PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
> 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 It is true indeed that the historical documents of the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 historical documents, but what they do not as easily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.
A couple of points here:
1) Miracles should not be evaluated simply as isolated events. The
Christian claim about the resurrection is not that some otherwise undistinguished
Jew 2000 years ago spoke with his friends after he was dead and buried. It is
that in the history of Israel (& thus in the context of the hopes & promises of
the OT) a man who relied entirely on God as his Father, who proclaimed the
kingdom of God and called for radical love & acceptance of others, & who died in
humiliating defeat because of that, was raised from the dead. It is the entire
story (& at that I'm abbreviating a good deal) which has to be evaluated, not
just isolated claims about appearances of Jesus or the empty tomb.
2) Agreed, one doesn't have to have saving faith to believe that
miracles would happen. Conversely, belief in a miracle isn't equivalent to
saving faith. One could belief that Jesus was raised from the dead without
thinking that he is God Incarnate and/or putting one's trust in him.
Shalom,
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 26 2001 - 07:06:16 EST