by the label "biblical" is not some interpretive paradigm directly stated in the texts, of course, but an evangelical-biblicist presupposition that the Bible is best seen through the lenses of literalism, inerrancy, and the "plain sense," the latter treating the text as if it can be read as quickly and unassumedly as the newspaper. But this hermeneutic is actually quite alien to centuries of Christian scholars and theologians who would aver that they take the Bible seriously and with authority.

For example, Origen the universalist was a prolific author of commentaries on biblical texts, and defended scripture as an authoritative source of knowledge in his polemic against the pagan critic Celsus. You might breezily conclude that his universalism was some obtuse violation of biblical proscriptions, or you might be willing to concede that you are judging "biblical Christianity" by a contingent and contextualized standard.

I could explain why a universalist or pluralist interpretation easily accommodates the texts you cited (the latter was Peter in Acts 4 by the way, not Paul), but I would have to go into detail regarding Logos Christology, and the latter would involve an (interesting, to my mind) excursion into Aquinas.

I could explain why a universalist or pluralist interpretation easily accommodates the texts you cited (the latter was Peter in Acts 4 by the way, not Paul), but I would have to go into detail regarding Logos Christology, and the latter would involve an (interesting, to my mind) excursion into Aquinas.

I, for one, would be interesting in reading such a post!

I didn't consider my outline as a salvo in a theological debate.

No, it's me I don't trust, not you.  I don't know where it will go if I hang around!

I didn't consider my outline as a salvo in a theological debate. Consider what I presented more as an ethnographic taxonomy of Christian doctrines, not an attempt at making some normative claim.

It strikes me as a common hang-up that many persons will define terms by anecdotal and parochial reference. "Biblical" Christianity is one such term, as it is usually identified with the theological and hermeneutical trajectories of evangelical Protestantism. But that tradition is only a few centuries old, and none of the figures I cited in the previous post would have considered themselves to be "un-biblical." What is being assumed here by the label "biblical" is not some interpretive paradigm directly stated in the texts, of course, but an evangelical-biblicist presupposition that the Bible is best seen through the lenses of literalism, inerrancy, and the "plain sense," the latter treating the text as if it can be read as quickly and unassumedly as the newspaper. But this hermeneutic is actually quite alien to centuries of Christian scholars and theologians who would aver that they take the Bible seriously and with authority.

For example, Origen the universalist was a prolific author of commentaries on biblical texts, and defended scripture as an authoritative source of knowledge in his polemic against the pagan critic Celsus. You might breezily conclude that his universalism was some obtuse violation of biblical proscriptions, or you might be willing to concede that you are judging "biblical Christianity" by a contingent and contextualized standard.

I could explain why a universalist or pluralist interpretation easily accommodates the texts you cited (the latter was Peter in Acts 4 by the way, not Paul), but I would have to go into detail regarding Logos Christology, and the latter would involve an (interesting, to my mind) excursion into Aquinas.

Well, I certainly wouldn't pick a theological fight with you after that post.