The Problem Of Historicity

[mfbukowski]

 

"Hegel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori, adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant via the categorical imperative is holding that ontologically it exists only in the imagination, and Marx claims it was offside."

 

I can't believe they substituted Marx for Wittgenstein, even though in the end Marx was right.  Socrates was offside!

Clearly this language game is in direct conflict with the contextual vocabulary and is therefore prima facie, a category error.   Besides, no one can prove what "offsides" really is anyway, since it has no correspondence to reality, and is relative the the referee's subjective perceptions.  Existentially the angst entailed by such thinking entails Sartrean nausea.  

[mfbukowski]

Daniel Peterson has recently written an article relevant to this discussionhttp://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-sibling-scandals-of-the-resurrection/

[3DOP]

Daniel Peterson has recently written an article relevant to this discussionhttp://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-sibling-scandals-of-the-resurrection/

 

Mark hi.

 

How do you find Dr. Peterson's approach to history? He lately wrote a short column for Deseret News which he linked for us. Here is how it starts:

 

Many skeptics assume that Jesus was merely a wise Jewish teacher who died unjustly and tragically young. And the tale of his Resurrection? No more than a legend that grew over time. Perhaps it was Gentile converts, raised on tales of demigods such as Hercules, who corrupted the early Jesus movement’s simple monotheism. But the historical documents undermine such assumptions.

 

Here is the link: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865609690/Paul-and-his-list-of-eyewitnesses.html

[mfbukowski]

Mark hi.

 

How do you find Dr. Peterson's approach to history? He lately wrote a short column for Deseret News which he linked for us. Here is how it starts:

 

Many skeptics assume that Jesus was merely a wise Jewish teacher who died unjustly and tragically young. And the tale of his Resurrection? No more than a legend that grew over time. Perhaps it was Gentile converts, raised on tales of demigods such as Hercules, who corrupted the early Jesus movement’s simple monotheism. But the historical documents undermine such assumptions.

 

Here is the link: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865609690/Paul-and-his-list-of-eyewitnesses.html

Well of course we have spent the whole thread discussing these issues.  I personally believe that Jesus did live, was crucified is the Son of God and our savior.  I also think it is clear that these ideas cannot possibly be proven historically.

 

As i see it the issue is quite simple, and perhaps I should have stated it simply.

 

Nothing can prove this historically.  Yes there is evidence of various types- but it cannot and never will be "proven" beyond a shadow of a doubt as a hard historical "fact" the same way that say, the date of the Battle of Gettysburg is proven.

 

Yet it is obviously true that MILLIONS- probably billions- of people throughout the world dedicate their lives to Jesus Christ and have life changing experiences because they BELIEVE, as I do, that Jesus lived, was crucified for our sins, died, was buried, and resurrected.

 

NO CHRISTIAN CAN PROVE THIS HISTORICALLY.  Even if it could be proven historically, it could not be proven that one's sins are forgiven because of the belief.

 

So in a sense I think my point can actually be scientifically proven and is a psychological fact

 

The fact is the lives of all Christians everywhere have been changed not by a proven fact but by the BELIEF that Jesus is the Christ.

 

The BELIEF is what changes lives- not the proven historicity- because the proven historicity does not exist.  Yet is clear that millions have had their lives changed.  It is observable and can be scientifically proven that Christians believe in Christ and that has changed their lives.

 

Therefore it is clear that historicity is in itself not important, but the BELIEF in historicity IS clearly important.  Every bit of apologetics, the above article, most of the topics on these threads PROVE that people WANT to believe that these issues are HISTORICAL.

 

It is also just as clear that it cannot be proven that the person Jesus was the Son of God who died for our sins, even if the historical facts could be proven, which they cannot.

 

So I proudly affirm my belief that Jesus was and is the Christ who is my personal savior, who personally suffered and died for my personal sins, and I know that historicity is totally irrelevant to that belief, and anyone who thinks it through cannot possibly come to any other conclusion.

 

AND I also affirm that I KNOW these facts are true by personal revelation, which I see as "real" as any personal belief, subjective or otherwise.  That last part is the semantic, linguistic statement about the nature of truth you know that I believe

 

But the earlier part, I think is irrefutable.  It IS a provable fact that Christians have their lives changed by their BELIEFS which cannot be proven.  Therefore actual historicity is irrelevant to what is important - the BELIEF in historicity.

 

I don't know how you can get around that.