SAm said;
"Maybe someday God will reveal himself to you and you will understand. I could never prove anything by history anymore than you can Prove the Jesus story by history."
You can prove, beyond reasonalbe doubts, historical events with reliable historical documents. The reliability of the documents is, of course, the cornerstone of our dispute. The only rational way available to man for proving the reliability of historical documents is by using the common sense approach of historiographical techniques.
I started to pursue this a few months ago with Nihil, and I will now combine my responses to both of you into this present response. Let us go back and evaluate what I said before. Then we will take them one item a time.
Historical reliability of the Gospels!
Nihil said:
"Even your imaginary Christ cannot compel an intelligent individual mind to believe his myth. Millions of people have faced the choice, and with no real power compelling them to believe have rejected your myths and superstition for lack of evidence. Why should any normal skeptical mind believe what there is absolutely no credible evidence to support? Personally, I have contempt for those who make an important decision of the choice of god onnonexistent evidence. To me, Christianity lacks credible evidence."
Emile said:
For those who reject reliable historical documents and rational observations, there can be no valid evidence or proof of anything! For those of who acknowledge man's shortcomings, but at the same time insist that man can reasonably and rationally judge empirical evidence and documents as to their validity, we believe we can reach honest and rational conclusion about past historical events.
History is about knowing what happened, and why it happened! Eyewitness accounts and original documents of historical personalities and events are generally considered more reliable than second-hand information. Speculative commentary is least reliable and almost useless in establishing authenticity. Your comments are mostly speculative commentary containing little or no substantive material. They are exercises in obfuscation!
When historical documents in the New Testament are examined critically, they reveal an abundance of eyewitness materials that substantiate their validity and reliability. We can verify the authenticity and historical reliability of the Gospels by examining both the internal and external evidence associated with the Gospels according to standard hisoriographical methods. I've reproduced these standard historical criteria below and will examine them one at a time.
INTERNAL CRITERIA:
1.) Was the author in a position to know what he or she is writing about? Does the text claim to be an eyewitness account, or bed on an eyewitness account? Or is it based on hearsay?
2.) Does the document in question contain specific, and especially irrelevant, material? Firsthand sources are typically full of material, especially details, which aren't central to the story, whereas fabricated accounts tend to be generalized.
3.) Does the document contain self-damaging material? If a document includes material which could cast a negative image on the author, on the "heroes" of the story, or especially on the truthfulness of the
story, this is typically a good indication that the author had truth as a central motive for writing.
4.) Is the document reasonably self-consistent? There is a coherence to truth which fabrications usually lack, though different
perspectives on a single historical account usually include some minor
discrepancies.
5.) Is there evidence of the accumulation of legends in the document?
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:
1.) Would the authors of the document have a motive for fabricating what they wrote? Obviously, if a motive can be established for the author fabricating an account, the trustworthiness of the document is diminished. On the other hand, if the author had nothing to gain, or even something to lose, by writing the account, the document's trustworthiness is increased.
2.) Are there any other sources which confirm material in the document and which substantiate the Ghanaians of the document? If a document's account can be, to any extent, confirmed by sources outside the document itself, this increases the document's credibility. The same criteria must be applied to these outside sources as well. And if the authorship of a document can be, to any extend, attested by outside sources, this enhances the document's credibility also.
3.) Does archeology support or go against material in the document? If archeological findings can substantiate any material found in a document, the document's trustworthiness is increased. Conversely, if archeological findings stand in tension with the document, its credibility is damaged.
4.) Could contemporaries of the document falsify the document's account, and would they have a motive for doing so? If there existed persons who could have exposed the document's account as a
fabrication, and had a motive for doing so, but nevertheless did not--sof far as history tells-this increases the trustworthiness of the document.
These criteria are standard historiographical techniques. When I return from my trip, Lord willing, I will examine how well the Gospels fare in the light of these criteria. I claim that they fair extremely well. If we have the patience to carefully go through each one, I believe honest and searching hearts and minds will be edified.
------
|
