Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sriram on March 08, 2024, 05:59:56 AM
-
Hi everyone,
About Jesus....(less than 2 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UQm4uF3OW8
Cheers.
Sriram
-
If people take away the more inspirational messages of the stories of Jesus, Krishna and the like that's great, but there are two problems that come along with it.
Firstly, not all of the messages that come out of the Christian mythos, certainly (I'm less familiar with Hindu legends), are inspirational, and the parts that I might find inspirational are not necessarily the parts that others would aspire to.
Secondly, lending any credence to these myths offers a blanket of acceptability to people who go further with their claims, people who claim these aren't myths or parables, that these are works of history, and those people typically aren't the people we need to be giving support, however unwitting, to. There are plenty of demonstrably real role models you can choose from, we don't need myths with baggage to inspire us.
O.
-
If people take away the more inspirational messages of the stories of Jesus, Krishna and the like that's great, but there are two problems that come along with it.
Firstly, not all of the messages that come out of the Christian mythos, certainly (I'm less familiar with Hindu legends), are inspirational, and the parts that I might find inspirational are not necessarily the parts that others would aspire to.
Secondly, lending any credence to these myths offers a blanket of acceptability to people who go further with their claims, people who claim these aren't myths or parables, that these are works of history, and those people typically aren't the people we need to be giving support, however unwitting, to. There are plenty of demonstrably real role models you can choose from, we don't need myths with baggage to inspire us.
O.
Does saying that this is an inspiring message no matter if it's true lend credence to it being true? Not sure why it would.
-
Does saying that this is an inspiring message no matter if it's true lend credence to it being true? Not sure why it would.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, there?
O.
-
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, there?
O.
You wrote 'lending any credence to these myths offers a blanket of acceptability to people who go further with their claims, people who claim these aren't myths or parables, that these are works of history' - so I presumed you saw the clip talking as lending credence that to the myth. Given the clip says it's inspiring even it it isn't true, I am questioning whether your claim is correct.
-
You wrote 'lending any credence to these myths offers a blanket of acceptability to people who go further with their claims, people who claim these aren't myths or parables, that these are works of history' - so I presumed you saw the clip talking as lending credence that to the myth. Given the clip says it's inspiring even it it isn't true, I am questioning whether your claim is correct.
I see what you mean - I think that accepting the inspirational elements without accepting that the stories have any literal veracity will be interpreted by some as a validation of the claims, even if explicitly denied. There will be people who will interpret it as 'look, this is so spectacularly magically holy that even people who don't think they believe are actually influence by it, what a miracle'.
O.
-
I see what you mean - I think that accepting the inspirational elements without accepting that the stories have any literal veracity will be interpreted by some as a validation of the claims, even if explicitly denied. There will be people who will interpret it as 'look, this is so spectacularly magically holy that even people who don't think they believe are actually influence by it, what a miracle'.
O.
So? Does that mean you shouldn't say something in case ir's misused by some people? Because in that case......
-
So? Does that mean you shouldn't say something in case ir's misused by some people? Because in that case......
As an absolute, no. In this particular instance, where the benefits of aspiring to be like inspirational people can be achieved by adopting other inspirational people without the incidental damage of being interpreted as supporting a range of views from the benign to fringe lunacy... I think so, yes.
O.
-
As an absolute, no. In this particular instance, where the benefits of aspiring to be like inspirational people can be achieved by adopting other inspirational people without the incidental damage of being interpreted as supporting a range of views from the benign to fringe lunacy... I think so, yes.
O.
So you think the bloke in the video should not have said this because there are some people who would misuse his statement? Can you outline more about this magical dividing line between things that can be said even if they are capable of being misused, and things that shouldn't be said?
-
So you think the bloke in the video should not have said this because there are some people who would misuse his statement? Can you outline more about this magical dividing line between things that can be said even if they are capable of being misused, and things that shouldn't be said?
I'm not sure I'd go as far as to suggest that he shouldn't say it - that I wouldn't isn't necessarily a benchmark anyone else has to live by - but I think we need to be mindful of the way these things are going to be interpreted.
O.
-
I'm not sure I'd go as far as to suggest that he shouldn't say it - that I wouldn't isn't necessarily a benchmark anyone else has to live by - but I think we need to be mindful of the way these things are going to be interpreted.
O.
It's how I interpreted what you said. So perhaps you needed to be more mindful of how it was going to be interpreted.
-
It's how I interpreted what you said. So perhaps you needed to be more mindful of how it was going to be interpreted.
Perhaps. Communication is a two-way street, of course.
O.
-
If people take away the more inspirational messages of the stories of Jesus, Krishna and the like that's great, but there are two problems that come along with it.
Firstly, not all of the messages that come out of the Christian mythos, certainly (I'm less familiar with Hindu legends), are inspirational, and the parts that I might find inspirational are not necessarily the parts that others would aspire to.
Secondly, lending any credence to these myths offers a blanket of acceptability to people who go further with their claims, people who claim these aren't myths or parables, that these are works of history, and those people typically aren't the people we need to be giving support, however unwitting, to. There are plenty of demonstrably real role models you can choose from, we don't need myths with baggage to inspire us.
O.
Historical quotes can also inspire.....but its all about the emotional content. If some legend can have an emotional impact it will be inspirational.
-
Historical quotes can also inspire.....but its all about the emotional content. If some legend can have an emotional impact it will be inspirational.
When it comes to 'emotional content', my sense is that we're much more likely to get that from demonstrably real people, for two reasons: firstly, we're more likely to know something about them as a person, moreso the more recently they've lived; and, secondly, Jesus and Krishna, and other mythic figures, are not conventionally human - their mindset, their emotional landscape is going to be very, very different if the stories are true.
O.
-
Perhaps. Communication is a two-way street, of course.
O.
I'd suggest it's much more complex than that. And that your 'rule' is merely one about what you feel comfortable about saying rather than anything more useful.
-
When it comes to 'emotional content', my sense is that we're much more likely to get that from demonstrably real people, for two reasons: firstly, we're more likely to know something about them as a person, moreso the more recently they've lived; and, secondly, Jesus and Krishna, and other mythic figures, are not conventionally human - their mindset, their emotional landscape is going to be very, very different if the stories are true.
O.
If they are mythic, they don't have a 'mindset'. They are human creations.
-
When it comes to 'emotional content', my sense is that we're much more likely to get that from demonstrably real people, for two reasons: firstly, we're more likely to know something about them as a person, moreso the more recently they've lived; and, secondly, Jesus and Krishna, and other mythic figures, are not conventionally human - their mindset, their emotional landscape is going to be very, very different if the stories are true.
O.
The fact remains that Krishna and Jesus have inspired millions of people over several millennia. Some historical people like Mahavira, Buddha, Mohammad and Guru Nanak also have inspired. Some one has to work out the different components that lend themselves to being inspirational and those that don't.
-
If they are mythic, they don't have a 'mindset'. They are human creations.
And the nature of the writings from which we derive those myths do not delve into their notional mindsets in the way that more modern fiction tends to - that it's a fictional character doesn't stop us considering what mindset it might have.
O.
-
And the nature of the writings from which we derive those myths do not delve into their notional mindsets in the way that more modern fiction tends to - that it's a fictional character doesn't stop us considering what mindset it might have.
O.
Not in the fictional sense. The problem I have is that you are talking it being a myth, and true which seens to me to make no real sense. A myth might contain truth but it's not 'true'.
-
The fact remains that Krishna and Jesus have inspired millions of people over several millennia.
Inspired to do what? In some instances it's clearly a generally good thing; charity, compassion, loving thy neighbour etc. Some might even argue these are the majority of the results. As I said, i can speak more to the effects of Christianity, but God/Jesus has been used to justify homophobia, misogyny, slavery, wars, sectarian violence, and all sorts of hatred, and not just historically. On the Hindu side there's a well-documented anti-Muslim sentiment in the ruling Nationalist parties interpretation of Hinduism in India, from what I can see.
Some historical people like Mahavira, Buddha, Mohammad and Guru Nanak also have inspired. Some one has to work out the different components that lend themselves to being inspirational and those that don't.
It's less what that motivational elements are, and more what the traits and ethics we want to inspire people with are. Part of the problem with the mythic figures is that their purported divine nature risks the lesson crossing the line from 'inspiration' to 'edict' - divinely mandated expectations, things that can't be questioned by their nature, are dangerous.
O.
-
The problem I have is that you are talking it being a myth, and true which seems to me to make no real sense.
The problem isn't that I see it as both myth and truth - although the nature of metaphor makes that entirely possible - but rather that what seems clearly myth to me is TO OTHERS truth. That's compounded when particular expressions of the myth are treated as somehow literal, absolute and unquestionable truths.
A myth might contain truth but it's not 'true'.
Yes, but one person's myth is another person's history.
O.
-
The problem isn't that I see it as both myth and truth - although the nature of metaphor makes that entirely possible - but rather that what seems clearly myth to me is TO OTHERS truth. That's compounded when particular expressions of the myth are treated as somehow literal, absolute and unquestionable truths.
Yes, but one person's myth is another person's history.
O.
I didn't wrote you did 'see it' that way. I wrote that you were talking about it that way. To link tjis to your reply to Sriram, there is plenty of killing in the name is actual peopke, so not sure that something being a myth is particularly problematic.
-
The problem isn't that I see it as both myth and truth - although the nature of metaphor makes that entirely possible - but rather that what seems clearly myth to me is TO OTHERS truth. That's compounded when particular expressions of the myth are treated as somehow literal, absolute and unquestionable truths.
Yes, but one person's myth is another person's history.
O.
The gospels are clearly myth, the universe is here unintentionally/ accidentally/ naturally etc. Isn't it about time you guys started justifying your assertions?
-
The gospels are clearly myth, the universe is here unintentionally/ accidentally/ naturally etc. Isn't it about time you guys started justifying your assertions?
Do you see no difference between 'The gospels seem clearly myth to me' and 'The gospels are clearly myth'?
-
Do you see no difference between 'The gospels seem clearly myth to me' and 'The gospels are clearly myth'?
It depends what his purpose is in telling us, I suppose. If your going to say it publicly then you should expect interest in why you've said it.
A "clearly myth to me" sets me thinking about his definition of myth and clarity.
-
It depends what his purpose is in telling us, I suppose. If your going to say it publicly then you should expect interest in why you've said it.
A "clearly myth to me" sets me thinking about his definition of myth and clarity.
Why didn't you answer the question?
-
Inspired to do what? In some instances it's clearly a generally good thing; charity, compassion, loving thy neighbour etc. Some might even argue these are the majority of the results. As I said, i can speak more to the effects of Christianity, but God/Jesus has been used to justify homophobia, misogyny, slavery, wars, sectarian violence, and all sorts of hatred, and not just historically. On the Hindu side there's a well-documented anti-Muslim sentiment in the ruling Nationalist parties interpretation of Hinduism in India, from what I can see.
