Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

RickG said:

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.

Click to expand...

OzSpen said:

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

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

Click to expand...

OzSpen said:

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

Click to expand...

OzSpen said:

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

Click to expand...

bhsmte said:

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?

Click to expand...

Archaeopteryx said:

Oh the irony is strong with this one.

Click to expand...

OzSpen said:

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

Click to expand...