Jesus

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Maeght]

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. '

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'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

[Nearly Sane]

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'.

[Maeght]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Maeght]

As ever, probability is a methodoligically naturalist concept, so there is no such thing as a likelihood for a supernatural claim.

Sure.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Maeght]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Maeght]

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