Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-09-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Are the Gospels credible history? ...do they offer reasonable grounds for being believed?

No. They're nomologically absurd at face value. But then, the same can be said of most ancient documents. That's why we analyze them.

So from that perspective, the right question is whether or not they hold value to us in understanding history. To that, I would say yes.

Can you name some of the ancient documents that are absurd at face value yet are regarded as credible history?

spamandham · 10-09-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

However, Jesus as the Gospel writer understood him, is Jesus in the light of Christian interpretation of Old Testament prophecies and Christian belief in the continued presence of the risen Christ.

This is rather different from a picture of Jesus based on critical historical investigation.

There is nothing outside the Gospels upon which to base a critical historical investigation of Jesus, is there?

spamandham · 10-09-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Can you name some of the ancient documents that are absurd at face value yet are regarded as credible history?

No. But I can name some that are absurd at face value, yet are analyzed.

aa5874 · 10-10-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Can you name some of the ancient documents that are absurd at face value yet are regarded as credible history?

No. But I can name some that are absurd at face value, yet are analyzed.

Well, can you name any that are absurd at face value, analysed and then found to be credible history.

spamandham · 10-10-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, can you name any that are absurd at face value, analysed and then found to be credible history.

No. The point of analysis is to try to understand history, not determine whether a text is credible.

andrewcriddle · 10-10-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

However, Jesus as the Gospel writer understood him, is Jesus in the light of Christian interpretation of Old Testament prophecies and Christian belief in the continued presence of the risen Christ.

This is rather different from a picture of Jesus based on critical historical investigation.

There is nothing outside the Gospels upon which to base a critical historical investigation of Jesus, is there?

The canonical Gospels are obviously our main sources but we have evidence of one sort or another from non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Tacitus, NT books other than the Gospels such as Paul's epistles and Christian works (orthodox and unorthodox) outside the NT.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic · 10-10-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But are the Gospels credible history? What criteria do you use to judge the historicity of ancient documents?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

.......Jesus as the Gospel writer understood him, is Jesus in the light of Christian interpretation of Old Testament prophecies and Christian belief in the continued presence of the risen Christ.

This is rather different from a picture of Jesus based on critical historical investigation.

But can common sense, logic, and reason be used to determine whether or not the events that the Gospels say happened actually happened.

Johnny Skeptic · 10-10-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The canonical Gospels are obviously our main sources,
but we have evidence of one sort or another from non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Tacitus, NT books other than the Gospels such as Paul's epistles and Christian works (orthodox and unorthodox) outside the NT.

Main sources for what specific claims?

What Christian works outside of the New Testament are you referring to? Were the authors supposedly eyewitnesses? If so, what did they see?

Where did Paul get his information from? Why should Paul be considered a trushworthy source?

andrewcriddle · 10-10-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But are the Gospels credible history? What criteria do you use to judge the historicity of ancient documents?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

.......Jesus as the Gospel writer understood him, is Jesus in the light of Christian interpretation of Old Testament prophecies and Christian belief in the continued presence of the risen Christ.

This is rather different from a picture of Jesus based on critical historical investigation.

But can common sense, logic, and reason be used to determine whether or not the events that the Gospels say happened actually happened.....

They can help.

We can IMO establish that some of the material probably is historical and some is probably not.

However, from the point of view of critical historical investigation, a large minority of the material is what Meier labels non liquet or unclear. IE for nearly a half of the material it is not at all clear whether it is historical or not.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 10-10-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The canonical Gospels are obviously our main sources,
but we have evidence of one sort or another from non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Tacitus, NT books other than the Gospels such as Paul's epistles and Christian works (orthodox and unorthodox) outside the NT.

Main sources for what specific claims?

For most of our evidence about the words and deeds of Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What Christian works outside of the New Testament are you referring to? Were the authors supposedly eyewitnesses? If so, what did they see?

Works like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter are often held to be at least partly independent of the canonical Gospels. Early Church Fathers such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius are held by some scholars to be independent of the Gospels. (IMHO this is probably true for Clement but not Ignatius) There are also a number of sayings attributed to Jesus in early Christian writings but not found in the NT. Some of these sayings are on internal evidence plausibly authentic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Where did Paul get his information from? Why should Paul be considered a trushworthy source?

Paul presumably got his information from other Christians such as the original apostles. He is evidence for what Christians claimed about Jesus in the very early period.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.