Historical Proof of Christ (part 2)

[Caliban]

Verismilitude is increased with how historic the work is, are the place names real place names, are the people groups real, are the landmarks real, are the rivers and cities real, are the kings and queens real. I won't question wither a philosophy book has verisimilitude (But again I think we are talking two different things). Again the gospels have a degree of verisimilitude that from what I have seen and still see, no other ancient document has. So if we are to say the Bible is unhistorical, or a myth, then all ancient history is also a myth.

I personally think you should drop the word verisimilitude since it has a very different meaning than they way you are attempting to use it here. Why not just say historically accurate?

Think carefully about this because it is a defeater for your argument. Just because a text includes real places, people, and events, the supernatural claims are not necessarily true. The Koran contains accurate dates, towns, people--just like the NT does; I am assuming you don't find the Koran to be the word of God. You can't use it as evidence for your book and deny it in others.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I personally think you should drop the word verisimilitude since it has a very different meaning than they way you are attempting to use it here. Why not just say historically accurate?

Think carefully about this because it is a defeater for your argument. Just because a text includes real places, people, and events, the supernatural claims are not necessarily true. The Koran contains accurate dates, towns, people--just like the NT does; I am assuming you don't find the Koran to be the word of God. You can't use it as evidence for your book and deny it in others.

The Koran contains accurate dates, towns, and people? --- I must have missed this when I read it all the way through.

 

[Caliban]

The Koran contains accurate dates, towns, and people? --- I must have missed this when I read it all the way through.

Ya, you missed it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ya, you missed it.

Which Surahs are you specifically referring to, by chance?

 

[Caliban]

Which Surahs are you specifically referring to, by chance?

Makkah is referred in verse (48:24) of chapter 48 Surath-I-Fath (The Victory):

“And it is He who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them within [the area of] Makkah after He caused you to overcome them. And ever is Allah of what you do, seeing.”

Jerusalem

The city of Jerusalem is not clearly mentioned by its name but the ‘Al-Aqsa mosque’ is stated in the Quran. One of the verses in which Allah says,

“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haraam to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings we have blessed, to show him of our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the seeing.} [Quran 17:1]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Makkah is referred in verse (48:24) of chapter 48 Surath-I-Fath (The Victory):

“And it is He who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them within [the area of] Makkah after He caused you to overcome them. And ever is Allah of what you do, seeing.”

Jerusalem

The city of Jerusalem is not clearly mentioned by its name but the ‘Al-Aqsa mosque’ is stated in the Quran. One of the verses in which Allah says,

“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haraam to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings we have blessed, to show him of our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the seeing.} [Quran 17:1]

... all I can say is, 'wow,' but not for the reason that one might think I'm saying it.

I feel your pain in this R.Miller. I really do.

 

[Caliban]

... all I can say is, 'wow,' but not for the reason that one might think I'm saying it.

I feel your pain in this R.Miller. I really do.

What do you mean? What pain?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do you mean? What pain?

The opaqueness of various religious utterances, as they are here or there strewn about in this or that book in the world at large doesn't go very far in helping us find faith in God, does it?

Anyway, any other Surahs of importance I should historically keep in mind?

 

[Caliban]

The opaqueness of various religious utterances, as they are here or there strewn about in this or that book in the world at large doesn't go very in helping us find faith in God, does it?

Anyway, any other Surahs of important I should historically keep in mind?

I see. It seems to me that religious texts are sincere attempts to explain the fact that the work is highly complicated and that humans feel as if our lives have some greater significance. Our level of consciousness and ability to compose poetry and engage in self reflection and introspection feels transcendent. Unitarians often think that that all religious traditions are somehow true--even if just metaphorically. Personally, I take Joseph Campbell's view on religion and it's very human development from subconscious myth-making.

I don't find any reason to take the supernatural claims of any religious text seriously. There just isn't any real or compelling evidence when scrutinized.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see. It seems to me that religious texts are sincere attempts to explain the fact that the work is highly complicated and that humans feel as if our lives have some greater significance. Our level of consciousness and ability to compose poetry and engage in self reflection and introspection feels transcendent. Unitarians often think that that all religious traditions are somehow true--even if just metaphorically. Personally, I take Joseph Campbell's view on religion and it's very human development from subconscious myth-making.

I don't find any reason to take the supernatural claims of any religious text seriously. There just isn't any real or compelling evidence when scrutinized.

Ok. I understand. But are you here to pronounce this UPON everyone as some truth we're supposed to swallow and digest and by which we're going to 'change or minds'? Or, are you simply wanting to be heard and understood?

I mean, I'm all for starting with a George Lucas-see type beginning in our philosophical ponderings over religion, but I'm under no deep impression that it's supposed to stop there.

 

[Caliban]

Ok. I understand. But are you here to pronounce this UPON everyone as some truth we're supposed to swallow and digest and by which we're going to 'change or minds'? Or, are you simply wanting to be heard and understood?

I mean, I'm all for starting with a George Lucas-see type beginning in our philosophical ponderings over religion, but I'm under no deep impression that it's supposed to stop there.

It is simply my opinion. Why would you think I am here to pronounce anything? This is a forum where people interested in Christianity discuss topics and ideas. Why should my comments or posts stand out as suspect?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is simply my opinion. Why would you think I am here to pronounce anything? This is a forum where people interested in Christianity discuss topics and ideas. Why should my comments or posts stand out as suspect?

I didn't say you are suspect. I simply asked a question. Don't read into it.