It's less what that motivational elements are, and more what the traits and ethics we want to inspire people with are. Part of the problem with the mythic figures is that their purported divine nature risks the lesson crossing the line from 'inspiration' to 'edict' - divinely mandated expectations, things that can't be questioned by their nature, are dangerous.
O.
People get inspired by different messages depending on their basic personality and motivations. It is not just about mythic figures but is true of historical ones too.
The point of the OP is that it doesn't matter whether Jesus or Krishna are historical or not as long as they inspire people. So...the argument that so and so may not be historical, is irrelevant.
-
The gospels are clearly myth,
I think it's pretty well demonstrated that the gospels are myth, or, at least contain many mythical elements. They've got dead people coming alive again in them, for example. In any context other than that of your religion, you'd happily put that story in the myth bucket.
-
Do you see no difference between 'The gospels seem clearly myth to me' and 'The gospels are clearly myth'?
Why are you hedging your bets in this way? There's plenty of evidence that the gospels contain stories that are made up. Or are you going to argue the fine line between "the gospels are myth" and "the gospels contain myths"?
-
People get inspired by different messages depending on their basic personality and motivations. It is not just about mythic figures but is true of historical ones too.
That's debatable, but a slightly different issue. What is clearer is that we have a better understanding of the specifics of most of the real people who are seen as inspirational because they're typically more recent and the accounts we have are broader and more reliable. That reduces the capacity of people to reinterpret to suit their own agenda.
The point of the OP is that it doesn't matter whether Jesus or Krishna are historical or not as long as they inspire people.
The problem isn't so much with the 'mythic' part - people could take their inspiration from the Arthurian Knights and it would be less problematic than Jesus or Krishna. The problem is the religious nature of these figures which, to some ways of thinking, puts questioning the inspired somehow beyond the pale - it's the unquestionable nature of the inspiration, the religious fervour itself which is problematic.
So...the argument that so and so may not be historical, is irrelevant.
Yes and no. Jesus being considered by mainstream historians to probably be a real person (albeit one on whom any amount of magical myth-making may or may not have been layered after the fact) makes it more difficult to counter that sort of religious-inspiration thinking. It's easier to dismiss Krishna as purely created idea in the absence of claims of it being real person.
O.
-
We can't clearly outline what effects mythical or historical persons will have as categories. God himself is just a belief but has tremendous effect on peoples mind and emotions.
It is about the authoritative nature of the person or being (real or mythical) as viewed by the people in that culture. Emotional vulnerability is a factor.
-
Sriram,
The point of the OP is that it doesn't matter whether Jesus or Krishna are historical or not as long as they inspire people. So...the argument that so and so may not be historical, is irrelevant.
Irrelevant to whom? One of the defining characteristics of followers of Jesus isn’t just that they like the inspiring quotes that are attributed to him – it’s that he’s (supposedly) a man-god too and so his (supposed) pronouncements have an authority and irrefutability that brooks no disagreement or counter-argument.
Now contrast that with the pronouncements of Aristotle or Plato whose merits stand on their content, not on the (supposedly) divine status of their authors.
That’s why it does matter in practice – one set of inspirational quotes comes freighted with (faux) authority while the other doesn’t, and so often people will apply them very differently.
-
We can't clearly outline what effects mythical or historical persons will have as categories. God himself is just a belief but has tremendous effect on peoples mind and emotions.
It is about the authoritative nature of the person or being (real or mythical) as viewed by the people in that culture. Emotional vulnerability is a factor.
Yes, absolutely. That's why we should be hesitant about feeding into that 'emotional vulnerability', we should be cautious about the baggage that comes with some myths and legends, and should therefore be selective in which figures we advocate as inspirational.
O.
-
Sriram,
Irrelevant to whom? One of the defining characteristics of followers of Jesus isn’t just that they like the inspiring quotes that are attributed to him – it’s that he’s (supposedly) a man-god too and so his (supposed) pronouncements have an authority and irrefutability that brooks no disagreement or counter-argument.
Now contrast that with the pronouncements of Aristotle or Plato whose merits stand on their content, not on the (supposedly) divine status of their authors.
That’s why it does matter in practice – one set of inspirational quotes comes freighted with (faux) authority while the other doesn’t, and so often people will apply them very differently.
I don't think either Plato or Aristotle fit the bill of atheist though.
Is Jesus a philosopher or a moral teacher? Are you in fact, then, comparing like with like?
-
Vlad,
I don't think either Plato or Aristotle fit the bill of atheist though.
Is Jesus a philosopher or a moral teacher? Are you in fact, then, comparing like with like?
Yes - they all (reportedly) said things that some have found to be inspirational. That's the relevant commonality here.
-
That’s why it does matter in practice – one set of inspirational quotes comes freighted with (faux) authority while the other doesn’t, and so often people will apply them very differently.
faux authority? Looks like a positive assertion to me...you know what you have to do in that case.
-
Vlad,
faux authority? Looks like a positive assertion to me...you know what you have to do in that case.
Yes - keep waiting for those who claim that Jesus was a mad-god hybrid and therefore infallible in his statements to justify that claim with a sound argument. Until and unless that finally happens, there's no reason to think the claimed authority isn't faux.
You really do have the most remarkable ability always to miss the point.
-
People get inspired by different messages depending on their basic personality and motivations. It is not just about mythic figures but is true of historical ones too.
The point of the OP is that it doesn't matter whether Jesus or Krishna are historical or not as long as they inspire people. So...the argument that so and so may not be historical, is irrelevant.
The historical facts are entirely relevant. Without the resurrection there would be no Christianity.
-
The historical facts are entirely relevant. Without the resurrection there would be no Christianity.
Not true. Just needs someone to believe in a resurrection, to convince others and so on until it becomes a wide spread belief.
-
The historical facts are entirely relevant. Without the resurrection there would be no Christianity.
The resurrection claim isn't a historical fact: it's a religious belief that lacks any justification and, as such, it is easily rejected: as is the Christianity which is dependent on it.
As far as I can see your precious Christianity is based on just smoke and mirrors.
-
Why are you hedging your bets in this way? There's plenty of evidence that the gospels contain stories that are made up. Or are you going to argue the fine line between "the gospels are myth" and "the gospels contain myths"
Because I'm not commenting on the gospels at all in my post. I was highlighting that Vlad had turned Outider's comment that the gospels seemed clearly mythical to him, to a blanket statement atheists on here said the gospels are mythical.
Now I can't say exactly why Outrider phrased it that way, but I suspect it's because contextually he was drawing a difference between someone seeing them as myth, and someone seeing them as fact in order to have a discussion about what difference that might make to how someone behaves without getting into the discussion about what is actually true because it's not relevant to the wider idea.
-
The resurrection claim isn't a historical fact: it's a religious belief that lacks any justification and, as such, it is easily rejected: as is the Christianity which is dependent on it.
As far as I can see your precious Christianity is based on just smoke and mirrors.
Just for clarity, if we are saying a 'historical fact' is something that happened , the resurrection may or may not be a historical fact. If however, anyone wanted to claim that it was they would then need to provide a method for establishing a supernatural claim as true. In the absence of such a method, and as fans of the show will know it has been asked for multiple times, then the claim is meaningless.
-
AB,
The historical facts are entirely relevant. Without the resurrection there would be no Christianity.
Actually, without just the conviction that a resurrection happened. There are many reasons such a conviction may have been in place despite there being no resurrection at all though. Your problem here if you want to assert your faith to rest on the resurrection being a historical fact is that the evidence for that being the case is woefully inadequate.
Worse yet, if nonetheless you decide to drop the evidential bar so low that it allows for the non-contemporaneous hearsay that supports the resurrection story then you have no basis to deny any other mythical or folkloric truth claim that rests on equally flimsy evidence.
-
Yes, absolutely. That's why we should be hesitant about feeding into that 'emotional vulnerability', we should be cautious about the baggage that comes with some myths and legends, and should therefore be selective in which figures we advocate as inspirational.
O.
I am not sure if any one person or a group of people can position themselves as the judges and guides who decide what is (or should be) inspirational and what is not. Different individuals get inspired by different people and different images and ideas all the time. Part of this could be myth and part historical.
What we consider as historical today could turn out to be a myth and vice-versa.
-
Just for clarity, if we are saying a 'historical fact' is something that happened , the resurrection may or may not be a historical fact.
I agree but your statement does suggest therefore that history has no philosophical bias except that something has had to have happenedhowever, anyone wanted to claim that it was they would then need to provide a method for establishing a supernatural claim as true.Having taken philosophical bias out , you seem here to be reintroducing it through the back door. If a resurrection happened it would present itself naturally I.e. in the physical form of whoever was resurrected. What might not be apparent is an explanation, but given your original definition of history that isn’t so important. An explanation doesn’t conjur an event.
-
I am not sure if any one person or a group of people can position themselves as the judges and guides who decide what is (or should be) inspirational and what is not.
And yet you posted a video of someone doing exactly that, implicitly supporting their stance. Every time we recommend something we are putting ourselves in the position of judging that - all I'm saying is that we need to be cautious with our recommendations.
Different individuals get inspired by different people and different images and ideas all the time. Part of this could be myth and part historical.
And when we make recommendations, when we repost or reiterate or advocate, we need to take responsibility for those actions, and the implications of them.
What we consider as historical today could turn out to be a myth and vice-versa.
Possibly, yes. Whether Jesus or Krishna are in any way actually real is sort of beside the point here, though - this isn't about whether it's true, this is about how people will react to the stories, how people will take advocacy of their chosen story and run with, how people will utilised well-meaning but benign commentary and use it to reinforce their 'holy' stance. It's not about Jesus, it's about Christians; it's not about Krishna, it's about Hindus. And, unfortunate though it is, it's not really about the majority of those groups, but about the loudest and most obnoxious of the groups.
O.
-
I am not sure if any one person or a group of people can position themselves as the judges and guides who decide what is (or should be) inspirational and what is not. Different individuals get inspired by different people and different images and ideas all the time. Part of this could be myth and part historical.
What we consider as historical today could turn out to be a myth and vice-versa.
1 Peter 3 is useful: it encourages the reader to keep a clear conscience, saying that it is better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. Then it says, "for Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God".
I would say that if we take inspiration from a fictional story about someone suffering for doing good, then it can't really motivate us to do the same unless the story reminds us of an actual historical occasion when someone has done that.
-
I agree but your statement does suggest therefore that history has no philosophical bias except that something has had to have happened
Having taken philosophical bias out , you seem here to be reintroducing it through the back door. If a resurrection happened it would present itself naturally I.e. in the physical form of whoever was resurrected. What might not be apparent is an explanation, but given your original definition of history that isn’t so important. An explanation doesn’t conjur an event?
It's quite difficult to work out what you are trying to say here. So let's start with:
Are you saying the resurrection was not a supernatural event?
