Brian2
Veteran Member
They look for evidence that points to what is the most likely truth.
"Most likely truth" means eliminating the supernatural for a start.
all the theology is re-used, real historians only mention people who believe the stories and the stories are written EXACTLY like all other myths. The literary devices and styles are extremely mythic. Jesus is as likely real as any Greek demigod. So it's possible but so is Romulus (he's Roman I guess).
All the theology is from the Hebrew scriptures.
Historians only know the people who believe the stories. The gospels are by those who were closer to the action.
Do you mean that all myths are written in a language and so the gospels must be mythical?
Historians have shown what the Bible tells us is ALL reworked mythology.
Atheist historians with a naturalistic bias write such things, but it is not showing anyone anything except the bias of the writers.
Are you purposely avoiding the point? Let's make it clearer. Do you think the historians who say the Quran is a syncretic blend of older Arabic myths, OT theology and Greek ideas are showing a cognitive bias because they are not assuming that Muhammad didn't actually get updates about Christianity from Gabrielle the angel?
No, they are showing a cognitive bias in secular scholarship is they claim that Muhammad did not hear from Gabriel. They don't need to agree with the Quran. Is it so hard to understand?
It's like a good newspaper. It gives the news, the facts, and leaves the opinions for the opinion part of the paper. The opinions are not the news, the facts, and the opinions of people like Richard Carrier is not the history, it is private opinion, private atheistic bias added to the facts to make it look like certain things happened which the evidence does not necessarily point to.
Or historians who write about the The Bhagavad Gita are showing a cognitive bias because they assume Krishna didn't really appear to Arjuna and give him this philosophy? They rather say the philosophy came from the Hindu scholars who over centuries of thinking and philosophizing came up with this philosophy and used a mythical setting to pretend like Krishna actually gave them the ideas. Are those cognitive bias?
Anything that goes beyond the history is opinion, and may or may not be true.
If a Christian historian studies the same stuff that Carrier does and does not agree with what Carrier's opinion is, does that mean that the Christian historian has a cognitive bias? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but the disagreeing is a personal opinion, just as it is with Carrier.
Just because Carrier is a historian does not mean that his opinions are history.
Because if you claim to not have a naturalistic bias then you should accept all the other claims as well.
I don't need to disagree with Hinduism and Islam because of anti supernatural reasons.
This is the real crank, Historians are not "anti-supernatural". That is a claim you need to prove. Some historians actually 100% believed in a supernatural power. Bart Ehrman was one. He was an evangelical Christian. What historians are is honest to what the evidence presents.
I don't say that all historians are anti-supernatural. What I say is that different historians come to different conclusions and just because someone has studied history and has a qualification does not make their opinion of the evidence correct.
No peer review means each new paper used the same evidence and standard of evidence. It isn't about sharing a bias?
If the "standard of evidence" means that the supernatural is dismissed and anything remotely similar in other religions means that one copied from another,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that is sharing a bias.
The evidence is highly trained Greek school writers were writing fiction combining the new and popular Hellenistic ideas and this time doing it for Judaism. They also added Persian myths into it as well like Revelation, Satan vs God and a few others.
There is literally zero evidence that any of that is true.
That is opinion of the evidence.
Really it comes from Jewish theology. The Jewish theology that comes from as far back as 1400 BC, before the Persian and Greeks influence.
As I said Ehrman was a born again evangelical fundamentalist. He absolutely did not have any bias. He bought fully into it. He isn't the only historical scholar either. Dr Josh Bowden is another who was a fundamentalist.
Are you saying that these people agree with Carrier?
No, there is an alternative, it's just absurd. Savior demigods, virgin born who were there to provide salvation to baptized members in the form of eternal life through a passion/sacrifice (and all other copied myths) were happening as a result of the popularity of Greek and Persian theology and THEN, a run of the mill typical national God, Yahweh, who reads just like all Gods going back to Sumer (and liked to use Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Babylonian myths) decides to for real have a son do the dying/rising in 3 days thing. But this one time it's real.
This has nothing to do with naturalistic methodology, it's just clearly another myth..
So any historian who disagrees is biased I suppose.
You make glib statements about saviour demigods, virgin births, baptism and eternal life etc as if these things were the norm. The reality is that the lies that used to be told about demigods and the Jesus story being copied from them have been debunked many years ago and now exactly the same things are being taught by Carrier etc. and it is not because the virgin births, salvation etc has been now shown to be correct, it is because the interpretation by Carrier has expanded to make any little vague similarity into part of a theme. Easy, just have a naturalistic presupposition and say the OT was written late in the OT period and that plagiarisation from other religions is just a fact and deny the Jewishness of the gospel story, and use vague similarities in some other religions as themes , and discrediting the Bible. Discrediting is easy, just make up stuff and throw it and it sticks for those who want to believe it.
And during the entire 2nd century Christians were at least 50% Gnostic until Rome decided on a theology in the late 3rd century?
Rome did not decide on Christian theology. The Christian Church that dated back to the apostles and their writings was not the gnostic groups and that can be seen in the New Testament epistle and the Gospels.
Islam and Hinduism make all the same arguments you make. Yet they are wrong by your beliefs. Which demonstrates a flawed methodology.
Pointing out the flawed methodology in what claims to be history is flawed methodology?
Last edited: