Memory And Writing: Part Three
 |
| Returning to a wider perspective shows clearer the sign and surrounding details; setting, context. Such is the case when gifted with the sign of the Gospel and its historical accuracy. What is written grants a visual image imprinted on the heart, answering all questions. |
Sound and logical historical methodology.
The exercise of historical methodology is how the past is understood, events validated, and people affirmed to have existed.
When it comes to the historical figure of Christ and the Gospel, no other text has been studied more for accuracy, relevance, factuality, and impact.
No other ancient writings have been more heavily scrutinized, tested, studied, as the Bible... and specifically, the New Testament (Gospel and letters to the churches).
One thing is to affirm ancient writings having historical relevance regarding depicting facts having occurred... and the Gospel is found to be historically sound in this regard.
It is another thing is to weigh its claims and affirm the claims as true or factual... and the Gospel is controversial since it contains very extraordinary claims.
As time passes, the initial claims of the Gospel continue to be affirmed and reaffirmed, instead of defeated and proven false.
As archeology is furthered, a clearer picture of the past is highlighted by more and more supporting evidence.
As the level of scrutiny and pessimism has risen, further has risen the affirmations and positive conclusions.
This is why objection, accusation, and question is welcomed instead of avoided.
This is why testing is necessary instead of undesired.
For through such is the truth clarified and evidence revealed, and legends and myths are dispelled for the fictions they are (speaking of past and current religious ideas besides the fact of the Gospel message).
What the enlightenment effort of the early 17th century in western societies brought in attempting to disprove the Gospel was, instead, the opening of a treasure trove of discovery acknowledging its historicity and showcasing its claims as facts from the past.
Historical methodology continues to affirm the claims of the Gospel.
Even the most cynical of atheistic or irreligious scholars agree with conclusive evidence found through logical methodology regarding the Gospel's historicity... despite their opposition to the claims (which are, interestingly, also affirmed through the same methodology).
It is when following through to a logical conclusion that opposition is revealed as biased and tripe.
Some minds seem to stop short when it comes to following methodology when it comes to the extraordinary.
The effort in exploring the accuracy of the Gospel message firstly reveals an accuracy of history's account with wondrous detail.
It is soundly affirmed there indeed existed someone called Christ.
Miracles were attributed to this historic figure, from adherents and deterrents (followers and enemies).
Historical methodology affirms Christ being baptized by a man (also believed to be a prophet) named John.
The historical account affirms Christ being killed.
The same methodology also points to this figure rising back to life.
And here the logical methodology breaks down, but not due to the methodology itself, but rather men's minds and hearts.
Although the finding of all previous points are proven true and factual, why when it comes to the resurrection do men balk and cease following the methodology?
Could it be a dissonance reinforced by experience and expectation of the ordinary?
Is it because of a focus on repeated patterns, but not a new one?
Why is the methodology ignored when it comes to the extraordinary?
This resistance is nothing new, for throughout time men have resisted the unknown and what has been beyond their current purview... while desiring to know the unknown, yet struggling with their mind's and heart's expansion.
Since man measures his reality according to his usual experience, something 'new' or extraordinary is often times ignored or dismissed as not possible.
New experiences are not easily embraced, but found to be irrational or simply doubted when they break with convention.
This is why it is likely the resurrection was mentioned as a 'superstition' by Tacitus, a Roman scribe.
Why called a superstition?
How often does a man come back to life, especially a man who predicts His own death and resurrection?
Such a claim is incongruent to man's typical experience.
This is why such an event, or its claim, needs to be categorized or labeled in a way that fits a man's pessimism of the extraordinary (the human need).
I don't agree with this categorization, but simply state that man's mind is compelled to categorize and label experiences that occur outside his convention.
This is what man's cognitive mind does by default, I think, when confronted with accounts and experiences and other things extraordinary.
The idea that people die is not an issue, since human experience affirms the fact that people and all physically living things eventually 'die'.
But for life to reemerge, to 'be' once again, is inconsistent with man's experience... and is thus immediately denied and considered strange, even superstitious as Tacitus likely labeled it.
When we follow the logical conclusions through historical methodology, the resurrection is measured alongside the previously affirmed claims... and is found to be true as well.
The issue of the resurrection being outside the ordinary should be secondary to its methodological affirmation.
Why are miracles accepted as being attributed to Christ, but not the miracle of the resurrection?
I think it is merely a cognitive dissonance this failure to continue with the historical methodology.
According to the timing of events and their recollection, Tacitus' account shows a Christian influence found in Rome within one generation after Christ (mid 1st-century).
This means the timing of events (Christ's death and resurrection) and local chatter of that account is not far removed, but still alive among the eye-witnesses to the death and resurrection... those who journaled about this experience (the authors of the Gospel and letters).
According to historical methodology, when independent sources reflect the climate mentioned in the Gospel accounts, they are also affirming the other Gospel claims.
Details.
The sources extrapolate details missing from the generalized and summarized secular accounts.
Another aspect that methodology explores and differentiates the past is revealing bias and contrasting points of view.
By deduction one can get closer to the truth of a past event (or the claims of an event) despite reading overt or hidden bias (or evidence of bias).
In this way are claims found to be true... or are found to be mere legend and made up as in things categorized as legend and myth according to the same historical methodology.
The resurrection was likely labeled a 'superstition' from an outside perception... and is a case of fallacy according to logic and argument.
It has to be argued this way because, again, it is extraordinary and falls outside the typical human experience.
However, we can look past the negativity persistent in scholars / scribes of the past (and present-day) and still find facts and history being clearly mentioned despite a work's tone (as with Tacitus).
The mention of something, in this case an extraordinary figure, can be acknowledged and affirmed because the methodology eventually speaks for itself and on behalf of the subject matter.
The key is to learn what the methodology is and seek the truth as truth his understood to be.
The methodology establishes the claims as consistent since previous claims are clearly affirmed as true and having happened.
The rational arguments made in favor of affirming the extraordinary claims are historically accurate despite their sources (from people closely associated to, or motivated to forward, the claims).
Thus the factual events, in the case of Christ, have been firmly established as historical and true... even the extraordinary like the resurrection... according to the same methodology that concludes His manifestation, baptism, and death.
How else can we know for certain that the extraordinary claims found in the Gospel are true and factually happened?
Modern-day miracles in His Name.
Consider this video and then this quote from the Gospel message:
Later Yeshua appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; He rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.
He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My Name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
- Mark 16: 147-18There are many more signs and miracles occurring.
Perhaps you know of some or have experienced some first-hand as did the disciples and those present in that video.
But consider how faith is still gifted from Above despite the experience of miracles, or the acknowledgment of a historical methodology that confirms the Gospel's claims.
Thus why it also says this:
Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Yeshua came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
A week later His disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Yeshua came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then He said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.”
Thomas said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Then Yeshua told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Yeshua performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His Name.
- John 20: 24-31Read Part One.
Read Part Two.
Comments