-
1 Peter 3 is useful: it encourages the reader to keep a clear conscience, saying that it is better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. Then it says, "for Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God".
I would say that if we take inspiration from a fictional story about someone suffering for doing good, then it can't really motivate us to do the same unless the story reminds us of an actual historical occasion when someone has done that.
That's the 'Peter' and 'Jesus' who are so beloved of the Christian Nationalist right-wing American nutjobs who prop up Trump's borderline theocratic bid for the Presidency, right? You might argue that you're not aligned with them (although you're also aware that I, and others, disagree with the benificence of your own interpretations), but you have to accept that they find their inspiration in the same writings that you do.
O.
-
Just for clarity, if we are saying a 'historical fact' is something that happened , the resurrection may or may not be a historical fact.
It's not a historical fact. It didn't happen. I am as certain of that as I am as certain that Rome was not founded by two twins who were raised by a wolf or that St George didn't fight a dragon.
If however, anyone wanted to claim that it was they would then need to provide a method for establishing a supernatural claim as true.
The term "supernatural" is incoherent. As soon as somebody provides a method for establishing as supernatural claims, those claims become natural.
Conversely, if somebody says "for God, all things are possible", then all history immediately becomes meaningless. We would no longer be able to reliably investigate what happened in the past because God, could have made up everything.
-
It's not a historical fact. It didn't happen. I am as certain of that as I am as certain that Rome was not founded by two twins who were raised by a wolf or that St George didn't fight a dragon.
The term "supernatural" is incoherent. As soon as somebody provides a method for establishing as supernatural claims, those claims become natural.
Conversely, if somebody says "for God, all things are possible", then all history immediately becomes meaningless. We would no longer be able to reliably investigate what happened in the past because God, could have made up everything.
I don't think we're really disagreeing but your certainty that something did not happen is as useful as Alan's certainty that it did happen in determining anything. You may well have other better arguments at your disposal.
-
It's quite difficult to work out what you are trying to say here. So let's start with:
Are you saying the resurrection was not a supernatural event?
I'm not keen on the term 'supernatural' partially because on this forum some atheists have had the natural perform the supernatural. There is also the problem of separating the improbable from the supernatural.
What I am saying is that if a resurrection happened the evidence would be empirically a living person so pigeon holing this event into "The supernatural" isn't entirely satisfactory.
Saying these things never happen seems problematic as does these things can't happen...for the reason that if life is merely an epi phenomenon of the arrangement of matter then a sophisticated technology could change a dead organism into a live one. Any objection here then is argument from atheism ultimately in my opinion.
As for the methodology, I couldn't tell you. That does not necessarily mean there isn't one, just that I might not be your man.
-
I'm not keen on the term 'supernatural' partially because on this forum some atheists have had the natural perform the supernatural. There is also the problem of separating the improbable from the supernatural.
What I am saying is that if a resurrection happened the evidence would be empirically a living person so pigeon holing this event into "The supernatural" isn't entirely satisfactory.
Saying these things never happen seems problematic as does these things can't happen...for the reason that if life is merely an epi phenomenon of the arrangement of matter then a sophisticated technology could change a dead organism into a live one. Any objection here then is argument from atheism ultimately in my opinion.
As for the methodology, I couldn't tell you. That does not necessarily mean there isn't one, just that I might not be your man.
So if you don't have a methodology for any clsims of miracles, I can only see that we have naturalist methodoligies to use. Under any such methodology, I am aware of, there is in no sense any evidence that the resurrection happened.
Further even were you to establish enough evidence, by your own position you've removed any ability to say anything other than it happened, so the claims made about it by Christianity are in your view worthless.
-
So if you don't have a methodology for any clsims of miracles, I can only see that we have naturalist methodoligies to use. Under any such methodology, I am aware of, there is in no sense any evidence that the resurrection happened.
Further even were you to establish enough evidence, by your own position you've removed any ability to say anything other than it happened, so the claims made about it by Christianity are in your view worthless.
You can only see naturalistic methodologies? Oh well...that must be conclusive then.
-
You can only see naturalistic methodologies? Oh well...that must be conclusive then.
This is the same position that you said you had. Are you saying you are now aware of supernatural methodologies?
-
This is the same position that you said you had. Are you saying you are now aware of supernatural methodologies?
What I am saying is that if a naturalist observed a resurrected person he would be forced either to accept a supernatural explanation or stretch his naturalism to accommodate it. That would be the case if what you are now saying is that History is what ever happens irrespective of anyone's philosophy.
Historically speaking then there is no reason specially to reject even the miraculous aspects of the gospels.
Methodological naturalism though also has issues with history namely as far as we know the same circumstances are not repeated or repeatable. In fact that is why we have science.
-
What I am saying is that if a naturalist observed a resurrected person he would be forced either to accept a supernatural explanation or stretch his naturalism to accommodate it. That would be the case if what you are now saying is that History is what ever happens irrespective of anyone's philosophy.
Historically speaking then there is no reason specially to reject even the miraculous aspects of the gospels.
Methodological naturalism though also has issues with history namely as far as we know the same circumstances are not repeated or repeatable. In fact that is why we have science.
History is studied in a methodological naturalist manner.
And given we remain between the 2 of us absent of a supernatural methodology, the claim of resurrection in Chrustianity is worthless.
-
I don't think we're really disagreeing but your certainty that something did not happen is as useful as Alan's certainty that it did happen in determining anything. You may well have other better arguments at your disposal.
The point is that nothing is absolutely certain in history but somethings are so unlikely to have happened we can take it effectively as certain that they didn't.
Dead men don't come alive again, wolves don't suckle human babies and dragons don't exist. Technically, we should say these things are highly improbable but we use certainty as a short hand.
As far as Alan is concerned, I can point to a lot of evidence that it is impossible to revive a two day old corpse. All Alan has got is a few anonymous stories and one World religion. Unfortunately for him, it is easy to construct an alternative explanation for all of his evidence (even the World religion) that does not require us to ignore physical law.
-
And yet you posted a video of someone doing exactly that, implicitly supporting their stance. Every time we recommend something we are putting ourselves in the position of judging that - all I'm saying is that we need to be cautious with our recommendations.
And when we make recommendations, when we repost or reiterate or advocate, we need to take responsibility for those actions, and the implications of them.
Possibly, yes. Whether Jesus or Krishna are in any way actually real is sort of beside the point here, though - this isn't about whether it's true, this is about how people will react to the stories, how people will take advocacy of their chosen story and run with, how people will utilised well-meaning but benign commentary and use it to reinforce their 'holy' stance. It's not about Jesus, it's about Christians; it's not about Krishna, it's about Hindus. And, unfortunate though it is, it's not really about the majority of those groups, but about the loudest and most obnoxious of the groups.
O.
He is not declaring what should be inspiring and what should not be. He is merely stating that regardless of whether Jesus or anyone else, is historical or not, their message could still be inspiring. That is all he is saying. And that is true.
-
The point is that nothing is absolutely certain in history but somethings are so unlikely to have happened we can take it effectively as certain that they didn't.
Dead men don't come alive again, wolves don't suckle human babies and dragons don't exist. Technically, we should say these things are highly improbable but we use certainty as a short hand.
As far as Alan is concerned, I can point to a lot of evidence that it is impossible to revive a two day old corpse. All Alan has got is a few anonymous stories and one World religion. Unfortunately for him, it is easy to construct an alternative explanation for all of his evidence (even the World religion) that does not require us to ignore physical law.
I did say I thought you might have better argumentd than your certainty. That said hugely improbable events happen all the time. That an argument is hugely improbable leaves us with the possibility with that logic that the resurrection happened.
Supernatural claims aren't don't involve probability. Indeed the idea of the resurrection having power is that it is impossible not improbable. The lack of any method for validating such claims makes it much easier to dismiss them as meaningless.
-
Vlad,
What I am saying is that if a naturalist observed a resurrected person he would be forced either to accept a supernatural explanation or stretch his naturalism to accommodate it.
No – first he would be forced to examine whether his grounds for believing the person actually to have been resurrected were sound. As he couldn’t for example eliminate definitively the possibility that the subject had a hitherto unknown twin, the most he could conclude would be that he didn’t know. Absent any a priori evidence that there even is such a thing as “the supernatural” or even a definition of that term moreover, he’d also have no logically sound basis just to jump to that option as his conclusion.
That would be the case if what you are now saying is that History is what ever happens irrespective of anyone's philosophy.
No, “history” as defined is what’s considered reliably to have happened on the basis of various objective tests of historicity.
Historically speaking then there is no reason specially to reject even the miraculous aspects of the gospels.
Yes there is – historically there is every reason to reject the miraculous aspects of the gospels, namely that such claims fail even the most basic objective tests of historicity.
Methodological naturalism though also has issues with history namely as far as we know the same circumstances are not repeated or repeatable. In fact that is why we have science.
Gibberish. Methodological naturalism has no issues with history because the objective tests of historicity do not require that there were, say, two Henry VIIIs – let alone thousands of them. Here they are again for you:
1. Relevance: is the evidence presented really relevant to the claim being made?
2. Validity: is the source what it appears to be or is it a fraud, forgery or mistranslation?
3. Identification: is the source clearly and accurately identified?
4. Expertise: is the source qualified to provide this evidence?
5. Bias: does the source have an interest in the topic of the evidence that might distort the evidence?
6. Internal consistency: does the information align with itself or contradict itself?
You'll note that none of these tests require the historical event to have happened more than once.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus#:~:text=New%20Testament%20scholar%20Bart%20Ehrman,to%20affirm%20or%20deny%20them.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus#:~:text=New%20Testament%20scholar%20Bart%20Ehrman,to%20affirm%20or%20deny%20them.
Your point?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_34th_Street
-
Vlad,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus#:~:text=New%20Testament%20scholar%20Bart%20Ehrman,to%20affirm%20or%20deny%20them.
From the article you linked to:
"Miracles were widely believed in around the time of Jesus. Gods and demigods such as Heracles (better known by his Roman name, Hercules), Asclepius (a Greek physician who became a god) and Isis of Egypt all were thought to have healed the sick and overcome death (i.e., to have raised people from the dead).[42] Some thought that mortal men, if sufficiently famous and virtuous, could do likewise; there were myths about philosophers like Pythagoras and Empedocles calming storms at sea, chasing away pestilences, and being greeted as gods,[42] and similarly some Jews believed that Elisha the Prophet had cured lepers and restored the dead.[42] The achievements of the 1st century Apollonius of Tyana, though occurring after Jesus's life, were used by a 3rd-century opponent of the Christians to argue that Christ was neither original nor divine (Eusebius of Caesaria argued against the charge).[43]
The first Gospels were written against this background of Hellenistic and Jewish belief in miracles and other wondrous acts as signs—the term is explicitly used in the Gospel of John to describe Jesus's miracles—seen to be validating the credentials of divine wise men.[44]"
Was miracle stories being commonplace at the time of Jesus and therefore likely to fall on credulous ground the point you intended to make?
