Scripture and History, the same or different?

[polonius]

I am again introducing a topic which might have reader interest. Or not.

The question being addressed is if history and scripture are compatible. Is what scripture tells us happened really historical true?

Any thoughts?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 31 by polonius.advice]

What is with all of these straw mans I've been seeing lately? Your post has nothing to do with anything that I said.

RESPONSE: Really? What did you say? Was it accurate?

[polonius]

[polonius]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#Authorship

The modern scholarly consensus is that the Torah has multiple authors and that its composition took place over centuries.[21] This contemporary common hypothesis among biblical scholars states that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE .....

McDermott, John J., (2002). Reading the Pentateuch: a historical introduction. Pauline Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-8091-4082-4. Retrieved 2010-10-03.

[dio9]

I am again introducing a topic which might have reader interest. Or not.

The question being addressed is if history and scripture are compatible. Is what scripture tells us happened really historical true?

Any thoughts?

Actually Paul'd letter to the Galatians is a historic record of his activity. When we compare this with accounts in Acts , say the Jerusalem council , we can say the Act's account is , how shall I say it, imaginary history. Acts and the Gospels are theological documents. Legends based on history, or historic fiction. Any which way there is a history upon which these are based. Jesus Peter Paul John Mary and the disciples really existed and really started Christianity.

[marco]

Jesus Peter Paul John Mary and the disciples really existed and really started Christianity.

Mary had next to nothing to do with Christianity except perhaps make supper. She initiated the first grudging miracle from her bachelor son. These actors appear in later writings and form the substance for Rome's later honeymoon with the new belief set. It's fairly certain Peter couldn't have got his tongue round Trinity, so what emerged as Christianity, was related to Christ only nominally.

[bluethread]

There is a tendency in us all to exaggerate the contribution of our chosen field to mankind and we can be convincing if we support of our claims with articulate erudition.


Scripture seems closer to mythology than history, and the NT deals largely with Christ's psychology rather than the size of his shoes.

These appear to be somewhat controdictory statments. I do agree that people tend to see things from their own perspective. The would also include the scientific humanist. To that one history would be restricted to that which can be empirically verified and related to the benefit of humans. As your first statement indicates, this is a very narrow view of history. The human experience is much more than empirical verification and species promotion. Therefore, "History" is much more than what is acceptable to a scientific humanist.

[bluethread]

Can't someone function on the rational plain without considering modern scientific fact as more important than legends and forklore?

RESPONSE: Not really. If I find a present under my Christmas tree, must I then believe in Santa Claus? Or should I apply reason?

Whether you believe in Santa Claus or not, you could consider the various derivations of the the Christmas tree ritual and the Santa Clause mythology and examine how they have effected life on this planet over the ages. That, my friend, is also history.

[polonius]

Can't someone function on the rational plain without considering modern scientific fact as more important than legends and forklore?

RESPONSE: Not really. If I find a present under my Christmas tree, must I then believe in Santa Claus? Or should I apply reason?

Whether you believe in Santa Claus or not, you could consider the various derivations of the the Christmas tree ritual and the Santa Clause mythology and examine how they have effected life on this planet over the ages. That, my friend, is also history.

RESPONSE: To be more accurate that would be historical fiction! Would you base your belief system on it?

[polonius]

Jesus Peter Paul John Mary and the disciples really existed and really started Christianity.

Mary had next to nothing to do with Christianity except perhaps make supper. She initiated the first grudging miracle from her bachelor son. These actors appear in later writings and form the substance for Rome's later honeymoon with the new belief set. It's fairly certain Peter couldn't have got his tongue round Trinity, so what emerged as Christianity, was related to Christ only nominally.

RESPONSE: Actually, it was Constantine who established the Christian religion.

[bluethread]

Whether you believe in Santa Claus or not, you could consider the various derivations of the the Christmas tree ritual and the Santa Clause mythology and examine how they have effected life on this planet over the ages. That, my friend, is also history.

RESPONSE: To be more accurate that would be historical fiction! Would you base your belief system on it?

Now you are hedging. Yes, it is not an empirically verifiable tale in many of it's forms. However, it is commonly accepted that there was a Saint Nicolus, who practiced secret gift giving. It is also, verifiable through the study of the literature of many western cultures, the effects that tale hs had on those cultures. Regardless of the fact that we can not empirically verify many of the specifics of the life of St. Nicholus, those effect on the various cultures since are indeed history. Calling it historical fiction is nothing more that an attempt to discredit history that one does not particularly like. Is the biography of George Herman Ruth historcal fiction. After all, much of what is recorded about him can not be empirically verified?