What is the truth?

[bhsmte]

So I guess it all depends on who you listen to and who you want to have FAITH in...

No, it depends on how historians use the historical method, to determine credibility of writings.

 

[Cearbhall]

So I guess it all depends on who you listen to and who you want to have FAITH in...

This is scholarship. I'm not about to put "faith" in anyone.

 

[Galatea]

This is scholarship. I'm not about to put "faith" in anyone.

Yes, but you have to have faith in the scholar. Not all scholars are honest, and your professors may not be, either. Simply because it sounds like it is reputable, doesn't mean it is. People go into research all the time with preconceived notions. And then, what history are they reading? Are they relying on rank heretics in the ancient world?

Let's say you have a professor who does not believe in the Bible. They WANT to prove themselves, so therefore, find biased histories to bolster their viewpoints. It happens all the time.

 

[Cearbhall]

Yes, but you have to have faith in the scholar.

Not really. I just look at their work. Scholarship is about showing, not telling.

Not all scholars are honest, and your professors may not be, either. Simply because it sounds like it is reputable, doesn't mean it is.

Agreed.

Let's say you have a professor who does not believe in the Bible.

That doesn't matter. That has no bearing on historical truth.

As it stands, the two professors of mine who immediately come to mind were both Protestant ministers.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, but you have to have faith in the scholar. Not all scholars are honest, and your professors may not be, either. Simply because it sounds like it is reputable, doesn't mean it is. People go into research all the time with preconceived notions. And then, what history are they reading? Are they relying on rank heretics in the ancient world?

Let's say you have a professor who does not believe in the Bible. They WANT to prove themselves, so therefore, find biased histories to bolster their viewpoints. It happens all the time.

Regarding the credibility and reliability of writings, scholars and historians are supposed to follow the historical method, which is well established. I have read the works of a variety of different NT historians and when you understand the historical method, it isn't hard to distinguish who is using the method properly.

Nothing wrong with believing in the NT on faith, but when it comes to historical credibility, it falls short in meeting the standard. This is why, many NT historians will state; the NT is much more a work of theology, than it is a work of credible history.

 

[Galatea]

Not really. I just look at their work. Scholarship is about showing, not telling.

Agreed.

That doesn't matter. That has no bearing on historical truth.

As it stands, the two professors of mine who immediately come to mind were both Protestant ministers.

Your professors can be Protestant ministers and still apostate. When I say you have to have faith in the scholar, you have to have faith that his research is honest. It may be false simply to confirm his own biases. Some historians actually suppress dissenting history if it doesn't jive with their views. It happens all the time.

 

[bhsmte]

Your professors can be Protestant ministers and still apostate. When I say you have to have faith in the scholar, you have to have faith that his research is honest. It may be false simply to confirm his own biases. Some historians actually suppress dissenting history if it doesn't jive with their views. It happens all the time.

How would you go about determining if the work was honest and accurate?

 

[Galatea]

Regarding the credibility and reliability of writings, scholars and historians are supposed to follow the historical method, which is well established. I have read the works of a variety of different NT historians and when you understand the historical method, it isn't hard to distinguish who is using the method properly.

Nothing wrong with believing in the NT on faith, but when it comes to historical credibility, it falls short in meeting the standard. This is why, many NT historians will state; the NT is much more a work of theology, than it is a work of credible history.

I would want to know which ancient texts they use to support their claims. If they are using Gnostic texts, then their research is automatically suspect as the Gnostics were rank heretics and sought to discredit the deity of Christ. Of course the Gnostics wrote false things to discredit Christianity.

Not all people in the ancient world told the truth. "Yo, I don't think Christ is God. John the son of Zebedee didn't even know Jesus of Nazareth."

You see how easy it is?

 

[Galatea]

How would you go about determining if the work was honest and accurate?

Consider the source. Why is the person writing? Who is doing the writing? Who is he writing to? Who is in power at the time? What are the person's political and religious views? When was the person writing? Who did the person know? Did the person have a great amount of immunity? The more immunity the more truthful he can be. What else did he write? Who else did he write to? Who discovered his writing? When? How many copies of the text exist, and who all found/translated these copies? What are the political/religious leanings of the person/people who found the texts? Is the person (the original writer) truthful about other things that happened at the time? Who are his enemies? Who are his patrons?

 

[bhsmte]

I would want to know which ancient texts they use to support their claims. If they are using Gnostic texts, then their research is automatically suspect as the Gnostics were rank heretics and sought to discredit the deity of Christ. Of course the Gnostics wrote false things to discredit Christianity.

Not all people in the ancient world told the truth. "Yo, I don't think Christ is God. John the son of Zebedee didn't even know Jesus of Nazareth."

You see how easy it is?

And you are able to verify what the truth is how exactly?

 

[bhsmte]

Consider the source. Why is the person writing? Who is doing the writing? Who is he writing to? Who is in power at the time? What are the person's political and religious views? When was the person writing? Who did the person know? Did the person have a great amount of immunity? The more immunity the more truthful he can be. What else did he write? Who else did he write to? Who discovered his writing? When? How many copies of the text exist, and who all found/translated these copies? What are the political/religious leanings of the person/people who found the texts? Is the person (the original writer) truthful about other things that happened at the time? Who are his enemies? Who are his patrons?

And what do you know about all of these questions regarding the NT?

 

[Galatea]

And you are able to verify what the truth is how exactly?

