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: Sam Ferguson who wrote (26111)	7/9/1999 10:51:00 AM
From: Emile Vidrine	Respond to of 39621

To: Sam Ferguson who wrote (26111)	7/9/1999 11:03:00 AM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39621

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 You can prove, beyond reasonalbe doubts, historical events with reliable historical documents.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 The only rational way available to man for proving the reliability of historical documents is by using the common sense approach of historiographical techniques.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 Emile said: For those who reject reliable historical documents and rational observations, there can be no valid evidence or proof of anything!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. ------

To: Sam Ferguson who wrote (26111)	7/9/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Sam, Well, I was not talking about history. I was really asking a serious question. Since you were talking about a new better you after this life, I was interested in IF or HOW you knew your next life or body would be better. In that regard,, I also have another question. Babies being born now are they from past lives or are there "new" babies also? From the standpoint of your health right now if you choose not to answer I will understand. dan

To: Sam Ferguson who wrote (26111)	7/9/1999 2:43:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39621

Historical reliability of the Gospels-Inernal criterion # 2 Inernal criterion #2 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. These types of irrelevant details are powerful clues for both historians and eyewitness testimonies in trials. Looking at the evidence for criterion #2. The Gospels are full of the sort of irrelevant details which typically accompanies eyewitness accounts. Let's look at on primary example which is all the more significant because it deals with the Resurrection. Read John 20:1-8 carefully. I will point out some of the irrelevant details. Early on the first day of the week (when? does it matter?), while it was still dark (who cares?), Mary Magdalene (an incriminating detail) went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved(John's modest way of refering to himself--another mark of genuiness) and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"(not her lack of faith here). So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. They were running, but the other disciple out ran Peter and reached the tomb first (John's modesty again, but who cares about this irrelevant detail?). He bent over (the tomb entrance was low--a detail which is historically accurate for tombs of wealthy people of the time--the kind we know Jesus was burried in) and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in(why not? another irrelevant detail). Then Simon Peter, who was behind him (modest repetition again), arrived and went into the tomb (Peter's boldness stands out in all the Gospel accounts). He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head(irrelevant and unexpected detail--what was Jesus wearing?). The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the line(could anything be more irrelevant, and more unusual, than this? Jesus folded on part of His wrapping before He left!) Finally the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went inside (who cares about what exact order they went in?) The point is clear! There is absolutely no reason to throw in this sort of irrelevant detail. It contributes nothing to the stroy line, except it's just part of what happened, so the author throws it in as he is recalling the event. The Gospels are full of materials like this. These details seem irrelevant but help authenticate a document and often are later validated by Archaeological and Anthropoligical studies.