Christianity is the result of an event, and that event created a movement, and that movement produced texts that were collected and eventually bound into a book.
An approach that argues from and anchors to the event of the resurrection rather than the authority of the Bible makes sense to me.
That apologetic in no way diminishes the Bible. One doesn’t have to change one’s beliefs in order to change one’s approach.
If this is your argument I’m not sure if it’s a distinction without a difference but I also can’t see the issue.
The fact that there are so many here who seem based upon their arguments with you over the years to see it as in fact a diminishing of the authority of scripture means I’m not alone in potentially having misunderstood.
I guess that given the fact that scripture and ecclesiastical authority have typically been the places one goes to give credibility to the truth of the event I fail to see how this is workable.
What is the grounding authority within your proposed approach?
I’m genuinely confused
Ps- you posted an answer to this before I posted this thanks
Christ is Gospel, scripture, the word, the authority.
What do you do when you need Christ... RIGHT NOW?
Do you say wait, I need to go read the bible... get to sunday to sit in a pew and listen to a lesson, call the preacher... a tragedy, thankfulness, loss, ect...
No you go straight to Christ, spirit to spirit, you fall to your knees, bow your head, stand and raise your arms, whisper in hope, scream in agony, beg and thank...
What's not to understand going to Christ without a bible/religion, even in everyday happenings.
Kent