 

[Caliban]

I didn't say you are suspect. I simply asked a question. Don't read into it.

Ya, I remember our previous conversations now.

 

[createdtoworship]

I personally think you should drop the word verisimilitude since it has a very different meaning than they way you are attempting to use it here. Why not just say historically accurate?

Think carefully about this because it is a defeater for your argument. Just because a text includes real places, people, and events, the supernatural claims are not necessarily true. The Koran contains accurate dates, towns, people--just like the NT does; I am assuming you don't find the Koran to be the word of God. You can't use it as evidence for your book and deny it in others.

the quran has cities that don't exist:
Iram of the Pillars - Wikipedia

and has other geographical errors, as well as errors of history etc:
Muhammad at Mecca; Companion to the Qur'an, Muhammad's Mecca, W. Montgomery Watt

on the contrary you cannot find an archaeologist in the middle east upon a dig finding a ancient city w/no historical roots, that doesn't go to the Bible and do a word search for that city.

Even historians of other religions: jews and islam, will search the new testament to see if a city matches the current dig.

That sir is proof of the verisimilitude.

And by the way I can use whatever word I wish to use until you refute it.

Just because you can't prove other works have it, doesn't mean that my term is wrong.

 

[Caliban]

the quran has cities that don't exist:
Iram of the Pillars - Wikipedia

and has other geographical errors, as well as errors of history etc:
Muhammad at Mecca; Companion to the Qur'an, Muhammad's Mecca, W. Montgomery Watt

on the contrary you cannot find an archaeologist in the middle east upon a dig finding a ancient city w/no historical roots, that doesn't go to the Bible and do a word search for that city.

Even historians of other religions: jews and islam, will search the new testament to see if a city matches the current dig.

That sir is proof of the verisimilitude.

And by the way I can use whatever word I wish to use until you refute it.

Just because you can't prove other works have it, doesn't mean that my term is wrong.

Fine, use it; but, it is a literary term that you are using incorrectly.

 

[createdtoworship]

Fine, use it; but, it is a literary term that you are using incorrectly.

I think you guys are using it wrong, or at least in an incomplete fashion. So again we are at an impasse here.

 

[Caliban]

I think you guys are using it wrong, or at least in an incomplete fashion. So again we are at an impasse here.

C'mon, for the last time folks, look it up:
Verisimilitude | literature

 

[createdtoworship]

C'mon, for the last time folks, look it up:
Verisimilitude | literature

yes but definitions tend to evolve, so I go with the original meaning of a term, not it's liberal current definition.

see this is the root meaning of verisimilitude:

"from Latin verisimilitudo "likeness to truth," from veri, genitive of verum, neuter of verus "true" (from PIE root "true, trustworthy") + similis "like, resembling, of the same kind" (see similiar)."

verisimilitude | Origin and meaning of verisimilitude by Online Etymology Dictionary

so if you can quote the full version of the oxford english dictionary on this word... not the online free version but the paid version, then it would show a history of usage of this term.

but when you break down the word from it's latin words it means 'likeness to truth, true, trustworthy"

so philosophical books have no way of proving they are true, they are just opinion. Someone posted a philosophy book that had verisimilitude, but again it's impossible for philosophy to have direct proof of truthfullness. Logic can be proven, but not philosophy.

however history and science and other areas of literature can be more proven than philosophy.

so again if you wish to define it, you must present an evidenced manuscript of an ancient document that has that particular usage of verisimilitude.

I am upping your game on the word, and I provided a document that has the advanced definition, the original definition, the full definition of the word.

 

[Caliban]

yes but definitions tend to evolve, so I go with the original meaning of a term, not it's liberal current definition.

see this is the root meaning of verisimilitude:

"from Latin verisimilitudo "likeness to truth," from veri, genitive of verum, neuter of verus "true" (from PIE root "true, trustworthy") + similis "like, resembling, of the same kind" (see similiar)."

verisimilitude | Origin and meaning of verisimilitude by Online Etymology Dictionary

so if you can quote the full version of the oxford english dictionary on this word... not the online free version but the paid version, then it would show a history of usage of this term.

but when you break down the word from it's latin words it means 'likeness to truth, true, trustworthy"

so philosophical books have no way of proving they are true, they are just opinion. Someone posted a philosophy book that had verisimilitude, but again it's impossible for philosophy to have direct proof of truthfullness. Logic can be proven, but not philosophy.

however history and science and other areas of literature can be more proven than philosophy.

so again if you wish to define it, you must present an evidenced manuscript of an ancient document that has that particular usage of verisimilitude.

I am upping your game on the word, and I provided a document that has the advanced definition, the original definition, the full definition of the word.

I am familiar with the etymology and of the entry in the OED. It does not mean literal historical accuracy; it means a likeness to real life. It is used as a literary device to engage a readers experience that the text corresponds to reality. If you don't get, I don't care--I only teach this for a living.

 

[createdtoworship]

I am familiar with the etymology and of the entry in the OED. It does not mean literal historical accuracy; it means a likeness to real life. It is used as a literary device to engage a readers experience that the text corresponds to reality. If you don't get, I don't care--I only teach this for a living.

Yes so I am correct you guys are saying philosophy has verisimilitude and I am saying you can't prove it does. It may in fact have it, it may have a 'likeness to life.' But you cannot prove it does. That was what I was asking for proof. The Bible can be proven to have verisimilitude via historical quotes in historical documents (contemporary to the Bible's characters), or from archaeology. So the version of verisimilitude as found in the Bible is proven versus theoretical.