If we are talking about historical texts- say writer A tells us that the Greeks and Spartans fought a battle. The Greeks win by a landslide with superior man power. Writer B says the Spartans win by a landslide with superior man power. How to know the truth? First, see what EVERYONE else writing at the time had to say. What's the consensus? Second, peer into the character of the writers. Are they "yes" men writing whatever serves their opportunism the best? Discount it, pretty quickly. Are they political appointees, towing the party line? Discount it, pretty quickly. Is it the case of a person with some kind of beef? Discount it, pretty quickly. Read the rest of the person's writings. Are they prone to lying? Discount it, pretty quickly. What are their political and religious views? Do they have some kind of hobby horse? Like the Gnostics- they were all out to discredit the deity of Christ. This was their express mission.

 

[Galatea]

And what do you know about all of these questions regarding the NT?

I know, that with the exception of John who was exiled, the apostles of Christ were martyred. I know that people will not be martyred for something they KNOW to be untrue. If the apostles were great big fakers, they would have recanted. But they didn't. They believed in Christ. They saw the resurrected Lord. Do you think Peter would have been crucified if he had not seen the risen Christ? I don't. Christianity did not put a scrap of money in his pocket or in his family's pocket. If anything, it made his life more difficult.

A man willing to die for what he wrote has pretty good credibility.

 

[Cearbhall]

Your professors can be Protestant ministers and still apostate.

That's totally irrelevant to research, though. It's actually best if a scholar isn't afraid of being punished by a deity for having certain views.

When I say you have to have faith in the scholar, you have to have faith that his research is honest. It may be false simply to confirm his own biases.

Yes, of course. But you keep trying to generalize the issue. We're discussing the authors of the Gospels. The general consensus is that they were not written by members of the 12. It's difficult to argue otherwise.

The Gospel of Mark was first, some time around 70 CE.

 

[Galatea]

That's totally irrelevant to research, though. It's actually best if a scholar isn't afraid of being punished by a deity for having certain views.

Yes, of course. But you keep trying to generalize the issue. We're discussing the authors of the Gospels. The general consensus is that they were not written by members of the 12.

I thought we were talking about the nature of historical research. I think God would be displeased with Christian scholars who would lie and make false histories. A person would no faith would have less scruples about lying and creating false histories.

Christians, on the whole, abstain from lying. A lying tongue is one thing God hates.

The Gospels were not written by the 12, Levi Matthew wrote one (a disciple), John Mark wrote another (not a disciple), Luke the Greek wrote another (not a disciple), and John the son of Zebedee wrote another. So two were written by disciples, and two were not.

 

[bhsmte]

I know, that with the exception of John who was exiled, the apostles of Christ were martyred. I know that people will not be martyred for something they KNOW to be untrue. If the apostles were great big fakers, they would have recanted. But they didn't. They believed in Christ. They saw the resurrected Lord. Do you think Peter would have been crucified if he had not seen the risen Christ? I don't. Christianity did not put a scrap of money in his pocket or in his family's pocket. If anything, it made his life more difficult.

A man willing to die for what he wrote has pretty good credibility.

If you have a desire to learn how historians and scholars go about their work, i would investigate the historical method and how it was intended to be utilized with ancient writings. Then, i would read the works of various scholars who have independent academic credentials; liberal, moderate and conservative and make your own determination who is being the objective and who is letting pre determined bias get in the way. I did this a number of years ago when i was still a christian and it was enlightening to say the least.

 

[bhsmte]

I thought we were talking about the nature of historical research. I think God would be displeased with Christian scholars who would lie and make false histories. A person would no faith would have less scruples about lying and creating false histories.

Christians, on the whole, abstain from lying. A lying tongue is one thing God hates.

The Gospels were not written by the 12, Levi Matthew wrote one (a disciple), John Mark wrote another (not a disciple), Luke the Greek wrote another (not a disciple), and John the son of Zebedee wrote another. So two were written by disciples, and two were not.

Sounds like you are labeling and making assumptions about those who disagree with you.

 

[bhsmte]

I know, that with the exception of John who was exiled, the apostles of Christ were martyred. I know that people will not be martyred for something they KNOW to be untrue. If the apostles were great big fakers, they would have recanted. But they didn't. They believed in Christ. They saw the resurrected Lord. Do you think Peter would have been crucified if he had not seen the risen Christ? I don't. Christianity did not put a scrap of money in his pocket or in his family's pocket. If anything, it made his life more difficult.

A man willing to die for what he wrote has pretty good credibility.

Does this also mean, radical islamic terrorists have credibility, because they are willing to be martyred? Or does this assumption of willing to die that gives one credibility, only apply to christians?

 

[Cearbhall]

I think God would be displeased with Christian scholars who would lie and make false histories.

Who cares? That has nothing to do with the validity of the research.

A person would no faith would have less scruples about lying and creating false histories.

That's a convenient presumption, but it's not academically-sound by any means.

 

[John 1720]

If you have a desire to learn how historians and scholars go about their work, i would investigate the historical method and how it was intended to be utilized with ancient writings. Then, i would read the works of various scholars who have independent academic credentials; liberal, moderate and conservative and make your own determination who is being the objective and who is letting pre determined bias get in the way. I did this a number of years ago when i was still a christian and it was enlightening to say the least.

Always good to look at the so called historical method, except it appears you don't think modern scholars are biased but ancient Christian fathers were?
It always amazes me how liberal scholars 19 centuries after the fact can dismiss Christian historical witness as to who wrote the Gospels and when. You should go see the movie "The case for Christ". If 21st liberal scholarship proves out to be on par with 19th and 20th century liberal scholarship they will be as badly debunked as their claims were that the Gospels were all 2nd century documents. What do you believe the predetermined bias was and how did you determine this?