Are we seriously to suppose that any and every discounting of miracle stories in religious texts (on the grounds that miracles don't ordinarily happen and on the grounds that religious texts are by definition invested in the stories they narrate) must be some form of "rationalism"? That seems to me just as easy a dismissal of miracle deniers. And disingenuous to boot, because Wright would just as quickly as any "rationalist" dismiss Joseph Smith legends because authors were invested in them.
So if a historian doesn't allow the miraculous into his reconstruction of the history of early Christianity, he's called a "rationalist." So what do you call a historian who denies the credibility of the miraculous stories in Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist texts? What about the miraculous in Mormon texts?
@thomstark You assume that biblical truth is not divine in origin, or not authentically preserved in Scripture, and that therefore the Bible is not unique amoung the so-called sacred texts of the world religons. If your assumption is valid then your point is made. The underlying assumption of Christian faith is the veracity of the Bible as the word of God in a completely exclusive sense. If that is so then your point is moot. I have no problem in denying miraculous claims from all other sources.
The Qur'an claims the same thing for itself that the Bible claims for itself. When you reject all other religious texts but the Bible, you do so on faith, not on historical grounds.
I get the feeling that you are uniformly denouncing all faith-claims as equally unlikely, or non-creditable. I need to look at a few more of your posts I guess. Correct me if I'm wrong. My position is basically that the Bible is utterly unique in a multitude of ways which nullifies the counter-claims made by counterfeit systems. I would endorse your critique of faith in every other case.
@thomstark No no no. On the contrary. He is to say that the humanistic philosophy of rationalism is not to consume the historian's quest to uncover the historical truth of Jesus Christ. The same should be true of all philosophies. Regardless of belief, that is something that is most certainly agreed upon, and, by my opinion, something that should absolutely be held to.
@LucrativeLucius That clarified just about nothing. Thanks. I'm not sure what the "humanistic philosophy of rationalism" is supposed to be, and I'm not sure you know what it is either. As a subject of historical research, Jesus of Nazareth should be treated no differently than any other historical figure. If he is treated differently, then he ceases to be the subject of historical investigation and becomes the object of confessional mutterings.
@thomstark It deals with the removal of the miraculous by the belief that the miraculous cannot happen, and thus, all events must proceed logically according to a series of sound universal laws. Perhaps Naturalism is better.
In a nutshell, I believe he said, it's a do not let one's views distort one's actual account for the evidence, though I have a feeling you are going (if not already done), accuse Wright of that. One's philosophy can affect with one's scope of possibility enormously.
Are we seriously to suppose that any and every discounting of miracle stories in religious texts (on the grounds that miracles don't ordinarily happen and on the grounds that religious texts are by definition invested in the stories they narrate) must be some form of "rationalism"? That seems to me just as easy a dismissal of miracle deniers. And disingenuous to boot, because Wright would just as quickly as any "rationalist" dismiss Joseph Smith legends because authors were invested in them.
thomstark 2 years ago
So if a historian doesn't allow the miraculous into his reconstruction of the history of early Christianity, he's called a "rationalist." So what do you call a historian who denies the credibility of the miraculous stories in Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist texts? What about the miraculous in Mormon texts?
thomstark 2 years ago
@thomstark You assume that biblical truth is not divine in origin, or not authentically preserved in Scripture, and that therefore the Bible is not unique amoung the so-called sacred texts of the world religons. If your assumption is valid then your point is made. The underlying assumption of Christian faith is the veracity of the Bible as the word of God in a completely exclusive sense. If that is so then your point is moot. I have no problem in denying miraculous claims from all other sources.
gregormann7 2 years ago
The Qur'an claims the same thing for itself that the Bible claims for itself. When you reject all other religious texts but the Bible, you do so on faith, not on historical grounds.
thomstark 2 years ago
[Sorry I didn't see your response earlier.]
I get the feeling that you are uniformly denouncing all faith-claims as equally unlikely, or non-creditable. I need to look at a few more of your posts I guess. Correct me if I'm wrong. My position is basically that the Bible is utterly unique in a multitude of ways which nullifies the counter-claims made by counterfeit systems. I would endorse your critique of faith in every other case.
gregormann7 2 years ago
Nothing I have said amounts to the claim that "all faith-claims as equally unlikely."
But that doesn't mean your case doesn't amount to nothing more than special pleading. You're not playing fair. But I don't suppose you care.
thomstark 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying. That triple negative was kinda rough! LOL.
gregormann7 2 years ago
@thomstark No no no. On the contrary. He is to say that the humanistic philosophy of rationalism is not to consume the historian's quest to uncover the historical truth of Jesus Christ. The same should be true of all philosophies. Regardless of belief, that is something that is most certainly agreed upon, and, by my opinion, something that should absolutely be held to.
LucrativeLucius 1 year ago
@LucrativeLucius That clarified just about nothing. Thanks. I'm not sure what the "humanistic philosophy of rationalism" is supposed to be, and I'm not sure you know what it is either. As a subject of historical research, Jesus of Nazareth should be treated no differently than any other historical figure. If he is treated differently, then he ceases to be the subject of historical investigation and becomes the object of confessional mutterings.
thomstark 1 year ago
@thomstark It deals with the removal of the miraculous by the belief that the miraculous cannot happen, and thus, all events must proceed logically according to a series of sound universal laws. Perhaps Naturalism is better.
In a nutshell, I believe he said, it's a do not let one's views distort one's actual account for the evidence, though I have a feeling you are going (if not already done), accuse Wright of that. One's philosophy can affect with one's scope of possibility enormously.
LucrativeLucius 1 year ago
@LucrativeLucius Thanks for the information.
thomstark 1 year ago