leonarde

Posted by Devilnaut: Perhaps. But perhaps you wrote less than you thought you did.
This is not a true/false yes/no question.
Some details do indeed verify certain aspects of mythological/religious stories. That is
what historians/paleographers try to do. But this
is not (I'm really sick of writing this) done on
a Bible-wide basis: the books are taken one at a
time and evaluated on that basis: Genesis I suffers since no human was there "at the beginning".
It is believed that the Gospel of John was written
independently of the Synoptic Gospels: therefore
the one confirms the other. John is "outside of"
the Synoptic source/story line. Cheers!

Devilnaut

Indeed, which is what I was referring to as "corroborating evidence" and "independant confirmation from outside sources".

Novowels

Will it? Explain Scientology then. The author expressively ADMITS that it is fiction, yet it is a fast-growing religion in the US. (although I would still classify it as a cult, personally) Methinks you understimate the powers of wishful thinking.

leonarde

"Fastest growing": that's a frequently-cited characterization but it almost always means "relatively small": if cult/religion/ideology /what-have-you has a mere 6 members today and a year from now has 18 members it has grown by 200
per cent. A VERY LARGE denomination, church etc.
to achieve the same percentage would require
hundreds of thousands, millions, in some cases
tens of millions of converts to achieve the same
percentage.

Cheers!

Family Man

How do I react to that? Mostly with a yawn. One opinion of one Christian historian hardly overturns the overwhelming consensus that the miracles of the NT can't be considered historical.

Tell me, Radoth, how do you counter Raymond Brown's assertion that the Resurrection can't be considered historical? I can play the game of my favorite historian quote too. I just don't operate under your delusion that it proves anything.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Family Man

Assuming that this really happened. Doubtful, given the source.

And your justification for that statement is, given your inability to demonstrate any supernatural event is considered true by historians, is what exactly?

Actually, it is only people determined to find justification for the predetermined beliefs do that. People who look at the text critically do not.

leonarde

Posted by Family Man: How do you mean? What we are trying to determine ,in part, is how reliable the source (ie a given Gospel or other NT book) is.

The accounts of a miraculous story could be
an entirely invented one. If however, the
details of the illness conform to our 21st
Century knowledge of medicine (in the case of the
demoniacs, mental illness), then that has probative value for the incident in question (and the incident includes the cure).
Will it prove its historicity to the satisfaction of everyone? No.

Cheers!

Family Man

If the "cure" requires a supernatural explanation its probative value is zero. To allow any probative value in the restricted case of the NT when historians routinely dismiss supernatural explanation in all other ancient texts simply means that those claiming historical status to NT miracles are special pleading.

As to the reliability of the Bible, there are many cases I could bring up where it is quite clear that the NT authors were simply writing fiction (see, for example, the birth narratives). From what I've read of historical analysis of the NT, by the time scholars have thrown out what they believe to be later inventions, what is left of the historical Jesus is very thin indeed.

However, if what you are saying is that you're unwilling to state that the NT miracles definitely happened (i.e. are historical) but that you believe they happened anyway, you are within your rights. Personally, however, I am uncomfortable saying this particular set of miracles are true, while rejecting all other reports of miracles that happen to be outside of my preferred belief system. Hence, I reject them all.

leonarde

Partial post by Family Man: This, it seems to me, gives new meaning to the
phrase "circular reasoning". To wit, I understood
our discussion (over more than one thread) to have
gone like this:

1)We were discussing whether, not the Bible
,but the various works thereof, especially those
of the NT were worthy of examination to determine
their degree of historicity.

2)FM found in particular claims of supernatural
events to place such works outside of historical
writings (apparently completely).

3)I countered that historians routinely examined
even religious documents for whatever truth
there might be within them: psychological, mythological, and/or historical.

4)FM denied that such was possible.

5)I cited the details of such accounts of
supernatural events since wholly imaginary or
mythological tales wouldn't require and the
writers probably wouldn't bother with such verisimilitude.

6)Specifically I cited the symptoms of the demoniacs referred to in the NT in accounts of their healings: their maladies can in some cases
be identified 1900 years later.

7)FM countered that the maladies themselves were
hardly supernatural.

8)I responded that while they were not themselves
supernatural, these details were integral parts of
accounts of apparently miraculous cures (ie supernatural events)and hence of great probative
value in parsing the historicity of the entire
event.

9)FM's last statement, "If the "cure" requires a supernatural explanation its probative value is zero." indicates that he is just not open to evaluating such accounts. (see points 1 and 2).

Cheers!

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Family Man

Huh? I'm not arguing there is nothing of historical value in the NT. I'm attacking the naive view that the miracles in the NT can be considered historical.

True. And since you've refused to even answer my repeated challenge to show supernatural events from other ancient documents that are generally considered true, I believe my point has been proven.

And as has been pointed out to you, the first two are legitimate areas of inquiry, but have nothing to do with whether the claim is true. The last you haven't even addressed; you have just assumed they can be historical.

You're repeating yourself.

No, all you've done is to claim that the bible has accurately described mental illnesses (whoop-de-doo) without giving a reasonable explanation of how the truth of a supernatural "cure" can be inferred from such verisimilitude.

Which has nothing to do with the alleged cure.

True.

Doesn't follow. That biblical writers can accurately describe crazy people doesn't imply that the alleged supernatural cures even occured. Probative value is zero.

Of course not, and neither should you or anyone else. That doesn't mean the reasoning is circular. I start with the observation that, in evaluating ancient documents, supernatural claim s are never considered historical. This is because history concerns itself with natural events that we can reasonably be certain happened. That observation has not been contradicted to date. Therefore, miraculous events in the Bible can not be considered historical either without stooping to special pleading. Nothing circular there.

Really, Leonarde, if you're going to criticize my position the least you could do is to show that you actually understand it and respond to the point instead of simply assuming your digressions are meaningful.

Because, of course, all you've really done is to assume that because a story contains natural elements that seem correct that the supernatural elements must be correct too. That is a non-sequitor.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>