Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (25768)	6/14/1999 1:43:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39621

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 on nonexistent evidence. To me, Christianity lacks credible evidence." ---------- For those who reject reliable historical documents, there is no evidence! History is about knowing what happened, and why it happened! A careful and critical examination of the documents often achieves this. 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! Why not approach documents and historical truths with rational mind? When historical documents contained in the New Testament are examined critically, they reveal an abundance of eyewitness materials that substantiate their validity as reliability. We can verify the authenticity and historical reliability of the Gospels by examining both the internal and external evidence according to standard historiographical methods. 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 hey 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 by looking carefully at he historical evidence.

To: nihil who wrote (25768)	7/12/1999 11:03:00 AM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Historical reliability of the Gospels versus Nihil's irrational comments! 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 on nonexistent evidence. To me, Christianity lacks credible evidence." Summarizing Nihil's Jewish perspective: 1.) Imaginary Christ. 2.) His myth.(Christs' myth) 3.) Your myths and superstitions.(Meaning the Christian Faith) 4.) Make an important decision of the choice of god on nonexistent evidence.(meaning Christianity has no foundation for its beliefs.) 5.) Christianity lacks credible evidence. These Jewish arguments are, of course, classical rabbinical arguments all based upon the fables and myths found in the Babylonian Talmud. There are two fundamental and primary sources of information on Christ and Christianity; the New Testament and the rabbinical traditions in the Babylonian Talmud. Nihil has given a brief summary of the rabbinical-Talmudic beliefs and argument against Christ and Christianity, and I hope to show that the Christian faith is based upon valid and reliable historical facts. For those who reject reliable historical documents, eschew rational observations, and demand obeisance to discredited Talmudic fables, there can be no valid evidence or proof; it's pick and choose whatever meets your irrational and antichrist fancy at that moment. For those, however, who acknowledge man's shortcomings, but at the same time insist that man can reasonably and rationally judge empirical evidence and historical documents as to their validity, we believe we can reach honest and rational conclusions about past historical events. Historical truths and facts transcend time and endure the fickle nature of irrational men. Accurate and truthful history is sacred. History is about knowing what happened, and why it happened! Eyewitness accounts and original documents written by historical personalities involved in the events are generally considered more reliable than second-hand information or histories based on original historical documents. Speculative commentary is the least reliable and almost useless in reconstructing what really happened and establishing authenticity. For the most part, Nihil's(and most of the Jews and pagans) views on concerning Christ are speculative commentary. Nihil's comments contain little to no substantive information. They are exercises in Jewish obfuscation at their worse, and flights of imaginations at their best! Again, speculative commentary are mostly useless for arriving at truth. When historical documents in the New Testament are examined critically and by standard historical procedures, 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 historiographical methods. I've reproduced these standard historical criteria below and will examine them one at a time.