Grizz writes:
Although we often use the word history as a synonym for past events, History as a discipline is the attempt to use plausible inductive inferences in response to the question, "What really happened?" The defining term here is "plausible", not "possible." It is certainly possible to construct any number of inferences and scenarios, whether rational or not, that represents a view of the past. Possible does not imply likely, however, nor does it imply certain. Certain is the last thing the History of Antiquity will ever be, regardless of the plausibility of our conclusions.
The oldest manuscripts of the eye witnesses should be the most plausable. Much of your messages 38 to 40 were
possibilities relative to the eye witness acounts. My citation of the prophetic scriptures of Isaiah, Psalms, etc were cited to lend
plausibility/credibility to the eye witness accounts as per the oldest manuscripts of those accounts relative to the historical Jesus.
Furthermore, the messianic fulfillment of Jesus's prophecy on the Mt of Olives relative to the Gentile occupation of Jerusalem to become a reality soon and to be ended as and
end times event which was largely fulfilled in the 1967 six day war, clearly as prophesied in Luke 21:24 lends greatly to the plausibility/credibility that the Jesus who uttered this prophecy was indeed historical.
When attempting to offer plausible inferences regarding the Historical Jesus, I am doing so by appealing to the implicit skepticism which is at the heart of the historical method. In order to reconstruct the past with a necessary degree of objectivity, the Historian must approach any document or source with a degree of initial skepticism. Even when the veracity of a source has been accepted, one still needs to approach the claims contained therein with a questioning mind.
But you're skeptical thesis on this amounted to mostly
possibilities from one who has a secularist agenda and from one far removed from the eye witnesses of the historical Jesus's times. I'm not sure how objective your POV is, given that you appear to be reluctant to include all of the evidence supportive to the historical Jesus.
Furthermore, you appear to show hostility to the data which those of us who hold to the eye witness accounts as the most plausable try to introduce into the discussion.
It doesn't matter whether the claim is 'Washington Crossed the Potomac, or 'Moses parted the red sea', it is part of the job description of a Historian to be a skeptic. If you are not a skeptic, you are not doing your job.
But then there comes the
skeptical generation who regard political correctness above factuality as we find happening in the history classes of our times. As a result it can be documented that history students today know little about the historical George Washington and other founders of the Republic and much of which they do get can be proven to be false. The same applies relative to the Jesus skeptics to the point that the
Historical Jesus Book is outlawed in the schools.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
™ Version 4.2
