Historical reliability

[brother Paul]

I most certainly asked it in the OP: How do we decide what is reliable ancient history? Many accept something as historical without asking further questions. That's not how historians work, whether investigating Benjamin Franklin, Captain James Cook, what happened in World War I, or Jesus of Nazareth.

Oz

No! In the OP you no way asked how "ancient historians determined" anything and the question you did ask I answered in post #33.

It is true however that some accept things as historical without asking further questions (agree this is sad). I also see a second problem...SOME people refuse to apply actual critical thinking and believe others who make up ever newer criticisms (not the same)..

 

[brother Paul]

No! In the OP you no way asked how "ancient historians determined" anything and the question you did ask I answered in post #33.

It is true however that some accept things as historical without asking further questions (agree this is sad). I also see a second problem...SOME people refuse to apply actual critical thinking and believe others who make up ever newer criticisms (not the same)..

And Irenaeus also says in Book V chapter 6 "For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God." Thereby equating all three with God. So in one it appears his thinking is binatarian if one reads not all that he wrote but here we see three hypostases of one God.

He also mentions of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and also mentions "the Spirit of God" and that we are the temple of God wherein the Spirit dwells and so on...in the early church the "persons" were not thought of as we understand persons (separate unrelated beings) but as persona (hypostases) of the ONE AND ONLY YHVH.

 

[OzSpen]

No! In the OP you no way asked how "ancient historians determined" anything and the question you did ask I answered in post #33.

It is true however that some accept things as historical without asking further questions (agree this is sad). I also see a second problem...SOME people refuse to apply actual critical thinking and believe others who make up ever newer criticisms (not the same)..

Paul,

Context. Context. Context.

In the OP, I wrote: 'How do we decide what is reliable ancient history? Many accept something as historical without asking further questions. That's not how historians work, whether investigating Benjamin Franklin, Captain James Cook, what happened in World War I, or Jesus of Nazareth'.

Please interpret me according to my intended meaning, which was 'how historians work' in determining criteria for historicity. 'How historians work' includes ancient historians.

See my reply to you at #35.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

And Irenaeus also says in Book V chapter 6 "For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God." Thereby equating all three with God. So in one it appears his thinking is binatarian if one reads not all that he wrote but here we see three hypostases of one God.

He also mentions of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and also mentions "the Spirit of God" and that we are the temple of God wherein the Spirit dwells and so on...in the early church the "persons" were not thought of as we understand persons (separate unrelated beings) but as persona (hypostases) of the ONE AND ONLY YHVH.

You state that Irenaeus's statement, 'For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit' equates 'all three with God'. That might be what you think it means, but it is not in the plain reading of the text.

Language such as 'the Spirit of God' and 'we are the temple of God wherein the Spirit dwells and so on' do not confirm the deity of the Holy Spirit.

You know that I accept the Holy Spirit is God (see my evidence in #35.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim,

Please go to Oxford dictionaries online for their definition of the adjective, 'trustworthy': 'Able to be relied on as honest or truthful' (Oxford dictionaries online 2017. s v trustworthy). Trustworthy = reliable, honest or truthful.

Oz

I know what "trustworthy" means, Spencer.

 

[brother Paul]

Paul,

Context. Context. Context.

In the OP, I wrote: 'How do we decide what is reliable ancient history? Many accept something as historical without asking further questions. That's not how historians work, whether investigating Benjamin Franklin, Captain James Cook, what happened in World War I, or Jesus of Nazareth'.

Please interpret me according to my intended meaning, which was 'how historians work' in determining criteria for historicity. 'How historians work' includes ancient historians.

See my reply to you at #35.

Oz

Since I am not psychic I cannot read one's mind and sadly am stuck only by going on what they actually say with their actual words.

 

[brother Paul]

You state that Irenaeus's statement, 'For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit' equates 'all three with God'. That might be what you think it means, but it is not in the plain reading of the text.

Language such as 'the Spirit of God' and 'we are the temple of God wherein the Spirit dwells and so on' do not confirm the deity of the Holy Spirit.

You know that I accept the Holy Spirit is God (see my evidence in #35.

Oz

We are the Temple of God (the place where God dwells)

The Holy Spirit dwells in us (the Temple)

Hence the Spirit is God

The hands of the Father (God's means of operating in Creation) are the Son and the Holy Spirit...thus these are all God.

The Father being YHVH (God) uncreated, unheard and never seen...the Son (Word) beng YHVH uncreated, but seeable and hearable, and the Spirit being YHVH unvceated, and unseeable, but hearable and experienced. The Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit from the Father and the Son but there is only one God.

 

[OzSpen]

I know what "trustworthy" means, Spencer.

It is you who asked in #37, 'What do you mean by "trustworthy"?'

I mean exactly what the Oxford dictionaries state!!!

 

[Jim Parker]

It is you who asked in #37, 'What do you mean by "trustworthy"?'

I mean exactly what the Oxford dictionaries state!!!

Then you have answered my question.