Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I almost hate to interject off the specific topic, but I have to reply to the statements concerning the nature of faith.
Maestroh,
How exactly are you defining "evidence"? Because, in a very real sense, faith or belief (syn.), in biblical parlance, is decidedly apart from what
ordinarily passes for evidence.
As for the resurrection, we must believe in it (regardless of how we evaluate the "eyewitness testimony") because it is a fundamental component of the gospel--which alone is of any saving value. Thus it is included in the gospel synopsis of I Cor. 15:3-4. It is to be believed (credited) on account of the fact that it was foretold
in the Scriptures.
That he appeared (vv. 5-8) to over 500 witnesses post-resurrection--including Paul long after he had left this world--is useful information, but only one of them in this place bears his witness. Rather, I believe the same testimony that promised his coming, and now witnesses to his having come (and promises a second coming)--the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.
I'm not saying ours isn't a reasonable faith, for it certainly is. And there is plenty of "evidence" out there for the sifting if one goes looking for it
and knows what they are looking for. However, if we start insisting that faith be "grounded on evidence" (and it sounds to me as if the evidence to which you refer may be significantly beyond Scripture), then we are establishing criteria equal to or more fundamental than the Word of God. Our faith, in that case, is really in the evidence that we've decided is sufficient to stand in. True faith must be grounded in God himself, and in his Word.
What do you do when God says: "Just believe me. I'm not going to give you any more "reason" to trust me than that. I said so. Now you are obligated to believe me. On my 'say-so'. Because I am God" ?
Bookmarks