fta

Yes, but this thread is specifically about "Early Christian Writings". If we don't believe in the miraculous mumbo-jumbo recorded by the Church Fathers and ancient pagan writers then why are the New Testament miracles somehow exempt from this critical process?

Roger Pearse

True, but I was afraid that a fallacy had crept in, that the comment made was in some way specific to Christian writings of antiquity, when in fact it was not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Gamera

Ah, I would say scientific knowledge and humanistic knowledge are pretty unrelated yes.

fta

Well, why are the New Testament stories of miracles and the supernatural supposed to be credible when the miraculous/supernatural stories told by the Church Fathers are not?

Gamera

I don't think their credibility is relevant. The NT isn't about miracles, but the proclamation of the gospel. The gospel narrative contains miracles, but the early church didn't preach the gospel narrative (which came later); they preached the gospel message, which did just fine without references to miracles.

jeffevnz

What is the epistemology of "humanistic knowledge"?

fta

But surely the "gospel message" ultimately stands or falls on the reality of miracles: namely the divinity and Resurrection of JC, which are the core doctrines of Christianity. "If Christ is not risen then our faith is in vain", etc. If the NT accounts of the most important miracles of all time are untrue, then the gospel message is likewise untrue, and Christianity is a false religion. How can you detach the truth and credibility of these key miracles from the "gospel"?