-
Vlad,
From the article you linked to:
"Miracles were widely believed in around the time of Jesus. Gods and demigods such as Heracles (better known by his Roman name, Hercules), Asclepius (a Greek physician who became a god) and Isis of Egypt all were thought to have healed the sick and overcome death (i.e., to have raised people from the dead).[42] Some thought that mortal men, if sufficiently famous and virtuous, could do likewise; there were myths about philosophers like Pythagoras and Empedocles calming storms at sea, chasing away pestilences, and being greeted as gods,[42] and similarly some Jews believed that Elisha the Prophet had cured lepers and restored the dead.[42] The achievements of the 1st century Apollonius of Tyana, though occurring after Jesus's life, were used by a 3rd-century opponent of the Christians to argue that Christ was neither original nor divine (Eusebius of Caesaria argued against the charge).[43]
The first Gospels were written against this background of Hellenistic and Jewish belief in miracles and other wondrous acts as signs—the term is explicitly used in the Gospel of John to describe Jesus's miracles—seen to be validating the credentials of divine wise men.[44]"
Was miracle stories being commonplace at the time of Jesus and therefore likely to fall on credulous ground the point you intended to make?
Now wait a cherry picking moment, Hillside.
The part of the article I want to focus on is the statement that some historians dismiss miracles a priori, Some are not convinced by the reports and some accept them.
Even supposing that somehow we could extend the title of historian to your good self I wonder if you would be categorised as one who dismisses miracles a priori. Then thre are the opening paragraphs of the article.
-
Your point?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_34th_Street
The point is the article gives a different definition of history from yours namely History as a science. At best history might be described in terms of being a social science, but then is that exhaustive?I don’t think so.
-
Vlad,
From the article you linked to:
"Miracles were widely believed in around the time of Jesus. Gods and demigods such as Heracles (better known by his Roman name, Hercules), Asclepius (a Greek physician who became a god) and Isis of Egypt all were thought to have healed the sick and overcome death (i.e., to have raised people from the dead).[42] Some thought that mortal men, if sufficiently famous and virtuous, could do likewise; there were myths about philosophers like Pythagoras and Empedocles calming storms at sea, chasing away pestilences, and being greeted as gods,[42] and similarly some Jews believed that Elisha the Prophet had cured lepers and restored the dead.[42] The achievements of the 1st century Apollonius of Tyana, though occurring after Jesus's life, were used by a 3rd-century opponent of the Christians to argue that Christ was neither original nor divine (Eusebius of Caesaria argued against the charge).[43]
The first Gospels were written against this background of Hellenistic and Jewish belief in miracles and other wondrous acts as signs—the term is explicitly used in the Gospel of John to describe Jesus's miracles—seen to be validating the credentials of divine wise men.[44]"
Was miracle stories being commonplace at the time of Jesus and therefore likely to fall on credulous ground the point you intended to make?
But all that, Hillside is unsatisfactory history imv it ignores almost completely the attitudes of Jesus main audience, the Jews, to miracles. Paul has an issue amongst the Christian communities with belief in the resurrection. These are not then communities that automatically believe everything that is put in front of them.
What is notable imv though is that diverse communities end up sharing the same view of Christ and even the gnostic and heretical communities are testament to Christ’s contemporary appeal.
Finally people on this board who like to talk about old books, Bronze Age peasants etc. make unconvincing historians imv.
-
Vlad,
Now wait a cherry picking moment, Hillside.
As you didn’t bother telling us which bit of the article you wanted to cherry pick, there was no cherry picking in asking you whether one part supported you.
The part of the article I want to focus on is the statement that some historians dismiss miracles a priori, Some are not convinced by the reports and some accept them.
This part of the article is ambiguous, but fortunately footnote 9 isn’t:
“Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.”
The point here is that some historians may well accept miracle stories as true, but not because they're historians. Why? Because such stories fail the basic tests of academic historicity.
Even supposing that somehow we could extend the title of historian to your good self I wonder if you would be categorised as one who dismisses miracles a priori. Then thre are the opening paragraphs of the article.
Yes. Until and unless someone ever came up with a method of verifying miracle stories then as a would-be historian I’d have no choice but to treat them as myth or folklore, but not history.
But all that, Hillside is unsatisfactory history imv it ignores almost completely the attitudes of Jesus main audience, the Jews, to miracles. Paul has an issue amongst the Christian communities with belief in the resurrection. These are not then communities that automatically believe everything that is put in front of them.
But they were communities when miracle stories were commonplace and unremarkable, and they were also communities that lacked the technology we have to establish actual death rather than, say, coma. Just ignoring such matters indicates confirmation bias, not rigorous historicity.
What is notable imv though is that diverse communities end up sharing the same view of Christ and even the gnostic and heretical communities are testament to Christ’s contemporary appeal.
Notable perhaps as it is with any number of charismatics, but not particularly relevant for the purpose of establishing the historical truth of miracle stories.
Finally people on this board who like to talk about old books, Bronze Age peasants etc. make unconvincing historians imv.
Depends on whether or not such people stop there, or continue the thought to “…and thus they lacked the modern tools and methods of historical enquiry that more robustly establish or falsify miracle stories”.
-
But all that, Hillside is unsatisfactory history imv it ignores almost completely the attitudes of Jesus main audience, the Jews, to miracles.
But Jesus' main audience (as you describe it) were by and large deeply unimpressed with the claimed miracles on the basis that largely they did not follow Jesus' new religious group following his death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been previously, not believing that the messiah had arrived, nor considering that Jesus had been resurrected.
What is notable imv though is that diverse communities end up sharing the same view of Christ and even the gnostic and heretical communities are testament to Christ’s contemporary appeal.
What is notable is Jesus' lack of contemporary appeal. For pretty well all other major religions (struggling to think of an exception) the religion grew to strength in the place and amongst the people who were there when the initial events took place. By constrast Jesus was largely ignored by those around him at the time of his teaching and death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been prior to Jesus.
The question is first why christianity failed to get traction in the place and amongst the people who would have actually encountered Jesus. Secondly why, having failed to establish itself amongst the people in the communities where Jesus lived and taught, did it gain traction in communities geographically and culturally very distinct from 1stC palestine - specifically amongst people who had not connection whatsoever with Jesus.
-
But Jesus' main audience (as you describe it) were by and large deeply unimpressed with the claimed miracles on the basis that largely they did not follow Jesus' new religious group following his death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been previously, not believing that the messiah had arrived, nor considering that Jesus had been resurrected.
What is notable is Jesus' lack of contemporary appeal. For pretty well all other major religions (struggling to think of an exception) the religion grew to strength in the place and amongst the people who were there when the initial events took place. By constrast Jesus was largely ignored by those around him at the time of his teaching and death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been prior to Jesus.
The question is first why christianity failed to get traction in the place and amongst the people who would have actually encountered Jesus. Secondly why, having failed to establish itself amongst the people in the communities where Jesus lived and taught, did it gain traction in communities geographically and culturally very distinct from 1stC palestine - specifically amongst people who had not connection whatsoever with Jesus.
I suppose it depends on the two distinct strands of Jesus' supposed teaching which are evident in the gospels. If you take the view that his main message was summed up in the text "Go not into the way of the Gentiles.. but go only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel", then you would be justified in thinking that Jesus' teaching was just another variant of Judaism, and not likely to make much of an impact beyond the eastern Mediterranean. This is of course the strand of teaching that the Ebionites took up on (St James). Enter Paul, with his "vision", and the view that Jesus was for the whole world. However, that was very much Paul's own Jesus.
-
But Jesus' main audience (as you describe it) were by and large deeply unimpressed with the claimed miracles on the basis that largely they did not follow Jesus' new religious group following his death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been previously, not believing that the messiah had arrived, nor considering that Jesus had been resurrected.
What is notable is Jesus' lack of contemporary appeal. For pretty well all other major religions (struggling to think of an exception) the religion grew to strength in the place and amongst the people who were there when the initial events took place. By constrast Jesus was largely ignored by those around him at the time of his teaching and death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been prior to Jesus.
The question is first why christianity failed to get traction in the place and amongst the people who would have actually encountered Jesus. Secondly why, having failed to establish itself amongst the people in the communities where Jesus lived and taught, did it gain traction in communities geographically and culturally very distinct from 1stC palestine - specifically amongst people who had not connection whatsoever with Jesus.
They had also rejected the prophets in the past.
Regarding the Jews' rejection of Jesus, Romans 11:7 says, "What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened". 11:25-26 says "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel [the elect from the Jews and the Gentiles] will be saved."
-
They had also rejected the prophets in the past.
Regarding the Jews' rejection of Jesus, Romans 11:7 says, "What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened". 11:25-26 says "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel [the elect from the Jews and the Gentiles] will be saved."
And?
-
They had also rejected the prophets in the past.
Regarding the Jews' rejection of Jesus, Romans 11:7 says, "What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened". 11:25-26 says "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel [the elect from the Jews and the Gentiles] will be saved."
Who are "the Elect"? (Define the precise meaning of the word)
Also note that "were hardened" is in the passive voice. Who did the hardening?
-
Vlad,
As you didn’t bother telling us which bit of the article you wanted to cherry pick, there was no cherry picking in asking you whether one part supported you.
This part of the article is ambiguous, but fortunately footnote 9 isn’t:
“Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.”
The point here is that some historians may well accept miracle stories as true, but not because they're historians. Why? Because such stories fail the basic tests of academic historicity.
Yes. Until and unless someone ever came up with a method of verifying miracle stories then as a would-be historian I’d have no choice but to treat them as myth or folklore, but not history.
But they were communities when miracle stories were commonplace and unremarkable, and they were also communities that lacked the technology we have to establish actual death rather than, say, coma. Just ignoring such matters indicates confirmation bias, not rigorous historicity.
Notable perhaps as it is with any number of charismatics, but not particularly relevant for the purpose of establishing the historical truth of miracle stories.
Depends on whether or not such people stop there, or continue the thought to “…and thus they lacked the modern tools and methods of historical enquiry that more robustly establish or falsify miracle stories”.
Vlad,
As you didn’t bother telling us which bit of the article you wanted to cherry pick, there was no cherry picking in asking you whether one part supported you.
Why should providing some external input into the discussion bother you so? If I had a focus it would be that the Atheist historian Bart Ehrman reminds us that some historians accept the gospel accounts as history and some do not accept the history and some do not accept it a priori, presumably because it does not coincide with their own world view rather than anything to do with history.
He doesn't then make a no true Scotsmen claim as to whether they can consequently be called historians
This part of the article is ambiguous, but fortunately footnote 9 isn’t:
“Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.”
