Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
01-21-2009, 11:00 AM | #171 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:09 AM | #172 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
|
I thought that the complaint coming from mythicists was that NT scholars don't seem to give a rat's ass about inquiring into the question of historicity? Isn't it just the mythicist's that feel a need to force a decision on this? Aren't most scholars willing to go on with their work by assuming the historicity of Christ as at least a plausible working hypothesis?
|
01-21-2009, 11:12 AM | #173 | ||||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
01-21-2009, 11:14 AM | #174 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
01-21-2009, 11:15 AM | #175 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:17 AM | #176 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
The conception of Jesus, the birth, the baptism, the temptation, the miracles, the transfiguration, the crucifixion, the resurrection or the ascension? |
|
01-21-2009, 11:46 AM | #177 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
I do not wish to argue these points here and now. They are a work in progress. But you have seen glimpses of them from me in this forum in the past. Ben. |
|
01-21-2009, 12:31 PM | #178 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
That does not mean that it is nonhistorical, or even that it remains in historical limbo, as it were. It means that this set of tests cannot demonstrate historicity. But historians also use other arguments which are not based on tests. For example, Gilbert J. Garraghan writes on page 305 of A Guide to Historical Method: Cumulative or converging evidence is virtually circumstantial. It is "a heaping up" (L. cumulus) of bits of evidence, individually never more than probable, and often only slightly so, until they form a mass of evidence, the net result of which is certainty. But, as already noted, the resulting certainty does not issue directly from the mass or cumulus of probabilities, since no number of mere probabilities added together can logically produce certainty. To produce such effect, one must invoke the "principle of sufficient reason," by arguing that the only possible explanation why so many bits of evidence point to the same alleged fact, is that the fact is objectively true.This cumulative method does use tests or conditions, per se. It is more a function of logic. So... what I should have written is that I think those three data can be demonstrated historically, but not necessarily using the historical tests that I gave from Gottschalk. Rather, there are also other means that can be employed. Ben. |
|
01-21-2009, 02:27 PM | #179 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
|
Quote:
I mean, I suppose you would want at least a few "bits of evidence point to the same alleged fact". |
||
01-21-2009, 09:14 PM | #180 | |||||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bismark, ND
Posts: 325
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|