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]

Merriam-Webster Definition

Fiction: something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story

Nonfiction: writing that is about facts or real events : all writing that is not fiction

[polonius]

Questions:

1. In what year did the Resurrection take place?

2. When was it first reported that Christ had been raised from the dead?

3. Who reported the resurrection?

4. Was this person a witness to the Resurrection?

[dio9]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

The voice of ignorance often hides the truth. There were Christians before Constantine. Perhaps you more correctly can say Constantin created orthodox Christianity. And The Mary I was referring to was Magdeline who was the apostle to the apostles. Constantine just legalized them. To say he created Christianity is incorrect.

[polonius]

[quote="dio9"]
[Replying to polonius.advice]
,

Jesus' original followers, the Jewish-Christians continued to observe the Law and worshiped in the Temple. Nor did they claim that Jesus was any other than the Messiah, not divine.The very orthodox James the Just, Jesus's brother was their leader.

They were not forced leave Judaism until they began to claim that Jesus was divine himself in about 82 AD, at which the Jews excluded them from the synagogues as
" minim "(apostates). See the 12 Benediction on the web or see John's gospel.
Constantine ruled against Arianism and founded what later became a distinct Christian church.

https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Cat ... hurch.html

The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles.

Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

[polonius]

Let's examine the facts of history here.

Questions:

1. In what year did the Resurrection take place? Ans.30-33 AD


2. When was it first reported that Christ had been raised from the dead? Ans. 55 AD

3. Who reported the resurrection? Paul

4. Was this person a witness to the Resurrection?

Ans. No. Paul didn't convert to Christianity for three year after the death of Jesus.


In about 55 AD Paul wrote 2 Corinthians to people located over 800 miles from Jerusalem who doubtfully would know much about any claimed resurrection.

Paul claimed that about Jesus had "appeared" to 500 people. They might have been expected to tell some acquaintances. If each told only 3, that means that about 2000 people had knowledge of the miracle. Among them were Hebrews, Romans, Greeks, and other literate peoples. But none wrote any account.

In fact, writing between 70 AD and 95 AD, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John reported no such story of Jesus appearance to 500 people.

Notably, Paul used the word "appearance" not "saw" or "was seen." This suggests a vision not a reality.

In Galatians chapter 1, Paul told use that "Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin. For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul had "revelations" and "visions". So was his appearances of Jesus, just that and not a fact of history?

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.—1 Corinthians 15:3-9 (ESV)

[bluethread]

Merriam-Webster Definition

Fiction: something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story

Nonfiction: writing that is about facts or real events : all writing that is not fiction

That is fine. However, the OP does not ask about a particular kind of history. It asked about history period. This is much like the true Scotsman argument. One can hedge the definition to history to exclude just about anything.

Since you value Merriam-Wbster, here is the definition of history.

1
: tale, story
2
a : a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes a history of Japan
b : a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena (as of geography, animals, or plants) an illustrated history of North American birds
c : an account of a patient's medical background reviewing her medical history
d : an established record a prisoner with a history of violence
3
: a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events medieval history
4
a : events that form the subject matter of a history the history of space exploration
b : events of the past History has shown that such efforts rarely succeed.
c : one that is finished or done for the winning streak was history you're history
d : previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal) a history of repeated exposure to freezing temperatures

Notice that the primary defintion is tale, story. Though there are defintions that imply some degree of empirical verification, it is not inherent in the term. In fact, though some defintions relate to human history, it is not limited to humans. History is purpose driven. Historically, histories have been written to reinforce the world view of the particular historian, or his patron. Of course, the given historian will insist that their history is the proper way of viewing past events. So, in short, history is not limited to the preferences of scientific humanism and rejecting all histories that do not align with those preferences will greatly deminish our understanding of the human experience.

[polonius]

Merriam-Webster Definition

Fiction: something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story

Nonfiction: writing that is about facts or real events : all writing that is not fiction

That is fine. However, the OP does not ask about a particular kind of history. It asked about history period. This is much like the true Scotsman argument. One can hedge the definition to history to exclude just about anything.

Since you value Merriam-Wbster, here is the definition of history.

1
: tale, story
2
a : a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes a history of Japan
b : a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena (as of geography, animals, or plants) an illustrated history of North American birds
c : an account of a patient's medical background reviewing her medical history
d : an established record a prisoner with a history of violence
3
: a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events medieval history
4
a : events that form the subject matter of a history the history of space exploration
b : events of the past History has shown that such efforts rarely succeed.
c : one that is finished or done for the winning streak was history you're history
d : previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal) a history of repeated exposure to freezing temperatures

Notice that the primary defintion is tale, story. Though there are defintions that imply some degree of empirical verification, it is not inherent in the term. In fact, though some defintions relate to human history, it is not limited to humans. History is purpose driven. Historically, histories have been written to reinforce the world view of the particular historian, or his patron. Of course, the given historian will insist that their history is the proper way of viewing past events. So, in short, history is not limited to the preferences of scientific humanism and rejecting all histories that do not align with those preferences will greatly deminish our understanding of the human experience.

RESPONSE: History happened, what did not in fact happen, isn't history. Simple really.

[bluethread]

RESPONSE: History happened, what did not in fact happen, isn't history. Simple really.

As your preferred source of definition shows, history is a story or tale that provides information from the past, whether it actually happened or not. The significant factor is whether the information actually came from the past. Information regarding the future is not history, until after it happens. This post is not history as I write it, however, it is history when you read it. In fact, if I post something about the future, what that is about is not history, but that statement is history when you read it. That is why there is a history of science fiction.

[polonius]

Bluethread posted

As your preferred source of definition shows, history is a story or tale that provides information from the past, whether it actually happened or not.

Response: ABSOLUTELY NOT!

If it happened, it's history.

If it did not happen, it isn't history.

[bluethread]

Bluethread posted

As your preferred source of definition shows, history is a story or tale that provides information from the past, whether it actually happened or not.

Response: ABSOLUTELY NOT!

If it happened, it's history.

If it did not happen, it isn't history.

Not according to Merrium-Webster, your preferred source of definitions. Let's ,look at a few examples. Is the story of Babe Ruth calling his homerun history or not? Is the story of Washington chopping down the cherry tree history or not? Is any literature a part of history or not? Is the views regarding the wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald history or not? If not, why are these things included in historical documents?