Jesus Before Constantine. Doug E. Taylor

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ over various alternatives fails to convince. If, as suggested by the skeptic, there is no reason to favor the commonsense views, then one is at a loss for explaining why such a person when driving a vehicle stops when the traffic light turns red or chooses to use an umbrella when it rains.

Evidence will be defined in this work as a condition or event, objective in nature, knowable by those present, open to investigation by all others, whereby when rightly interpreted, corresponds to reality. Using this definition, evidence may be either a noun or a verb, is not limited to a single person, is not subjective, and requires interpretation for correct understanding.16 One cannot avoid the reality that there are what would be known as evidences for events that have happened in history or conditions which exist. This arguably is the very basis upon which forensic science was established.17 As such the definition used here is a softer form of evidentialism, allowing for the existence of paradoxes and belief in other areas of life where such belief does not meet the established standard for inclusion in this research.

      Of importance here is not to claim future events as being evidential. John Hick proposed that eschatology could be used as part of an evidential argument.

The appeal to evidence as a means of verifying the truth of Christianity has been made to the past (history) as well as to present experience either internally (as in mysticism) or externally (in nature). But some have also appealed to the future as a source of evidence for the possible truth of Christianity. Such was the suggestion of John Hick in his eschatological verification.18

      In denying the use of what may be in the future and appealing only to that which exists now or in the past, an evidential method avoids challenges that the structure is logically fallacious by way of introducing statements that may be interpreted as appealing to a hypothesis contrary to fact.

      A significant benefit to the use of an evidential method is that it has the ability to become a positive apologetic that focuses on individual points building from the data to the conclusion. A pitfall that may be avoided by the use of evidential methods is that it may prevent movement toward polemical arguments and instead focuses on the data and subsequent conclusion.

Not everyone would agree with the use of an evidential method. John Frame, in responding to Habermas’s preference of an evidential apologetic method, makes a point of indicating that there is difficulty in using the evidential method in trying to reason with unbelievers and points to Romans 1 for support that unbelievers suppress the truth and exchange the truth for a lie.19 What cannot be missed is that Frame’s very argument supports the offered definition for evidence. More specifically, if evidence rightly interpreted corresponds to reality, then to know and be able to suppress truth indicates that one has epistemic access to evidence.

A second challenge to the use of an evidential method may rest in the concept of rationalism where the intent is to express that reason is the epitome of authority when discussing religious matters. “More broadly, rationalism is any philosophical position affirming the ability of thinking, apart from sensory experience, to discover fundamental truths about the world or reality.”20 The challenge here is that one is not capable of thinking in a vacuum. Even if one were truly able to reach a position whereby they could think without any external sensory experience, thinking that is done in the present is influenced by both experiences and knowledge gained in the past. One can think rationally but one cannot think where that thinking is not in some way influenced by external stimuli.21

A possible objection that might be brought against giving primacy to an evidential method, à la Evans, is associated with a lack of objectivity.22 The difficulty here is that this challenge cuts in more than one direction. First, it is not possible to come to the table as an unbiased or disinterested party, regardless of the methodology one uses in assessing historical events. Second, biases are driven to a large degree by an individual’s worldview, meaning a person’s conclusions will likely be influenced by how they see the world. The bias challenge, however, fails to carry convincing weight. Berkhof notes, “Dr. Kuyper speaks as follows of the attempt to do this [prove the existence of God through evidence]: ‘The attempt to prove God’s existence is either useless or unsuccessful. It is useless if the searcher believes that God is a rewarder of those who seek Him. And it is unsuccessful if it is an attempt to force a person who does not have this pistis by means of argumentation to an acknowledgment in a logical sense.’”23

      When speaking of evidence I am speaking to those points of data that are open to investigation and known widely. Such a move is not done to avoid difficulties and questions that remain regarding what will happen in the future, rather it is a deliberate move to look at what may be known and what pieces of information are open to investigation by any interested party now, regardless of whether or not they believe in the God of Christianity. The Holy Spirit may speak to a person internally and bear witness, but this is not necessarily open to investigation by others and therefore is not considered as evidence in this work. Moving beyond this, a crucial aspect to properly understanding an evidential method is in the right interpretation of the data. When examined in context the interpretation should yield the best plausible conclusion consistent with the data.

      Defining Key Terms

      To facilitate clear communication between the researcher and readers, it will be necessary to define certain strategic words used throughout the research.

      1.Evidence will be defined as a condition or event objective in nature, knowable by those present, open to investigation by all others, whereby when rightly interpreted, corresponds to reality.

      2.Miracle will be defined as a highly improbable event with no known naturalistic causes, which is charged with religious significance in relationship with Yahweh, the execution of which is for the benefit of his people.

      3.Positive apologetic will be defined as the commending of Christianity as understood through the established SPAC, affirming the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

      4.Defensive apologetic will be defined as a methodology or argument demonstrating why views not related to the established SPAC (the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus) are lacking, and thus are not to be included in this research. Examples of such defensive apologetics would include responses to charges that Christians were cannibals and atheists.

      5.Root cause will be defined as a plausible “why” behind a condition or event obtaining rather than the anticipated or expected results identified in the SPAC.

6.SPAC will be defined as standards, policies, or administrative controls.24 A SPAC provides the boundaries within which a system is intended to function.

      7.Contributing factor will be defined as a condition or event that is of interest, and could have some level of impact or influence within the system, but if that condition or event were removed, it does not mitigate or prevent the condition or event being investigated from obtaining or obtaining in the manner currently observed.

8.Causal factor will be defined as a condition or event that, if removed, mitigates or prevents the condition or event being investigated from obtaining or at least from obtaining in the manner currently observed.25

      9.Worldview will be defined as the filter, beliefs, or methodological system through which one interprets data and arrives at meaning.

      10.Minimal facts are those pieces of historical data that are accepted by most critical scholars qualified to speak on the subject (90–95%) whether they are Christian or not, as well as there being multiple attestation of those historical data.

      Relevant Texts for Establishing the Research Basis

      History

The argument put forth by Ehrman and those who would agree with his thinking would suggest, if taken at face value, that orthodoxy was a later development of the church, pointing СКАЧАТЬ