dog-on

I don't recall making any claims to specific types of history, especially braketing off history from Christian history. I believe you have read things into my post that weren't there to begin with. If I am mistaken, please point to where I happened to do what you claim I did. :huh:

Gamera

Sure, the epistle of James, which has caused nothing but problems for Pauline Christianity for 1700 years. It is attested to early on, but its authenticity was questioned by some. Indeed, what would later be considered "heretics" accepted its authenticity, yet it ultimately was included in the canon, despite having so much going against it. Nobody interested in theological purity would possibly include James' letter. It got into the canon because it was deemed authentic and inspired, and the church fathers left it to commentators to reconcile the obvious contradictions and ambiguities.

In fact, both letters of Peter have substantial doctrinal emphases that seem unPauline and require a lot of theological ink to reconcile.

If the canon were simply a matter of rejecting matter that caused theological problems, half of it would never have made it. There is no doubt that the canon was the result of serious deliberations, along lines we probably don't fully understand nowadays (like just praying about it and seeking revelation). And there is in most cases a strong deference to earlier general acceptance or rejection of the text at issue. Virtually all the epistles are commented on as having been accepted or rejected at some prior stage than the person writing about them. And this is usually an important consideration. The references often seem to be to common usage -- people (i.e., the Christian community) accepted or rejected a text, and that was an important factor for later church fathers.

Further, some of the texts rejected seem to be perfectly orthodox. Their problems are not doctrinal but essential (either they are simply poorly written or of dubious origins).

So your claims seems ill founded and biased.

Gamera

Well, your topic post suggests that the claims of the various churchmen that assembled the canon, or provided commentary that invited inclusion into the canon are suspect because they had an "obvious" agenda.

As opposed to those writers that didn't have an agenda?

No such agendaless writer existed or exists. All of history is made up of people who write with an agenda. So your premise seems to assume a pristine, agendaless author of pure history against which your comparing the Christian writers. And that's why I say it's naive.

History is the documentation of agendas. Nothing more or less. I assume you have no problem with the historicity of Socrates. The reason is, you assume that the sparse references to him in history are the result of writers without an agenda. In fact they had agendas. Yet you still have no problem with Socrates.

Nor do I, by the way. But I also have no problem with the historicity of Jesus and Paul, nor the probability that just as Plato probably more or less captured Socrates' dialogs, so to does the NT more or less capture the teachings of Jesus, Paul and the rest. For similar reason. I just want you to be consistently suspicious, if you're going to be suspicious at all.

My point is we must look to factors other than the existence of an agenda to critique historiagraphy, or we'll never get off the ground

Haran

The question required more than a two-letter reply, because it was a loaded question, as questions from atheists often are.

This is just a turning of your back to common evidence that exists and then lazily challenging someone to provide examples when one could do the work and look them up for themselves.

I have no examples handy, but there are plenty of them out there if you or anyone else really cared to look at the evidence instead of making false accusations against the church fathers. The early orthodox church fathers knew the scriptural texts and applied extremely rational thought when analyzing and scrutinizing the texts. They knew the earliest texts they had received via tradition and were able to tell whether apocryphal works contained the same ideas passed down to them in the earliest texts and tradition. But then, all one must do is read their works to discover this, unless one is simply lazy (or perhaps dishonest and just desiring to condemn all of Christianity and label it all forgery and/or exaggeration).

Atheists too often misapply the fancy latin phrases, because they can't recognize the falacies they wan't to impose on others. They just hope that the words look so wonderfully lofty that others will believe them simply because they used a fancy label to dismiss a point with a handwave.

Aparently you familiarity with the early church fathers is lacking if you do not believe that they were capable of rational thought as you seemingly stated. With respect to Serapion, anyone would be able to easily reject the Gospel of Peter as heretical. The thoughts contained do not match up with the earliest accepted texts, and the stories in it are 100 times more fantastical than anything found in the traditional (and correct) gospels. However, I suppose liberal scholars would see fit to accept angels with bodies that reach all the way up into the heavens and walking, talking crosses. The fact is that early church fathers were also capable of rational thought and reasonable, logical rejection of false gospels and apocryphal texts.

dog-on

Gamera, I fail to see how any of this supports your assertion against me.

BTW, I think you misunderstood the premise. Maybe I was unclear.

Gamera

Well, if I've misunderstood you I apologize. But I still see in your post (which I just reread) a rift in how you want to treat "inerrantists" and other historical writers.

Like I say, Socrates is poorly supported in history. If you apply your standard, you must conclude that Socrates should be relegated to the realm of fiction until proven otherwise. I don't want to do that, and I suspect neither do you.

And when I say Socrates, I basically mean most historical personages in the classic period. There is little reliable textual evidence of Pericles and Aristotle and Alexander. Aristotles' writings are for the most part utterly lost from history, and exist as translations of Arabic translations. For all we know, Aristotle was an Arabic creation.

My point is your standard really relegates all of history before the medaeval period into pure speculation. I don't mind that, as long as you're willing to admit the consequences of getting at "inerrantists" in the way you propose.

Haran

All I can say is "Amen Gamera". At least someone gets it....

Amaleq13

Nonsense. There was nothing "loaded" about it. You could have simply indicated that you know of no such examples (ie N-O).

You have no clue what I have or haven't read and so absolutely no basis for your characterization. If you have specific suggestions for research, by all means share them. These vapid comments which say more about yourself than anyone else are just boring.

I thought I made it clear I had already inferred that.

Again, this sort of empty declaration is a waste of time and bandwidth. I've been asking this question for well over a month and no one has mentioned even one of this alleged "plenty". BC&H hosts a rather knowledgeable crowd that is never reluctant to share what they know. If there really were "plenty" of examples, it is exceedingly odd no one has mentioned even one.

Besides, you are the one asserting their judgment should be relied upon. It seems only reasonable to wonder you have some specific knowledge to support your conclusion. I didn't want to assume it was something else you believe that is dependent upon faith but you've made it clear that this is, in fact, the case.

Get back to me when and if you happen upon any specific examples.

But I have read several and I don't find what you claim exists. Instead, I find men of faith judging texts according to their faith without any indication of any regard for more objective evidence. Again, I would be very interested in any examples to the contrary or even just which particular fellow and book might provide it.

This is as incoherent as it is unsubstantiated. Your response essentially consisted of "Oh, yeah? Well you atheists rely on faith, too!!". And that is the Tu Quoque fallacy. Google it, why don't you?

Fancy label? Are you kidding? It is Logic 101, amigo. Greater familiarity with the common errors in logic would certainly be to your advantage.

You need to read more carefully if this is what you understand my position to be. I think several of the early church fathers were quite capable of applying rational thought but I know of no evidence that they did so with regard to identifying the canon. Do you really not understand the difference or are you so worked up at having your sacred fathers challenged that you cannot think clearly?

If I thought it was impossible, I wouldn't bother to ask. I just want some actual evidence supporting this assertion certain Christians here keep making.

Not an unreasonable request if you stop, take a deep breath and think about it for a second.

PS Feel free to avoid the insulting comments in any response you intend to offer. They really only reflect poorly upon you.

Haran

I only return the volley. Besides, sometimes I find the volley fun.

If you wonder why people don't post what you are requesting, it is because it takes time to find the quotes (even from knowledgeable people- time which many of us no longer have for such requests). Since it is a common thing, one would think that you could just as easily find them on your own if you are serious.

xaxxat

Oh, I get it too..

Any historical record has to be taken as the truth...

I just knew those Sumerian records of the Annunaki and their flying machines were true! Praise Anu! Praise Enki!