Bjorn wrote;
<<
I'll just continue to play the role of the devil's
atheist here, for the sake of the argument.
It is true indeed that the historical documents of the
NT are reliable, even if that is highly discussed
among historians and theologians. Many a historian
that do not have any religious preferences (i.e. my
history teachers at Copenhagen University) agree that
some of the documents of the NT are reliable
historical documents, but what they do not as easily
agree to is the for them alleged factual resurrection
of Jesus (or any other miracle). The books of the NT
give an account of factual historical events, yes, but
that does not entail that any historian should take
all those accounts for granted, at least that is what
many historians think.
The remaining problem for them is of course one of
verification. The NT verifies the life, teachings etc.
of Jesus, but it does not verify the miracles of
Jesus. I agree that this seems to be an odd statement,
but the basis for it is that miracles can't be
empirically verified today, and thus they can't be
verifiable in a historical context.
This is an extreme for of historical or scientific
skepticism, and another path to take in this
discussion would be to discuss the status of
verifiability in science. Perhaps scientists don't
think this is a troublesome notion, but quite a few
philosophers of science find it to be something that
can be debated (of course philosophers can debate
anything).
Hence it is true that the Christian faith is not
solely dependent on a subjective experience, but the
specific miracles and supernatural events recorded in
the NT do presuppose some sort of faith in God.>>
I would not attempt a comprehensive answer to this; but here are some
thoughts:
Although non-Christian historians regularly reject any miraculous accounts, I
am not convinced they have the same methodological right to do this that
those in the hard sciences have to reject miracles as an "explanation" of
something in the physical universe. To say, "No matter how many eye-witnesses
say so, a miracle did not happen because miracles do not happen" is, in my
opinion, doctrinaire materialism, and not historically valid.
I think a more valid approach would be to say, We have a report of X by
person(s) Y under circumstances Z. Then Y and Z would have to be investigated
before deciding on the validity of X. A historian could, at least, say that
given the character of Y and Z, X may have happened or probably did or did
not happen. But, to rule out the occurence of a historical event because it
does not fit an apriori philosophy is not good historiography.
I would agree that one cannot perceive the true nature of a divine miracle
without the testimony of the Holy Spirit. But, I am not convinced one has to
have some faith in God to agree that an apparent miracle happened. The
Pharisees rejected the miracles of Jesus because they believed or at least
alleged that Satan did them. And, given a historically probable miracle, an
unbeliever could still say, It no doubt fits into natural law somewhere, but,
perhaps we have not yet learned enough about the universe to explain it.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 25 2001 - 23:32:40 EST