> Is it a rhetorical statement from your part?
I'm just hoping to clarify how I think Christian evangelism (or indeed any sharing of a worldview) is best received -- a desire to know and follow the truth, because it's the truth, regardless of consequences.
> If it can't be proven (or at least observed), then by definition, it is a belief, not a truth.
If you believe Socrates and Alexander the Great existed, do you say those are "truths"?
The evidence for those people is, relatively speaking, scant compared to the evidence for Jesus - his recorded words, death, and resurrection.
Historical events aren't something one can "prove" in any scientific or mathematical sense. We believe what we believe about history based on strong consilience in informed observation of artifacts. By design, Christianity supplies just 1 empirical foundation upon which everything else is built: the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
I'm just hoping to clarify how I think Christian evangelism (or indeed any sharing of a worldview) is best received -- a desire to know and follow the truth, because it's the truth, regardless of consequences.
> If it can't be proven (or at least observed), then by definition, it is a belief, not a truth.
If you believe Socrates and Alexander the Great existed, do you say those are "truths"?
The evidence for those people is, relatively speaking, scant compared to the evidence for Jesus - his recorded words, death, and resurrection.
Historical events aren't something one can "prove" in any scientific or mathematical sense. We believe what we believe about history based on strong consilience in informed observation of artifacts. By design, Christianity supplies just 1 empirical foundation upon which everything else is built: the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.