bertot: You wrote:
To Autumnman. Brinigng someone along to admissions is slow adrduous process, but it is worth it in the end. Thank you for admitting in a round about way that the book of Acts could be considered a reliable historical document.
In case you are not aware of this fact, human beings have two distinctly different styles of describing historical events.
The first and more reliable is the “documentary style.” The documentary style compiles a vast number of historical records that corroborate the specific historical event, and though the points of view are quite likely different due to the varying perspectives the event itself remains consistently factual.
The second and essentially unreliable is the “legendary style.” The legendary style tends to depict a historical event in a biased and imaginary fashion with little or no corroborating evidence to support the legendary fantasy that is depicted. The N.T. accounts of history happen to fall under the “legendary style” of describing historical events.
A more recent example: The Viet Nam War was an actual event that took place in the history of the United States of America. The documentary, “Letters Home From Viet Nam”, presents the actual events and the various perspectives of some of the soldiers who fought in that war. The movie Platoon and No Man Left Behind are fictional, legendary accounts of the Viet Nam war, and these movies cannot be considered reliable, historical sources.
Do you understand what I am conveying?
Initally you stated in other posts that there were no historical documents that would support what the NT has to say and that it could not be considered reliable. We will see.
This is a quote from the Illustrated Dictionary and Concordance of the Bible (I.D.C.B.):
quote:
“Without the records of the four evangelists, biographical knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth would be sparse indeed” (pg. 533).
Thanks for somewhat answering my question about what constitues a historcal record or account as reliable. admittedly, I must say that I know no thinking person that would use your limited definition of, an event of human activity that is as verifiable today as when it took place, certainly there must be other criteria that could substantiate facts, actual facts.. Logically there would be no way to have confidence in any event because no one today saw events before thier actual existence.
I did not say, someone must “see” historical events. Those are your words, not mine.
What I said was; a recorded historical event needs to describe a human activity that is as verifiable today as it was when it took place. Climbing a mountain, sailing the sea, speaking in parables, warring with one another, etc. etc.
More is known about the historical Pontius Pilate than there is about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The Roman governor of Judea is described in some detail by the famous chroniclers of that time, Philo and Josephus. To the best of my knowledge Philo, Josephus and the Roman geographer Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.) make no mention of Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, the N.T. “writers provide few of the normal biographical details, contrary to what might be expected with regard to one who so changed their lives” (I.D.C.B. pg. 536).
How do you know the events you quoted in the book of Acts did not happen were you there?
With one’s mental faculty of reason engaged and one’s mental capacity of disbelief fully functional the events I described in the book of Acts are regarded as mythical, legendary fantasy. If indeed Jesus of Nazareth was capable of physically presenting himself to mortals after his resurrection, the question arises; what did Jesus need his Apostles when Jesus himself could do the remaining work? What was the point of Jesus having middlemen?
Furthermore, a number of times in the N.T. Gospels Jesus clearly states that it was “his words” (i.e. what he was saying) that held the most importance. See, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 1:20, 9:26, 21:33, John 3:34, 5:47, 6:63 & 68, 8:30 & 47, 12:47, 14:10 & 23 {“If a man love me, he will keep my words . ”), 15:7 {“If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.”).
However, “After the gospels, the NT writers place very little emphasis on the teachings of Jesus” (I.D.C.B. pg. 536).
I find that not only sad, but a little disturbing. Don’t you?
Further, I did not know we were now discussing the miracles in the scriptures, how about we stick with the basic stuff first and respond to that later. Also, people arguing over which is the true Church would fall into the category. At this point we are interested in the scriptures origin and verifiability.
quote:
The N.T. Book of Acts does indeed have some historical accounts woven through it, but, the above quotes from Acts are not historical in any way shape or form.
Not only does it have historical accounts, that is what sets it apart from the spurious gospels you mentioned earlier. Further your staunch statement about those events not happening should be Supported with some historical document if you are that sure they did not happen. Remember you are setting up what constitues historical criteria, but you seem to be using only yourself as a source to say they did not happen, agreed?
As far as I am aware of the independent chroniclers of that time, Philo, Josephus and Pliny make no mention of the events directly related to Jesus of Nazareth in the N.T. Gospels. One would certainly think that The Supreme Being coming in the flesh to set the world of man on the right path would have been an event that would have received at least a mention by other intelligent people of that time. I am indeed interested in learning of these extra-biblical sources you have mentioned.
Provide the evidence that they did not take place. The basic point I am making initially is that the NT documents are and can be considered as a reliable document wheather you beleive the miracles or not.
You are missing the point. It is the miracles that cast considerable doubt on the reliability of the N.T. accounts. Jesus as a man and a historical figure is quite possible. That Jesus himself did not write anything down is a quandary. That Jesus was a supernatural Jewish Messiah, divinely conceived as well as in the line of David is a bit of a stretch. The Essenes of Qumran probably would have made note of such a supernatural advocate to their conflict with the Sadducees and Pharisees of Jerusalem. The Essenes of Qumran did not make mention of Jesus of Nazareth at all.
That should be our starting point. Thomas Jeffersons way was to simply erase all the miracles, that simply wont work. there are other witnesses outside the NT that say they did happen, but I will wait for your source document that falsifys them.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of Philo and Josephus, as well as the recorded events by Pliny the Elder make no mention of the events described in the N.T. Gospels. Without corroborating evidence supporting the N.T. Gospels the rest of the N.T. Books are worthless.
Do you agree?
Again, based from you own words in another post would you admit that atleast from the book of Acts, the Church it describes could have been established as it says it was, Yes or No?
No! Jesus states in Mark 8:38, “ . when he [the son of man] cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” and then in Mark 9:1 Jesus says, “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”
That is to say that “some of them standing” there will not yet have died prior to them seeing “the kingdom {church} of God come with power.” The church/kingdom described in Acts had no power. The Son of man did not come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels and establish the church/kingdom of God with power according to the N.T. book of Acts.
Of course to reply in the negative you would need to show why the book of Acts is not reliable as a historical document.
I believe I already have. If you feel you need more, tell me, and I will see what I can find in the sources I have available.
Further, based on the argument I gave from Mark 9:1, in a previous post and the arguments I presented, would it also be possible that the Church is the Kingdom as Christ described and that that prophecy was indeed fulfilled.?
No! The Son of man did not come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels and establish the church/kingdom of God with power.
We are talking about the Supreme Being supposedly wanting to change the course of mankind. Wouldn’t the Supreme Being have greater resources to draw from?
If you wish, at this time you may now start presenting your arguments as to why the NT could not and cannot be considered as reliable historical documents. I say they are.
I feel as though I have; carefully read what I have submitted above.
Regards,
Ger
™ Version 4.2