How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[steeltoes]

So we can rule out many of the ancient biographies of Augustus then too right? And many of the ancient biographies of other emperors too correct?

Or maybe, as historians do, we can look at the work as we would any other similar work. Also, it is worth noting that the Gospels were only placed in a "religious text," the Bible, long after they were written. Why should they be ruled out just because they were placed into a collection? There is really no logic there.

Why would we rule out Augustus? Did he have no contemporaries? Are the only references we have of Augustus to be found in religious texts such as The Bible? Do we not know who wrote of Augustus, nor do we know where and when these writings about Augustus came from? Do we have no artifacts? Do we only have one storied account of Augustus written for religious purposes, that was copied and altered on religious grounds?

Was the character of Augustus lifted from Isaiah and Daniel? Were words from the Psalms placed in his mouth?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why would we rule out Augustus? Did he have no contemporaries? Are the only references we have of Augustus to be found in religious texts such as The Bible? Do we not know who wrote of Augustus, nor do we know where and when these writings about Augustus came from? Do we have no artifacts? Do we only have one storied account of Augustus written for religious purposes, that was copied and altered on religious grounds?

Keep your eye on the ball, man. The issue isn't that Augustus wouldn't exist if the biographies were discarded.

The issue is of we can / cannot extract historically useful material from texts that have a religious nature.

 

[fallingblood]

Why would we rule out Augustus? Did he have no contemporaries? Are the only references we have of Augustus to be found in religious texts such as The Bible? Do we not know who wrote of Augustus, nor do we know where and when these writings about Augustus came from? Do we have no artifacts? Do we only have one storied account of Augustus written for religious purposes, that was copied and altered on religious grounds?

Was the character of Augustus lifted from Isaiah and Daniel? Were words from the Psalms placed in his mouth?

I said we can rule out his biographies. The reason being that they were in fact written as religious/political propaganda. If you want to rule out the Gospels, you have to rule out other similar works, which means the biographies of many of the emperors.

Also, Jesus had contemporaries, such as Paul and Josephus. Jesus is mentioned outside of the Bible, such as in Josephus. We know that Josephus, and Paul wrote about Jesus, and we know where they came from. We may not have artifacts of Jesus, but we also don't have artifacts for the vast majority of individuals living at that time. And we have multiple accounts of Jesus.

More so, the character of Jesus was not lifted from Isaiah and Daniel, nor were the words from Psalms placed in his mouth. Instead, Jesus was Jewish, and thus would have known the Psalms, and probably would have stated them anyway. Just as people quote from the Bible today.

But again, none of that really matters as I was simply talking about the biographies, which have to be dismissed if your stipulations want to be kept. At the same time, you might as well rule out most of history. If that works for you, then fine.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Surely few or none among secular Xian scholars believe in the miracle-working JC.

I wouldn't be so sure. Christian scholars have been using critical interpretative methods for more than 200 years, and they aren't stupid. They can separate faith from method just as a non-believer has to separate their biases from their methods of study.

I graduated from a very liberal/secular PhD program in New Testament, and I was very surprised to learn that everyone in the program believed in a literal, bodily resurrection of Christ. I asked everyone during the first year of the program, so I don't know if these beliefs survived, but I admit I am somewhat amused when I find a NT scholar that believes in miracles / resurrection.

But they are out there.

 

[steeltoes]

Keep your eye on the ball, man. The issue isn't that Augustus wouldn't exist if the biographies were discarded.

The issue is of we can / cannot extract historically useful material from texts that have a religious nature.

I got my eye on the ball, this nonsense that we therfore must rule out the biography of Augustus and other emperors is trotted out time and time again, it's fallacious and a complete distraction. If distraction is what is wanted here, anything to keep us from dealing with the problems of this Jesus, then distraction is what we get.

 

[fallingblood]

I got my eye on the ball, this nonsense that we therfore must rule out the biography of Augustus and other emperors is trotted out time and time again, it's fallacious and a complete distraction. If distraction is what is wanted here, anything to keep us from dealing with the problems of this Jesus, then distraction is what we get.

Yet you never actually dealt with that, but instead dealt with something entirely different. You're not dealing with the problems of Jesus, you're simply stating that the Gospels are fiction and writing it all off. That isn't dealing with anything.

 

[steeltoes]

I said we can rule out his biographies. The reason being that they were in fact written as religious/political propaganda. If you want to rule out the Gospels, you have to rule out other similar works, which means the biographies of many of the emperors.

Also, Jesus had contemporaries, such as Paul and Josephus. Jesus is mentioned outside of the Bible, such as in Josephus. We know that Josephus, and Paul wrote about Jesus, and we know where they came from. We may not have artifacts of Jesus, but we also don't have artifacts for the vast majority of individuals living at that time. And we have multiple accounts of Jesus.

More so, the character of Jesus was not lifted from Isaiah and Daniel, nor were the words from Psalms placed in his mouth. Instead, Jesus was Jewish, and thus would have known the Psalms, and probably would have stated them anyway. Just as people quote from the Bible today.

