The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Angrboda]

Scholars sometimes talk about a hermeneutic of suspicion. Hermeneutics is just a fancy word for an approach to interpretation, and so a hermeneutic of suspicion would mean that one begins, in the case of the Bible or in the case of some other ancient document, suspecting that what one has in front of one is likely not to be accurate until one finds enough reasons to reverse one’s position.

Hermeneutic of suspicion is not appropriate for ancient historical works in general. If it were followed, our world civilization textbooks would be blank until we reached very recent centuries. One has to develop a global perspective on the likely reliability of a given author, of a given work, and then if there are repeated places where they can be discredited, yes, move to a hermeneutic of suspicion. But otherwise, one begins with a hermeneutic of trust or one would not have ancient history to write at all. In fact, that’s what historians regularly do…except that some, when they come to the gospels, change the ground rules which is not fair and is not going to lead to the most reliable historical results, either. We want to have a level playing field. - Craig Blomberg, PhD

Does a Christian approach the supernatural aspects of the Vedas or the Koran with the hermeneutic of suspicion, or do they just accept the events as historical?

[Whateverist]

Which makes me wonder why catholics aren't more catholic in their hermeneutics.

[Minimalist]

Which makes me wonder why catholics aren't more catholic in their hermeneutics.

They've been trained not to.





The Inquisition wasn't for pussies, you know.

[Exian]

Meh, I made it through 8 pages before realizing its in the 30's. Did His_Ma...I mean, Randy ever get to demonstrating the supernatural?

Why is it that when you bring in a new piece of refutation, apologists always say that that new piece is "outside the scope of the argument at this time"? Seems very dishonest.

[The Grand Nudger]

If religion is the source of all the problems claimed by atheists, then the elimination of religion is in your own best interest. 


And kinda like politics wherein Republicans and Democrats both try to sway the independent moderates, you better snatch up as many of us slow-minded Christians as you can before taking on the Muslims because you're gonna need all the manpower you can find at that point.

Are those your christian morals talking, advising me that elimination of some cherished thing or group would be in my own best interests?

I guess you and I have different ideas of what's in my own best interest, eh?

[Randy Carson]

Does a Christian approach the supernatural aspects of the Vedas or the Koran with the hermeneutic of suspicion, or do they just accept the events as historical?

In the sense that these religions may have something to say about God that is true, then they might be approached with an eye to understanding the truths that they contain. For example, the Catholic Church recognizes that Islam, like Judaism, is one of the great monotheistic religions and that they worship the same God. So, they may be theologically unsound overall with some degree of truth mixed in.

As for other religions, Catholics recognize that other religions search among the shadows and images for the God who is unknown and yet near. All goodness and truth in these religions is a preparation for the full gospel which is the responsibility of Christians to explain so that all might be saved.

I don't know anything about the Vedas, so you'll have to ask a historian if there is anything of value in them from a purely historical perspective.

[robvalue]

So, you're changing your own scenario. Just being reliable and being in court isn't enough now. So say they did whatever thing was needed to "get your attention" and then said Islam was true, and that you should convert. Would you believe them?

The only record we have of God doing anything is in the bible, which is the claim. So until we've established any of it is true, you can't assume it actually happened in order to justify your claim and say "God killed false prophets". That is begging the question, again.

Yes, I've tried talking to God. I've tried every method I could possibly think of. Absolutely nothing happened. From my point of view, he is doing everything possible to hide from me and to make it look like all religions are baseless mythical stories. If he's trying to persuade me any of them are true, and particularly Christianity, he couldn't be doing a worse job of it. I don't need to claim they are false, any more than I need to claim the tooth fairy isn't real. But until such time as God decides to give me some evidence, then there's not much I can do. From your point of view, the best I could do is pretend to believe. That really would be a waste of time all round. And considering the God on show, even if I did believe he was real, the last thing I'd do is worship him.

There is nothing special about the "evidence" for Christianity. It requires the same circular reasoning as every other religion to believe anything in it above mundane historical facts. As soon as you tell me "what God did" as if it is a fact, you are assuming your conclusion.

No, there isn't any credible historian who would say that if you can demonstrate most of an account is true, you should believe all the rest of it no matter how wild the claims. Only those who already believe in the story would take this approach. It's not intellectually honest or consistent.

---

Wait. Your definition of God includes that he "Can't fail to exist".

That is the ultimate in begging the question, to define something so it can't not exist.

This makes me wonder if you're at all interested in challenging your beliefs and considering if you could be wrong; or are just looking to persuade others and affirm what you already believe.

It's an extremely vague definition, and an overreaching one, giving rise to several possible logical paradoxes. Also there is the question of how anyone could know all this about him even if he does exist, except by taking his word: and not even his word, humans' word of what his word is.

If a powerful thingy turned up in front of me, I really would have no way to know if it was this "God" or just a super powered alien. How could I tell?

[Whateverist]

Does a Christian approach the supernatural aspects of the Vedas or the Koran with the hermeneutic of suspicion, or do they just accept the events as historical?

As for other religions, Catholics recognize that other religions search among the shadows and images for the God who is unknown and yet near.

And yet fail to recognize the reciprocity of that viewpoint. From their viewpoint you are falling every bit as short of the mark.

All goodness and truth in these religions is a preparation for the full gospel which is the responsibility of Christians to explain so that all might be saved.

I don't know anything about the Vedas, so you'll have to ask a historian if there is anything of value in them from a purely historical perspective.

You must be the life of the party at ecumenical meetings.

[Ravenshire]

There is evidence.

What you call evidence obviously isn't since it isn't evident to all. Are you really this thick or are you just so lost to reason because you've taken such an unreasonable position?!?

[Minimalist]

I'll go with "he's really that thick."