Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
IF I'm reading the bolded parts correctly, we are to assume that there is no recorded info that is to be believed because the Christian sect meant so little to anyone at that time in history because they were insignificant and likely one of hundreds of religious sects...
|
You are clearly not reading the bolded portions correctly because that is not at all what I am saying. I'm not even sure how you can arrive at such a perspective from what I wrote. More appropriately, the very few details that are recorded by Roman historians about Christianity need to be measured carefully against everything that we do know about Second Temple Judaism and the more sympathetic sources that we do have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
...yet we are to believe what is written in the Gospels even though they are filled with clutter, propaganda and exaggerations?
|
NO! We are to treat the gospels as we would
any historical source from the period, taking careful precautions to weigh all their claims against well established historical methodologies, and to further recognise that we can at best only reconstruct the past, and will likely do so incompletely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
...Isn't that apologetics?
|
Not at all. Apologetics is manipulating the historical sources uncritically to support one's assertions. Historians who treat the gospels as historical sources neither have a pre-set agenda, nor do they invoke uncritical methodologies and presuppositions. The best historians will not be very highly invested on one side or the other on any given matter, and will hopefully arrive at balanced and persuasive historical models that are unprejudiced. This means that they will treat the gospels like they would any source from the period; carefully weighing their claims against everything that we know about Palestine during the Second Temple period. When considered accurately, there is actually a good deal of historical information to be gleaned from the gospels, even despite their obvious theological interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
Isn't that a form of over estimation as well?
|
No. It is a form of estimation that is both necessary and characteristic of any historical evaluation from ancient history. This is how history is done: by taking into consideration the sources as evidence, and weighing them accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
Maybe Emperor Constantine simply needed a control mechanism and Christianity was his best solution at the time?
|
What on earth are you talking about? Christianity was not invented by Constantine.