But again, none of that really matters as I was simply talking about the biographies, which have to be dismissed if your stipulations want to be kept. At the same time, you might as well rule out most of history. If that works for you, then fine.

Yes, I suppose we must rule out most of history, including Noah and his Ark, what a shame.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I got my eye on the ball, this nonsense that we therfore must rule out the biography of Augustus and other emperors is trotted out time and time again, it's fallacious and a complete distraction. If distraction is what is wanted here, anything to keep us from dealing with the problems of this Jesus, then distraction is what we get.

You can't deflect the question, however.

If you're really interested in history and the historical method, it's worth considering how your method affects the outcome of similar questions.

So if you're rejecting material solely on the basis of its religious nature, how could you possibly justify using religious literature of a different sort to understand historical figures that you prefer.

If religious literature is worthless, then it's worthless, and you've inadvertently discarded most ancient literature.

You're not appreciating the fact that separation of religious / critical literature is a modern idea, and it's associated with the scientific method as applied in modern philosophy. Before the modern era, there is no such thing as non-religious or non-philosophically biased literature.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, I suppose we must rule out most of history, including Noah and his Ark, what a shame.

Now that is a distraction. I don't accept either Noah or the flood story. Neither do many Christians. Yet, for some reason, some atheists want to attack that story for who know what reason.

Also, making snide remarks actually isn't addressing the issue. Instead, it makes it appear as if you can't actually deal with the message, and thus need to provide some sort of distraction.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, I suppose we must rule out most of history, including Noah and his Ark, what a shame.

Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now that is a distraction. I don't accept either Noah or the flood story. Neither do many Christians. Yet, for some reason, some atheists want to attack that story for who know what reason.

(because they think that it's an easy target)

 

[steeltoes]

You can't deflect the question, however.

If you're really interested in history and the historical method, it's worth considering how your method affects the outcome of similar questions.

So if you're rejecting material solely on the basis of its religious nature, how could you possibly justify using religious literature of a different sort to understand historical figures that you prefer.

If religious literature is worthless, then it's worthless, and you've inadvertently discarded most ancient literature.

You're not appreciating the fact that separation of religious / critical literature is a modern idea, and it's associated with the scientific method as applied in modern philosophy. Before the modern era, there is no such thing as non-religious or non-philosophically biased literature.

I'm obviously not rejecting material on the basis of its religious nature. I asked if Augustus was without contemporaries, I asked if the authors of his biographies were unknown, if there were artifacts, if we knew where his biographies came from. The same questions apply to Jesus who by the way was without contemporaries, no primary sources and no secondary sources. Where does the idea come from that I am dismissing literature based on whether or not it is religious?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

Yes. It's something Christians do when they speak about Jesus as a historical person. Also, anybody who speaks about Jesus as a historical person is a Christian.

The above is a kind of "guide" more than a definition, so don't be surprised to find out that there are other ad hoc logical fallacies that logicians would take issue with (obviously because they're all Christians too; or maybe it's just if one is theistic?).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm obviously not rejecting material on the basis of its religious nature.... Where does the idea come from that I am dismissing literature based on whether or not it is religious?

It comes from this post:

No need to rule out the entire discipline of history since there is no need to look to stories in religious texts for actual historical events.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes. It's something Christians do when they speak about Jesus as a historical person. Also, anybody who speaks about Jesus as a historical person is a Christian.

Are you sure you want to keep that definition?

It's indefensible.:foot:

 

[steeltoes]

It comes from this post:

Well, unfortunately The Bible has turned out to be not a reliable source for the historical accounts it portrays.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes. It's something Christians do when they speak about Jesus as a historical person. Also, anybody who speaks about Jesus as a historical person is a Christian.

The above is a kind of "guide" more than a definition, so don't be surprised to find out that there are other ad hoc logical fallacies that logicians would take issue with (obviously because they're all Christians too; or maybe it's just if one is theistic?).

There's actually names for all the fallacies in this thread (including your post).

You can find them here - Logical Fallacies.

And also here - (this one might be more accessible to you) - Purdue OWL: Logic in Argumentative Writing

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, unfortunately The Bible has turned out to be not a reliable source for the historical accounts it portrays.

Correction: the Bible isn't as reliable as some people claim that it is.

It doesn't mean that the Bible has no historical value.

 

[fallingblood]

I'm obviously not rejecting material on the basis of its religious nature. I asked if Augustus was without contemporaries, I asked if the authors of his biographies were unknown, if there were artifacts, if we knew where his biographies came from. The same questions apply to Jesus who by the way was without contemporaries, no primary sources and no secondary sources. Where does the idea come from that I am dismissing literature based on whether or not it is religious?

I addressed those claims and showed why they were wrong though. So you can only get to your position by ignoring everything to the contrary.

 

[steeltoes]

Correction: the Bible isn't as reliable as some people claim that it is.

It doesn't mean that the Bible has no historical value.

It has plenty of historical value, but not in the sense that the stories were written for historical purposes, they were not written to relay actual historical events.