| What arguments suggest that critical realism is valuable in understanding Jesus? | It shows that there is no binary choice between objective facts and no facts at all. It enables us to consider evidence more critically to hopefully reach the truth. It recognises that not everyone will
interpret evidence in the same way. Jesus is more than just a historical figure wrapped up in Superstition |
| What arguments suggest that critical realism has no value in understanding Jesus? | It is unnecessary, the historical Jesus can be reconstructed using other disciplines. Science and religion have had dialogue before, so a religious world view must be abandoned. Why accept one world view as more valid than any other in understanding Jesus? Science and sense experience
prevail in telling us the truth about the world |
| What arguments suggest that critical realism has some value in understanding Jesus? | It enables people to find meaning within the historical accounts that affect their lives. It can confirm pre-existent faith but is unconvincing for the non-believer. There is more to be known than just sense experience alone. We can know that world views differ but not what the New Testament one was. |
| What are arguments that suggest the apocryphal gospels are valid? | They add to our knowledge of the cultural context of Jesus life. They were rejected because
they didn't affirm the agenda of the early church. The four gospels are just as prone to difficulties as the apocryphal gospels. The structure of Thomas and Q appear like early Christian lists of Jesus' sayings. |
| What are arguments that suggest apocryphal gospels are not valid? | There is little direct evidence for an early date for gospels like Thomas. They were rejected by the
church as heretical or unreliable. Such literature is not considered to be God's word and is not authoritative. The four gospels we have offer a more consistent approach and are worthier of study |
| What are some arguments that suggest the apocryphal gospels offer some validity? | They contain earlier layers or versions in the same way as other gospels. They may offer some insight, but they are mostly fragments, not coherent documents. If treated with caution over dating,
then they may contain some insight. Thomas is more convincing due to its lack of supernatural events. |
