'The Case for Christ' and a stubbornly historical religion

[Bretton Garcia]

87. Barron never does History

Last edited Mon Apr 17, 2017, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Like a typical priest, he never really looks for documents outside the Bible. He doesn't rely on what science says is possible. He just offers yet another reading of our endlessly uncertain, equivocal Bible, as his only reference.

But? Amazingly, Bishop Barron endorses one of my main ideas: that ironically, amazingly, and contrary to what many Christians like Rug and Guil assert, Cristianity is not supposed to be based just on faith and slirituality. But also Reason and History (and I add later, Science):

'First, at its best, Christianity is not fideist, that is to say, reliant upon a pure and uncritical act of faith on the part of its adherents. Rather, it happily embraces reason and welcomes critical questions. Secondly, and relatedly, Christianity is a stubbornly historical religion. It is not a philosophy (though it can employ philosophical language), nor is it a spirituality (though a spirituality can be distilled from it); rather, it is a relationship to an historical figure about whom an extraordinary historical claim has been made, namely, that he rose bodily from the dead. '

Barron and especially Strobel to be sure, might seem to imply that when we apply real historical methods to the Bible, it will be proven true and good. However? I hold that while the Bible supports critical history, it knows well enough itself that ultimately, much of the Bible itself and its heaven, will mostly collapse, and be disproven, by really rational, historical, scientific, critical inquiry.

My view is that the Bible supports science; even though it knows that science will disprove ... much of the Bible itself.