The point here is that some historians may well accept miracle stories as true, but not because they're historians. Why? Because such stories fail the basic tests of academic historicity.
That's not what historian Bart Ehrman suggests or says. Also there are believers who apparently have been convinced by the NT as history, who cannot be included in those who believe a priori.
-
But Jesus' main audience (as you describe it) were by and large deeply unimpressed with the claimed miracles on the basis that largely they did not follow Jesus' new religious group following his death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been previously, not believing that the messiah had arrived, nor considering that Jesus had been resurrected.
And?
What is notable is Jesus' lack of contemporary appeal. For pretty well all other major religions (struggling to think of an exception) the religion grew to strength in the place and amongst the people who were there when the initial events took place.Even Buddhism? By constrast Jesus was largely ignored by those around him at the time of his teaching and death - they continued to be Jews just as they had been prior to Jesus. As you do not tire from telling us, that is due to cultural conditioning and as another here tells us ,survivorship bias. Christianity for it’s first period was considered a another Jewish sect so your view of the period becomes a bit dubious. There were numerous Jewish sects and the unity of Orthodox Judaism seems to appear later and I would say partly in response to competition from Christianity.
-
Vlad,
Why should providing some external input into the discussion bother you so?
It doesn’t. I merely pointed out that, had you bothered reading the article you linked to that you thought supported you, you'd know it'd blow up in your face (a repeating pattern by the way) because it does the opposite of that.
If I had a focus it would be that the Atheist historian Bart Ehrman reminds us that some historians accept the gospel accounts as history and some do not accept the history and some do not accept it a priori, presumably because it does not coincide with their own world view rather than anything to do with history.
Wrong again. What he actually does is to explain that the basic tests of historicity applied to a historical claim – no matter what the claim happens to be – are failed in respect of the Jesus resurrection story, and so those historians who believe it nonetheless cannot do so because they’re historians.
He doesn't then make a no true Scotsmen claim as to whether they can consequently be called historians
Yet another straw man. No-one says that historians believing the Jesus resurrection story means they’re not historians, any more than plumbers believing it too means they can’t be called plumbers. The point here is that the skills each group deploy in their professional lives have nothing to do with their faith beliefs.
That's not what historian Bart Ehrman suggests or says.
That’s exactly what Bart Ehrman says – it’s a direct quote FFS:
“9. Ehrman, Bart D. (2001). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195124743.
I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus#:~:text=New%20Testament%20scholar%20Bart%20Ehrman,to%20affirm%20or%20deny%20them
Also there are believers who apparently have been convinced by the NT as history, who cannot be included in those who believe a priori.
They may have “been convinced by the NT as history” for any number of reasons, but one of them isn’t the application of the academic tests of historicity – which is what Ehrman precisely says.
You’re all over the place here.
-
Vlad,
It doesn’t. I merely pointed out that, had you bothered reading the article you linked to that you thought supported you, you'd know it'd blow up in your face (a repeating pattern by the way) because it does the opposite of that.
Wrong again. What he actually does is to explain that the basic tests of historicity applied to a historical claim – no matter what the claim happens to be – are failed in respect of the Jesus resurrection story, and so those historians who believe it nonetheless cannot do so because they’re historians.
Yet another straw man. No-one says that historians believing the Jesus resurrection story means they’re not historians, any more than plumbers believing it too means they can’t be called plumbers. The point here is that the skills each group deploy in their professional lives have nothing to do with their faith beliefs.
That’s exactly what Bart Ehrman says – it’s a direct quote FFS:
“9. Ehrman, Bart D. (2001). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195124743.
I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus#:~:text=New%20Testament%20scholar%20Bart%20Ehrman,to%20affirm%20or%20deny%20them
They may have “been convinced by the NT as history” for any number of reasons, but one of them isn’t the application of the academic tests of historicity – which is what Ehrman precisely says.
You’re all over the place here.
Look at the first part of the quote Hillside he states historians DO NOT have to deny miracles.
That's my point.
Good day.
-
Vlad,
Look at the first part of the quote Hillside he states historians DO NOT have to deny miracles.
That's my point.
Good day.
Nor do cosmologists have to deny the possibility of an orbiting teapot. Those that do believe in it do so though not because they’re cosmologists. That’s the actual point you’ve just been schooled on, which presumably is why you’ve now run away from it.
Again.
PS Having wrongly said “That's not what historian Bart Ehrman suggests or says” and then been given the exact quote in which he precisely says that would it really kill you to acknowledge where you went wrong about that too?
-
Look at the first part of the quote Hillside he states historians DO NOT have to deny miracles.
That's my point.
Good day.
'When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. '
-
'When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. '
You are entitled to that opinion of course. For some historians treating the gospels as they would any other piece of ancient history there is no historical reason to dismiss some miracles.
Most historians I think settle for saying that it was believed by certain communities at the time.
The claim that the miracles especially fail standards of historical study is incorrect and in his statements I think Ehrman makes that clear
-
You are entitled to that opinion of course. For some historians treating the gospels as they would any other piece of ancient history there is no historical reason to dismiss some miracles.
Most historians I think settle for saying that it was believed by certain communities at the time.
The claim that the miracles especially fail standards of historical study is incorrect and in his statements I think Ehrman makes that clear
You seem very confused.
That is Ehrman that Maeght quoted. So if you think Ehrman is right then you do think that 'miracles fail the standards of historical study'.
-
You are entitled to that opinion of course. For some historians treating the gospels as they would any other piece of ancient history there is no historical reason to dismiss some miracles.
Most historians I think settle for saying that it was believed by certain communities at the time.
The claim that the miracles especially fail standards of historical study is incorrect and in his statements I think Ehrman makes that clear
I was quoting a section from the Bart Ehrman quote!
I have listen to Bart Ehrman on this an he says that historians decide on what is most likely to have happened in the past based on the evidence. It seems obvious to me that someone who doesn't believe wouldn't consider the supernatural as being the most likely explanation and this is what I have heard Ehrman say also. Only someone who believes would think it to be the most likely explanation surely.
-
You are entitled to that opinion of course. For some historians treating the gospels as they would any other piece of ancient history there is no historical reason to dismiss some miracles.
Non-sense - if a historian were treating the gospels as they would any other piece of ancient history they would conclude that there is insufficient evidence to make any historical judgement on any miraculous claim, as Ehrman explains. Whether they believe, as a believer, is a completely different matter to whether they accept something as a historian on the basis of historical evidence.
Most historians I think settle for saying that it was believed by certain communities at the time.
Nice bit of shifting the goalposts. Of course most historians would accept that certain communities believed in the miraculous claims - why would they do that - well because there is evidence in the form of religious texts, evidence of developing religion etc to support the claim that some people believed the claims.
But that is an entirely different claim to whether they, as historians, consider their is sufficient historical evidence to accept that the claims themselves (rather that whether people believed the claims).
The claim that the miracles especially fail standards of historical study is incorrect and in his statements I think Ehrman makes that clear
But Ehrman doesn't make that clear at all - indeed his view is entirely the opposite.
-
Vlad,
You are entitled to that opinion of course. For some historians treating the gospels as they would any other piece of ancient history there is no historical reason to dismiss some miracles.
Most historians I think settle for saying that it was believed by certain communities at the time.
The claim that the miracles especially fail standards of historical study is incorrect and in his statements I think Ehrman makes that clear
The “claim that the miracles especially fail standards of historical study” is not incorrect – evidently so as such claims are not taught as facts in mainstream academic institutions. Nor does Ehrman suggest otherwise.
What do you suppose that is?
Oh, and you seem to have forgotten to withdraw your error of telling me Ehrman didn't say what I told you he'd said even after I’d given you the quote when he said exactly that.
Would you like to row back from that mistake now?
-
I was quoting a section from the Bart Ehrman quote!
I have listen to Bart Ehrman on this an he says that historians decide on what is most likely to have happened in the past based on the evidence. It seems obvious to me that someone who doesn't believe wouldn't consider the supernatural as being the most likely explanation and this is what I have heard Ehrman say also. Only someone who believes would think it to be the most likely explanation surely.
As ever, probability is a methodoligically naturalist concept, so there is no such thing as a likelihood for a supernatural claim.
-
As ever, probability is a methodoligically naturalist concept, so there is no such thing as a likelihood for a supernatural claim.
Sure.
-
Non-sense - if a historian were treating the gospels as they would any other piece of ancient history they would conclude that there is insufficient evidence to make any historical judgement on any miraculous claim, as Ehrman explains. Whether they believe, as a believer, is a completely different matter to whether they accept something as a historian on the basis of historical evidence.
Nice bit of shifting the goalposts. Of course most historians would accept that certain communities believed in the miraculous claims - why would they do that - well because there is evidence in the form of religious texts, evidence of developing religion etc to support the claim that some people believed the claims.
But that is an entirely different claim to whether they, as historians, consider their is sufficient historical evidence to accept that the claims themselves (rather that whether people believed the claims).
But Ehrman doesn't make that clear at all - indeed his view is entirely the opposite.
Absent a method for assessing the supernatural, there is no such thing as evidence for it or against it. Note, yoh can have evidence against whether somethung that someone claimed happened but that will be methodoligical naturalist evidence against any part of a supernatural claim tgat can be looked at from a methodological naturalistic approach.
-
Absent a method for assessing the supernatural, there is no such thing as evidence for it or against it. Note, yoh can have evidence against whether somethung that someone claimed happened but that will be methodoligical naturalist evidence against any part of a supernatural claim tgat can be looked at from a methodological naturalistic approach.
If there was evidence for the supernatural then it would no longer be supernatural but just natural. Is that correct?
-
You seem very confused.
That is Ehrman that Maeght quoted. So if you think Ehrman is right then you do think that 'miracles fail the standards of historical study'.
No Ehrman says a historian is not obliged to deny miracles...
Denial of miracles is not therefore necessary in the business of history, contrary to what you would have us believe.
Ehrman is not saying therefore that miracles fail the standards of history.
He may be saying that the only way to accept new testament miracles as a historian appears in his view is to believe them
a priori, but I note people who have said they have come to belief because, partly, of what they perceive as the historicity of
the gospels.
So far all I have been presented that all miracles never happened are a priori arguments that miracles don't happen or that history denies miracles a priori.
I do not believe then that there is a naturalistic default in history that needs no justification. If one thinks it didn't happen as per the gospels then there is a duty to say what actually did happen
-
Absent a method for assessing the supernatural, there is no such thing as evidence for it or against it.
Which is why I said:
'they would conclude that there is insufficient evidence to make any historical judgement on any miraculous claim'. I practical terms they would simply ignore the claim and move on as it simply does not fit within the world of historical investigation.
-
No Ehrman says a historian is not obliged to deny miracles...
But he goes on, effectively to say that historians, while operating as historians, are obliged to ignore miraculous claims.
-
No Ehrman says a historian is not obliged to deny miracles...
