Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[OzSpen]

Then you are saying wiki described it incorrectly. Please point out what I posted that is not correct.

Yes, I did address the historical point, by pointing out that what was written about Herod in the book of Acts was not written during Herod's time, rather a generation or more after his death. I am not questioning the validity of what was written, just when it was written. Thus it is not a contemporary description of the events pertaining to Herod.

Wiki is not regarded highly as an historical source and its view of the historical method was very limited.

As for what was written about Herod in the Book of Acts was not written during Herod's time, is not an unusual situation when writing history. Many issues are outside the life of a person in history. That's the nature of history.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wiki is hardly a solid, reliable source for the historical method.

Are you aware that the Book of Acts is a book of history?

Oh the irony is strong with this one.

 

[Davian]

I will not be replying to ridicule of me and my views.

Could it be that you will perceive any critique or critical examination of your personal beliefs as an attack, or ridicule?

Keep in mind that the purpose of this forum is for the critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs, and not general apologetics or Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers.

link

 

[bhsmte]

What historical information is available in the records that exist today? Take this example from an historical record:

'6 Now when Herod was about to bring him out, on that very night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison. 7 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood next to him, and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying, “Get up quickly.” And the chains fell off his hands. 8 And the angel said to him, “Dress yourself and put on your sandals.” And he did so. And he said to him, “Wrap your cloak round you and follow me.” 9 And he went out and followed him. He did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. 10 When they had passed the first and the second guard, they came to the iron gate leading into the city. It opened for them of its own accord, and they went out and went along one street, and immediately the angel left him. 11 When Peter came to himself, he said, “Now I am sure that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting”' (Acts 12:6-11 ESV).​

Here we have an example of an historical record where there was a supernatural event explained of an angel of the Lord coming to Peter, striking him, waking him and leading him past the first and second guards and the iron gate into the city opening 'of its own accord' and leading Peter out.

You might not like the supernatural aspect of the narrative of this historical event because it may not fit with your worldview, but here we have an example of a supernatural intervention that Peter experienced when he was sleeping between two soldiers. The historical method allows us to deal with the evidence that remains and we must deal with its content on an historical basis.

Are you able to deal with this information according to your understanding of the historical method? Or do you cast it out because it is an example of the supernatural in action?

Oz

Do you just assume the above is a historically credible record?

I will ask again, how does a historian go about confirming the historical credibility of miracles from 2000 years ago?

 

[OzSpen]

Do you just assume the above is a historically credible record?

I will ask again, how does a historian go about confirming the historical credibility of miracles from 2000 years ago?

Of course I don't assume a credible historical record, whether that be of Herodotus, Tacitus, Book of Acts, or N T Wright. I have a PhD in NT now (to be conferred in Sept 2015) with an emphasis on the historical Jesus. If you did your homework, you'd know that the Book of Acts has been demonstrated to be a reliable historical account of first century Christianity and the planting of the churches across the middle-Eastern region. Archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, is one who has demonstrated this. For a survey of information about the reliability of the Book of Acts, see, 'The Book of Acts and Archaeology' by Craig Hawkins.

I have demonstrated in this thread that a historian uses the same tools of the historical method to determine the credibility of miracles from 2000 years ago as he or she does to determine the life of King Herod or other figures from the fist century (e.g. those articulated by Josephus).

What are the criteria of historicity you would use to determine the veracity of any document from history, including that of the record of miracles?

I sense that your greater issue is that you don't believe in the Almighty God who performs miracles, so you have an a priori resistance to the idea of miracles being performed. Am I correct or not in having skepticism about your opposition to the supernatural and miracles?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Oh the irony is strong with this one.

No, the evidence is strong for the historical reliability of the Book of Acts but your worldview seems to be excluding an examination of its trustworthiness.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course I don't assume a credible historical record, whether that be of Herodotus, Tacitus, Book of Acts, or N T Wright. I have a PhD in NT now (to be conferred in Sept 2015) with an emphasis on the historical Jesus. If you did your homework, you'd know that the Book of Acts has been demonstrated to be a reliable historical account of first century Christianity and the planting of the churches across the middle-Eastern region. Archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, is one who has demonstrated this. For a survey of information about the reliability of the Book of Acts, see, 'The Book of Acts and Archaeology' by Craig Hawkins.

I have demonstrated in this thread that a historian uses the same tools of the historical method to determine the credibility of miracles from 2000 years ago as he or she does to determine the life of King Herod or other figures from the fist century (e.g. those articulated by Josephus).

What are the criteria of historicity you would use to determine the veracity of any document from history, including that of the record of miracles?

I sense that your greater issue is that you don't believe in the Almighty God who performs miracles, so you have an a priori resistance to the idea of miracles being performed. Am I correct or not in having skepticism about your opposition to the supernatural and miracles?


Oz

I have no issue.

The reality is, no credible historian, using the historical method, will state; I can verify these miracles happened.

Why? Because a true historians job is to determine, what is the most likely explanation for what happened in the past, based on using the historical method. Since, by nature, miracles are the least likely explanation for what happened in the past, any historian claiming they can verify miracles, is simply not using the historical method as their guide and is not doing historical work, they are doing theological work.

This is why, miracles are believed on faith, not on having historical credibility. As a historian, I am quite surprised you wouldn't know this.

 

[jsimms615]

MOD HAT ON

General Apologetics is not permitted anywhere on CF
Therefore, this thread has been permanently closed.

MOD HAT OFF