What a weird assertion. The gospels tell a story. They offer no evidence to examine, nor frankly could they at this remove, even if the story had been true.https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/1515868149597495296 …
-
-
Well, sure, but if we soften that to mean "thing that happened," then, yes, they had that category, and, yes, the various NT writers (in different ways) assume that the Resurrection was a thing that happened.
-
And, of course, there's the question of what counts as "evidence." I'm guessing
@normative is working from a definition of "evidence" far more anachronistic than the phrase "historical fact"?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
also Christianity isn't Islam, (Islam is certainty, Christianity is belief) Doubt is central to the religion, the need to measure it against the yardstick & scales is blasphemy Credo quia absurdum
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I doubt that is true. At the time the gospels were composed, others like Josephus were writing perfectly recognizable history based on weighing sources. We might think the historians got stuff wrong, but they recognized there was such a thing as getting things right.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They’re writing four centuries after Thucydides, and John is roughly contemporary with Livy. It rings a little oddly to me to say they entirely lacked the concept… it’s just not what the Gospel authors are primarily doing.
-
Luke certainly has a concept of history: he says he's taking care to correct the mistakes of earlier accounts. But he shows no awareness that "the Angel Gabriel then appeared to Mary" requires any more comment or explanation than "Quirinius was then governor of Syria."
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.