Denial of miracles is not therefore necessary in the business of history, contrary to what you would have us believe.
Ehrman is not saying therefore that miracles fail the standards of history.
He may be saying that the only way to accept new testament miracles as a historian appears in his view is to believe them
a priori, but I note people who have said they have come to belief because, partly, of what they perceive as the historicity of
the gospels.
So far all I have been presented that all miracles never happened are a priori arguments that miracles don't happen or that history denies miracles a priori.
I do not believe then that there is a naturalistic default in history that needs no justification. If one thinks it didn't happen as per the gospels then there is a duty to say what actually did happen
He says they are not obliged to deny miracles but that 'When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.'
The rest of your post seems quite muddled, but regards the last bit, a historian, acting as a historian, would likely need to say what they think happened but an atheist is under no such duty. They only have to say that they don't believe in the miracle claims.
-
Which is why I said:
'they would conclude that there is insufficient evidence to make any historical judgement on any miraculous claim'. I practical terms they would simply ignore the claim and move on as it simply does not fit within the world of historical investigation.
That seems to imply that there could be such a thing as evidence for such a claim though.
-
Vlad,
No Ehrman says a historian is not obliged to deny miracles...
Which no-one disagrees with, any more than a cosmologist who believes on faith that there’s an orbiting teapot is obliged to deny the orbiting teapot. What he can’t do though is to claim that the tools and methods of cosmology justify his teapot belief, any more that a historian can claim that the tools and methods of academic history justify his belief in a resurrection.
Do you get it now?
Denial of miracles is not therefore necessary in the business of history, contrary to what you would have us believe.
No-one is saying otherwise. Stop lying.
Ehrman is not saying therefore that miracles fail the standards of history.
That’s exactly what he says: “When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer”.
He may be saying that the only way to accept new testament miracles as a historian appears in his view is to believe them
a priori, but I note people who have said they have come to belief because, partly, of what they perceive as the historicity of
the gospels.
Wrong again. He says that a historian may well believe in miracles, but not by applying the tools and methods of academic history. The fact of being a historian (or a plumber for that matter) is irrelevant for the purpose of his beliefs about miracles.
Why are you still getting this wrong?
So far all I have been presented that all miracles never happened are a priori arguments that miracles don't happen or that history denies miracles a priori.
No you haven’t. Why are you still confused about how the burden of proof works? “The miracles never happened” (ie, your straw man) and “there are no sound reasons available for thinking the miracles did happen” are epistemically very different statements.
Can you see why?
I do not believe then that there is a naturalistic default in history that needs no justification.
Gibberish.
If one thinks it didn't happen as per the gospels then there is a duty to say what actually did happen
No there isn’t. I have no sound reasons to think that, say, the resurrection of Jesus happened. I can think of lots of reasons for the story to exist, but I have no “duty” at all to demonstrate which of them (if any) are most likely to be true.
-
He says they are not obliged to deny miracles but that 'When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.'
I have already stated that as per Ehrman a historian is not obliged to dismiss miracles. In his view anybody that says they definitely happened cannot rely on history to support that.
That is not to say a historian can definitely say it didn't happen because history does not definitively provide that proof.
So to return to Ehrman's first statement Historians aren't obliged to deny miracles.
Your disbelief in miracles is therefore a priori any historical consideration.
-
That seems to imply that there could be such a thing as evidence for such a claim though.
Of course there could be, which would likely render the claim to reveal itself as non-miraculous. This happens all the time - claims which at one time were considered to be miraculous and/or supernatural which, on better understanding, turn out to be susceptible to naturalist evidence all along.
The issue for the Jesus claims is that we are rendered impotent in evidential terms by the lack of forensic examination of the claims at the time they occurred (e.g. was Jesus actually dead or merely unconscious etc etc) and there is no way we can ever get that evidence from 2000+ years further on.
-
Of course there could be, which would likely render the claim to reveal itself as non-miraculous. This happens all the time - claims which at one time were considered to be miraculous and/or supernatural which, on better understanding, turn out to be susceptible to naturalist evidence all along.
The issue for the Jesus claims is that we are rendered impotent in evidential terms by the lack of forensic examination of the claims at the time they occurred (e.g. was Jesus actually dead or merely unconscious etc etc) and there is no way we can ever get that evidence from 2000+ years further on.
I think you're confused. How can there be evidence for the supernatural absent a methodology for assessing it?
What you seem to be refering to is what I was covering by this:
you can have evidence against whether something that someone claimed happened but that will be methodological naturalist evidence against any part of a supernatural claim that can be looked at from a methodological naturalistic approach.
-
I have already stated that as per Ehrman a historian is not obliged to dismiss miracles. In his view anybody that says they definitely happened cannot rely on history to support that.
That is not to say a historian can definitely say it didn't happen because history does not definitively provide that proof.
So to return to Ehrman's first statement Historians aren't obliged to deny miracles.
Your disbelief in miracles is therefore a priori any historical consideration.
Yes, you've stated that and no one had said otherwise. But BE makes it clear that he considers historians who accept miracles are doing so as believers not as historians.
-
If there was evidence for the supernatural then it would no longer be supernatural but just natural. Is that correct?
We approach the study of history in a methodologically naturalist manner. Evidence in history is defined from that. You can assess claims of what happened based on that. In that context talking of 'evidence for the supernatural' makes no sense. We don't have a supernatural method to use, so we don't have a definition of supernatural evidence.
-
We approach the study of history in a methodologically naturalist manner. Evidence in history is defined from that. You can assess claims of what happened based on that. In that context talking of 'evidence for the supernatural' makes no sense. We don't have a supernatural method to use, so we don't have a definition of supernatural evidence.
Thanks. I have watched debates on this sort of thing on Youtube and know that people have said the same or similar, and I do get it, but am not an expert so sometimes my understanding needs refreshing :)
-
Vlad,
The “claim that the miracles especially fail standards of historical study” is not incorrect – evidently so as such claims are not taught as facts in mainstream academic institutions. Nor does Ehrman suggest otherwise.
What do you suppose that is?
Oh, and you seem to have forgotten to withdraw your error of telling me Ehrman didn't say what I told you he'd said even after I’d given you the quote when he said exactly that.
Would you like to row back from that mistake now?
What is taught in academic situations is a movable feast as you well know Hillside. How much History is taught as fact also puts a question mark on your suggestion that all history is taught as fact with no recognition that much remains conjecture.
What you and the posse seem to be presenting here is the old
"When Dr Ehrman says a historian is not obliged to deny miracles he's not really saying a historian is not obliged to deny miracles" routine.
-
Vlad,
I have already stated that as per Ehrman a historian is not obliged to dismiss miracles. In his view anybody that says they definitely happened cannot rely on history to support that.
Progress! I’m glad that you now seem to understand that the tools and methods of academic history do not justify biblical miracle stories.
That is not to say a historian can definitely say it didn't happen…
For the same reason that you cannot definitively say that leprechauns don’t leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Nonetheless, as a practical matter you proceed on the basis that leprechauns aren’t real. So what though?
…because history does not definitively provide that proof.
Academic History doesn’t deal in proofs at all, and even if it did yu can’t prove a negative.
Cosmology doesn’t definitively prove that an orbiting teapot doesn’t exists either.
So what though?
So to return to Ehrman's first statement Historians aren't obliged to deny miracles.
And to undo your quote mining, when they do accept them nonetheless that has nothing to do with them being historians.
Your disbelief in miracles is therefore a priori any historical consideration.
No more than your disbelief in leprechauns is the same thing. You’re conflating here epistemic truth with practical behaviour as if a proposition is false. You can’t prove that ere are no leprechauns; you proceed nonetheless on the basis that there are no leprechauns.
Can you see the difference between these positions now?
-
What is taught in academic situations is a movable feast as you well know Hillside. How much History is taught as fact also puts a question mark on your suggestion that all history is taught as fact with no recognition that much remains conjecture.
What you and the posse seem to be presenting here is the old
"When Dr Ehrman says a historian is not obliged to deny miracles he's not really saying a historian is not obliged to deny miracles" routine.
Why do you keep ignoring the latter part of the quote from BE?
-
He says they are not obliged to deny miracles but that 'When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.'
The rest of your post seems quite muddled, but regards the last bit, a historian, acting as a historian, would likely need to say what they think happened but an atheist is under no such duty. They only have to say that they don't believe in the miracle claims.
Think or say what? You seemed to have missed out what they say or think.
-
But he goes on, effectively to say that historians, while operating as historians, are obliged to ignore miraculous claims.
So Bart is the one who is confused?
-
Think or say what? You seemed to have missed out what they say or think.
That the miracles happened.
'Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.'
-
Vlad,
What is taught in academic situations is a movable feast as you well know Hillside.
Relevance?
How much History is taught as fact also puts a question mark on your suggestion that all history is taught as fact with no recognition that much remains conjecture.
Drivel. Various events are accepted as historically true because they pass the applicable tests of historicity. That’s not to say that they cannot be shown to be untrue at a later date (maybe the evidential documents turn out to be forgeries for example) but it is to say that – on the basis of the available evidence – they are deemed to be historically sound.
Miracle stories on the other hand fail these tests. QED.
What you and the posse seem to be presenting here is the old
"When Dr Ehrman says a historian is not obliged to deny miracles he's not really saying a historian is not obliged to deny miracles" routine.
Stop lying, What I’ve actually said Ehrman actually said is what Ehrman actually said, supported by the direct quote of him saying it that you said he didn’t write – a mistake you’ve still to withdraw by the way.
-
Thanks. I have watched debates on this sort of thing on Youtube and know that people have said the same or similar, and I do get it, but am not an expert so sometimes my understanding needs refreshing :)
I think it's a weird thought in many ways. One example ot it that used to annoy me was Randi's Million Dollar Challenge which when people failed just showed to me that whoever took it couldn't fool people under the conditiions. Had they succeeded it would not have been evidence that anything supernatural was happening.
Same issue with the studies into prayer. Whst they show is that prayer doesn't work as a method but nothing about whather some capricious god isn't occasionally curing cancer.
Worse is that the very concept of the 'supetnatural' doesn't seem to make any coherent sense - I think I have some common ground with Vlad on this, oddly enough. If you take Clarke's quote 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic', then is the supernatural different from an advanced technology? It would seem that it would have to be but how?
That seems to mean that it breaks the 'laws of physics' but those are just descriptions of what happens, not proscriptive.
-
Maeght,
Why do you keep ignoring the latter part of the quote from BE?
Because he cited an article he thought supported him that then blew up in his face (he has form for that), so now he's quote mining to exclude those parts.
-
Maeght,
Because he cited an article he thought supported him that then blew up in his face (he has form for that), so now he's quote mining to exclude those parts.
So it seems.
-
Vlad,
So Bart is the one who is confused?
No, you are. Or lying.
-
That the miracles happened.
'Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.'
Yes they would recognise themselves that ancient history provides no one any 100% copper bottom proof for pretty much any event.
The historian though is still not obliged to deny miracles I.e. History provides no evidence that miracles cannot, do not or have not happened
-
Yes they would recognise themselves that ancient history provides no one any 100% copper bottom proof for pretty much any event.
The historian though is still not obliged to deny miracles I.e. History provides no evidence that miracles cannot, do not or have not happened
Historians do not, if they follow the historical method, deal in miracles. As I said, they deal in what is most likely to have happened so of course there is no 100% copper bottom proof in ancient history. Not sure that bit is relevant to what is being discussed though.
-
Yes they would recognise themselves that ancient history provides no one any 100% copper bottom proof for pretty much any event.
The historian though is still not obliged to deny miracles I.e. History provides no evidence that miracles cannot, do not or have not happened
It wouldn't since it's carried out in a methodologically naturalist approach.
-
Vlad,
Yes they would recognise themselves that ancient history provides no one any 100% copper bottom proof for pretty much any event.
No, but it does sometimes provide reasonable grounds for believing something to be more probably true than not - which the point you keep deflecting from.
The historian though is still not obliged to deny miracles I.e. History provides no evidence that miracles cannot, do not or have not happened
Nor is the cosmologist obliged to deny the orbiting teapot. You think you're making a salient point, but you're not.
-
Historians do not, if they follow the historical method, deal in miracles.
I’m going to have to call wishful thinking and complete denial of what historian Bart Ehrman has said namely historians are not obliged to deny miracles.
-
Vlad,
I’m going to have to call wishful thinking and complete denial of what historian Bart Ehrman has said namely historians are not obliged to deny miracles.
Stlll quote mining then I see. What does the rest of Ehrman's quote that I had to point you towards because you didn't bother reading the article say?
-
I’m going to have to call wishful thinking and complete denial of what historian Bart Ehrman has said namely historians are not obliged to deny miracles.
Except it's not. The historical method says nothing about 'miracles' either for or against, because and you can all join in it's METHODOLOGICALLY NATURALISTIC.
And indeed that's what Ehrman says.
-
I’m going to have to call wishful thinking and complete denial of what historian Bart Ehrman has said namely historians are not obliged to deny miracles.
Call what you want. Nothing I have posted disagrees with what Bart Ehrman said.
-
It wouldn't since it's carried out in a methodologically naturalist approach.
Again how history is carried out is a moveable feast and as Bart Ehrman has pointed out Historians are not obliged to deny miracles.
Do you think methodological naturalists are obliged to deny miracles.
-
Again how history is carried out is a moveable feast and as Bart Ehrman has pointed out Historians are not obliged to deny miracles.
Do you think methodological naturalists are obliged to deny miracles.
Can you show me where history is not studied in a methodological naturalist approach? If not your claim that it is a moveable feast is an unevidenced assertion. If you can, then you would be producing evidence for the supernaturalist methodology that you have been asked for so many times, and never provided.
The quote from Ehrman also shows that he thinks history is carried out in a methodologically naturalist manner, and you ignoring that just looks sad.
Since, as I have covered, in the post you replied to that history studied in the a methodologically naturalist way doesn't have an opinion on 'miracles' whatever they are, I can't see why you ask the question.
And aren't you a methodological naturalist?
ETA - if you want to look on the Philosophy board, I've started a thread on 'miracles' because I don't really understand what people mean by the term.
-
I’m going to have to call wishful thinking and complete denial of what historian Bart Ehrman has said namely historians are not obliged to deny miracles.
In addition to the earlier quote Bart Ehrman has said that anyone who believes in the resurrection is doing so for theological reasons. He has said it is not and cannot be based on historical proof.
-
I think you're confused. How can there be evidence for the supernatural absent a methodology for assessing it?
Firstly there is, of course, the notion that something purported to be supernatural actually turns out to be entirely natural.
But we also have to recognise that supernatural claims never exist completely outwith natural elements - the whole reason why someone claims there to have been a supernatural phenomenon is because of the impact and interaction with the natural world - Jesus raised someone from the dead - well that live/dead/live person is natural/materialistic. Jesus fed 5000 people from a bag of chips - the people, the bad of chips, the subsequent plentiful food etc are all natural/materialistic.
If a supernatural phenomenon were to exist that did not impact and interaction with the natural world then we could not know it was there and therefore there could be no claim for the phenomenon. The very notion that people claim supernatural phenomena exist is because of how they interpret very real world natural outcomes.
-
Firstly there is, of course, the notion that something purported to be supernatural actually turns out to be entirely natural.
But we also have to recognise that supernatural claims never exist completely outwith natural elements - the whole reason why someone claims there to have been a supernatural phenomenon is because of the impact and interaction with the natural world - Jesus raised someone from the dead - well that live/dead/live person is natural/materialistic. Jesus fed 5000 people from a bag of chips - the people, the bad of chips, the subsequent plentiful food etc are all natural/materialistic.
If a supernatural phenomenon were to exist that did not impact and interaction with the natural world then we could not know it was there and therefore there could be no claim for the phenomenon. The very notion that people claim supernatural phenomena exist is because of how they interpret very real world natural outcomes.
And therefore all you can do us have evidence for or against those natural outcomes. You cannot without a method have evidence for or against the supernatural.
-
I’m going to have to call wishful thinking and complete denial of what historian Bart Ehrman has said namely historians are not obliged to deny miracles.
You are the one in complete denial. The relevant phrase from Bart Ehrman has been quoted back at you enough times. It is the qualifier to the phrase you're now homing in on to try and salvage something from your gross misrepresentation of what Ehrman wrote. Qualifier - yes, that's indicated by the word he goes on to use "however...." Geddit?
-
You are the one in complete denial. The relevant phrase from Bart Ehrman has been quoted back at you enough times. It is the qualifier to the phrase you're now homing in on to try and salvage something from your gross misrepresentation of what Ehrman wrote. Qualifier - yes, that's indicated by the word he goes on to use "however...." Geddit?
Oh no......Another "Dr Ehrman did say historians did not have to deny miracles but he didn't really mean it post". What you can't seem to face up to is your objections are more likely a priori scientism or materialist and not historical. Despite Ehrman telling you that a historian is not bound to a denial.
I have already said that ancient history also does not provide 100% clarity as to what happened because none of us were there. Unfortunately imv alternative histories also lack guarantees and a notional naturalistic default history is fraught.
-
Oh no......Another "Dr Ehrman did say historians did not have to deny miracles but he didn't really mean it post". What you can't seem to face up to is your objections are more likely a priori scientism or materialist and not historical. Despite Ehrman telling you that a historian is not bound to a denial.
I have already said that ancient history also does not provide 100% clarity as to what happened because none of us were there. Unfortunately imv alternative histories also lack guarantees and a notional naturalistic default history is fraught.
That isn't what anyone has said. Stop lying.
-
Non-sense - if a historian were treating the gospels as they would any other piece of ancient history they would conclude that there is insufficient evidence to make any historical judgement on any miraculous claim, as Ehrman explains.
Not true. They would conclude that the miracle didn't happen. Did Jesus turn water into wine? Of course not. That would have been well beyond the technological capabilities of the first century (or the 21st century).
Did something happen that led people to believe that Jesus turned water into wine? An elaborate conjuring trick, perhaps? Sending out to his mate, the wine merchant, for more wine, perhaps? Maybe. These are questions that are up for debate and may not be answerable with the evidence we have, but the historian can should discard the possibility of an actual miracle because the historian is as bound by methodological naturalism as any scientist.
Whether they believe, as a believer, is a completely different matter to whether they accept something as a historian on the basis of historical evidence.
Yes and, in fact, even Christian historians are perfectly capable of compartmentalising their faith when they are doing history. Almost all of the work done on discrediting the gospels as reliable historical sources was done by Christians. It was a Christian who came up with the idea that Matthew and Luke copied Mark. It was Christians who dated the gospels to after around 70CE. It was Christians who analysed Matthew and found he cribbed loads of stuff from the Old Testament (probably deliberately).
The dating of the gospels is interesting in this regard. They are generally dated to around 70CE or later partly because they prophesied a real event, namely the destruction of the Temple. The Christian scholars could have said "that means Jesus was good at prophecy" but they discarded that belief when writing their scholarly papers on the dating of the gospels and went for the obvious to non Christian people explanation of the gospels post dating the Temple's destruction.
-
Vlad,
Oh no......Another "Dr Ehrman did say historians did not have to deny miracles but he didn't really mean it post". What you can't seem to face up to is your objections are more likely a priori scientism or materialist and not historical. Despite Ehrman telling you that a historian is not bound to a denial.
I have already said that ancient history also does not provide 100% clarity as to what happened because none of us were there. Unfortunately imv alternative histories also lack guarantees and a notional naturalistic default history is fraught.
Why are you still lying?
-
Oh no......Another "Dr Ehrman did say historians did not have to deny miracles but he didn't really mean it post". What you can't seem to face up to is your objections are more likely a priori scientism or materialist and not historical. Despite Ehrman telling you that a historian is not bound to a denial.
I have already said that ancient history also does not provide 100% clarity as to what happened because none of us were there. Unfortunately imv alternative histories also lack guarantees and a notional naturalistic default history is fraught.
I wonder what on earth you make of Bart Ehrman's books (if indeed you've read any) if you struggle so much with what he has plainly written in this quote. My objections are nothing to do with a priori scientism: my objection is that you refuse to acknowledge the whole thrust of the point he was making here. Namely, that though historians do not have to deny miracles, they take this stance not from the position of historians, but as believers. All this has been pointed out to you numerous times. Now you can go on to accuse Bart Ehrman himself of taking an a priori scientistic approach if you like. For my own part, I'm simply able to read plain English.
-
Professor Davey:
Whether they believe, as a believer, is a completely different matter to whether they accept something as a historian on the basis of historical evidence.
Yes and, in fact, even Christian historians are perfectly capable of compartmentalising their faith when they are doing history. Almost all of the work done on discrediting the gospels as reliable historical sources was done by Christians. It was a Christian who came up with the idea that Matthew and Luke copied Mark. It was Christians who dated the gospels to after around 70CE. It was Christians who analysed Matthew and found he cribbed loads of stuff from the Old Testament (probably deliberately).
The dating of the gospels is interesting in this regard. They are generally dated to around 70CE or later partly because they prophesied a real event, namely the destruction of the Temple. The Christian scholars could have said "that means Jesus was good at prophecy" but they discarded that belief when writing their scholarly papers on the dating of the gospels and went for the obvious to non Christian people explanation of the gospels post dating the Temple's destruction.
It's interesting to consider the approach of one of the first Christian critical authors on the Gospels, David Friedrich Strauss, in his "Life of Jesus Critically Examined". Whilst doubting that much of the Gospel material could be considered as direct historical reportage, he often viewed the 'miracles' as metaphors. Thus, knowing that Jesus had often referred to himself as the Bread of Life or the "True Vine", the narrative of the Feeding of the 4 and 5 thousand is regarded as Jesus providing spiritual 'food' for his generation.
-
Professor Davey:
It's interesting to consider the approach of one of the first Christian critical authors on the Gospels, David Friedrich Strauss, in his "Life of Jesus Critically Examined". Whilst doubting that much of the Gospel material could be considered as direct historical reportage, he often viewed the 'miracles' as metaphors. Thus, knowing that Jesus had often referred to himself as the Bread of Life or the "True Vine", the narrative of the Feeding of the 4 and 5 thousand is regarded as Jesus providing spiritual 'food' for his generation.
Your mention of metaphor here reminded of the quote from Joseph Campbell, 'God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that'. I have to say I find it a deepity in that I'm not sure that 'transcends all levels of intellectual thought' isn't just another metaphor.
I've watched some debates where Jordan Peterson says he doesn't believe in a God other than as a metaphorical truth that it is better to believe in than not. As with a lot of his statements, this seems to be circular.
To finish with another quote, this from Milan Kundera, "Metaphors are dangerous. Metaphors are not to be trifled with".
-
I wonder what on earth you make of Bart Ehrman's books (if indeed you've read any) if you struggle so much with what he has plainly written in this quote. My objections are nothing to do with a priori scientism: my objection is that you refuse to acknowledge the whole thrust of the point he was making here. Namely, that though historians do not have to deny miracles, they take this stance not from the position of historians, but as believers. All this has been pointed out to you numerous times. Now you can go on to accuse Bart Ehrman himself of taking an a priori scientistic approach if you like. For my own part, I'm simply able to read plain English.
Let is recap Dr Ehrman’s words. I shall emphasise in bold what I think you are ignoring.
I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.”
-
Let is recap Dr Ehrman’s words. I shall emphasise in bold what I think you are ignoring.
I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.”
Let is recap Dr Ehrman’s words. I shall emphasise in bold what I think you are ignoring.
'I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done.This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.”
-
Vlad,
Let is recap Dr Ehrman’s words. I shall emphasise in bold what I think you are ignoring.
I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.”
Have you ever considered a career in theatre management? I ask because if you did and the Evening Standard review was “This play is a stinker, but the seats were great” presumably you’d put a poster outside saying ““GREAT!!!” (Evening Standard)”.
-
Vlad,
Have you ever considered a career in theatre management? I ask because if you did and the Evening Standard review was “This play is a stinker, but the seats were great” presumably you’d put a poster outside saying ““GREAT!!!” (Evening Standard)”.
He wouldn't be much good at that since the second bit he highlighted 'nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done' completely undermines his position.
-
NS,
He wouldn't be much good at that since the second bit he highlighted 'nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done' completely undermines his position.
Quite so - Vlad has form for citing Wiki articles for support that actually say the opposite of what he thinks they say, but finding the quote mining he does within those articles also does that is a new level of incompetence ;)
-
He wouldn't be much good at that since the second bit he highlighted 'nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done' completely undermines his position.
That would make my position "history proves the miracles of Jesus absolutely." I have never stated that. Ancient history only takes us so far. The positions Ehrman undermines are a) History doesn't do miracles b)Historians are actually, , because of the methodological naturalistic nature of history, bound to deny miracles....either of these are close to your positions and Ehrman doesn't agree with you.
Apparently Ehrman also pissed on the bonfires of atheists like you guys by finding that Jesus was considered to be divine much earlier than thought by previous scholars.
I shan't be getting into the Game of rebuttals further on this one but look forward to future disagreements.
Have a nice day.
-
That would make my position "history proves the miracles of Jesus absolutely." I have never stated that. Ancient history only takes us so far. The positions Ehrman undermines are a) History doesn't do miracles b)Historians are actually, , because of the methodological naturalistic nature of history, bound to deny miracles....either of these are close to your positions and Ehrman doesn't agree with you.
Apparently Ehrman also pissed on the bonfires of atheists like you guys by finding that Jesus was considered to be divine much earlier than thought by previous scholars.
I shan't be getting into the Game of rebuttals further on this one but look forward to future disagreements.
Have a nice day.
No, that wouldn't make that your position. Your position is that history as a study isn't methodological naturalistic, and has some way of assessing miracle claims. Your highlighted section of Ehrman disagrees with that. I'm in full agreement with all of the Ehrman quote. You are not.
-
Let is recap Dr Ehrman’s words. I shall emphasise in bold what I think you are ignoring.
I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.”
Simply by emphasising your selected highlights out of context you can easily call black as white. It is you who are ignoring the whole context, not Dickie. Basically you come over as someone who refuses to accept the presence of certain words and phrases in order to make a point that is not part of the original context.
-
Vlad,
Have you ever considered a career in theatre management? I ask because if you did and the Evening Standard review was “This play is a stinker, but the seats were great” presumably you’d put a poster outside saying ““GREAT!!!” (Evening Standard)”.
Hi blue
Bart Ehrman wrote a fine book called "Misquoting Jesus" (formerly entitled "Whose Word Is It?). Vlad is using his appearances here as a rehearsal to writing a sequel, to be entitled "Misquoting Bart D. Ehrman". Unfortunately, he hasn't quite learned the subtlety of those who 'misquoted'* Jesus deliberately (rather than accidentally).
*Of course, we can never be certain of what Jesus actually said (or even if he really existed). A simple instance would be of a known much later manuscript having a different reading from an earlier one, ostensibly because a later scribe had obviously thought "Jesus - or whoever - could never had said that. It makes our carefully worked out theology look suspect etc."
-
Your mention of metaphor here reminded of the quote from Joseph Campbell, 'God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that'. I have to say I find it a deepity in that I'm not sure that 'transcends all levels of intellectual thought' isn't just another metaphor.
I've watched some debates where Jordan Peterson says he doesn't believe in a God other than as a metaphorical truth that it is better to believe in than not. As with a lot of his statements, this seems to be circular.
To finish with another quote, this from Milan Kundera, "Metaphors are dangerous. Metaphors are not to be trifled with".
I don't suppose saying that he treats the miracle stories as myth (in the strict sense) helps too much either. In case anyone might want to have a look at Strauss' work, here's a brief introduction:
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7a0a4137f3aedfb0JmltdHM9MTcxMTA2NTYwMCZpZ3VpZD0zOTQyY2Y0OS00MDI4LTZiOGYtMzUzNy1kYjAzNDExMzZhOWUmaW5zaWQ9NTE4Mw&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=3942cf49-4028-6b8f-3537-db0341136a9e&psq=David+Friedrih+Strauss+Jesus%27+miracles+as+metaphors&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9yZWxpZ2lvbi5lbW9yeS5lZHUvZmFjdWx0eS9yb2JiaW5zL1BkZnMvU3RyYXVzc091dGxpbmUucGRm&ntb=1
Quote from the above:
Having rejected both the rationalist and supernaturalist approaches, Strauss then argues for a mythical approach. Rather than reporting something that really happened (with either a rational or supernatural explanation), the text has a different purpose. Namely, the text uses the imagery of the early church's inherited religious and literary tradition (the Hebrew Bible as a whole, and in this particular case, the story in Exod 16.13–36 of God feeding the people of Israel in the wilderness with manna) to make a statement about the spiritual significance of Jesus. That is, the point of the text is not to report what Jesus did on a particular day, but to make the claim that Jesus is 'the bread of life' who feeds his followers with "spiritual food' even to this day. Strauss follows this same procedure with text after text. The virgin birth, Jesus' vision at his baptism, the story of his transfiguration, the healing miracles—all are understood as the product of the early church's use of Jewish ideas about what the Messiah would be like in order to express the conviction that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.
-
I don't suppose saying that he treats the miracle stories as myth (in the strict sense) helps too much either. In case anyone might want to have a look at Strauss' work, here's a brief introduction:
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7a0a4137f3aedfb0JmltdHM9MTcxMTA2NTYwMCZpZ3VpZD0zOTQyY2Y0OS00MDI4LTZiOGYtMzUzNy1kYjAzNDExMzZhOWUmaW5zaWQ9NTE4Mw&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=3942cf49-4028-6b8f-3537-db0341136a9e&psq=David+Friedrih+Strauss+Jesus%27+miracles+as+metaphors&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9yZWxpZ2lvbi5lbW9yeS5lZHUvZmFjdWx0eS9yb2JiaW5zL1BkZnMvU3RyYXVzc091dGxpbmUucGRm&ntb=1
I am reminded of David Jenkins and his quote "After all, a conjuring trick with bones only proves that somebody is clever at a conjuring trick with bones", which was hugely misunderstood. The issues raised by that contribute in part to my Miracles thread on the Philosophy board in that there's a certain diminution to any all powerful entity that seems to do this sort of trick.
-
Vlad,
That would make my position "history proves the miracles of Jesus absolutely."
No it wouldn’t. It merely confirms that your understanding of what Ehrman actually said is arse-backwards.
I have never stated that.
No-one has suggested otherwise.
Ancient history only takes us so far. The positions Ehrman undermines are a) History doesn't do miracles
Ehrman doesn’t "undermine" that at all – he confirms it. Academic history is indifferent to miracle stories, for the same reason that plumbing and tap dancing are indifferent to miracle stories. Absent anything to examine that's history method-apt miracle stories are in a different category from historically supported claims.
b)Historians are actually, , because of the methodological naturalistic nature of history, bound to deny miracles....either of these are close to your positions and Ehrman doesn't agree with you.
Wrong again. No-one “denies” miracle stories if by “deny” you’re trying to say “refute”. Rather historians are indifferent to these stories because they offer nothing of relevance to the methods of verifying historicity.
Apparently Ehrman also pissed on the bonfires of atheists like you guys by finding that Jesus was considered to be divine much earlier than thought by previous scholars.
That doesn’t contradict anything that atheists actually say. It merely says that some people believed Jesus to be divine earlier than was previously thought. It says nothing at all about Jesus actually being divine.
I shan't be getting into the Game of rebuttals further on this one but look forward to future disagreements.
Yes – having crashed and burned so spectacularly and then doubled down on your mistakes I guess running away (again) is the only option left to you now.
-
That would make my position "history proves the miracles of Jesus absolutely." I have never stated that. Ancient history only takes us so far. The positions Ehrman undermines are a) History doesn't do miracles b)Historians are actually, , because of the methodological naturalistic nature of history, bound to deny miracles....either of these are close to your positions and Ehrman doesn't agree with you.
Apparently Ehrman also pissed on the bonfires of atheists like you guys by finding that Jesus was considered to be divine much earlier than thought by previous scholars.
I shan't be getting into the Game of rebuttals further on this one but look forward to future disagreements.
Have a nice day.
Could you give a source for that please?