The assassination of Caesar vs. the resurrection of Jesus

[magellan004]

Not the point. Put some lead in your pencil and respond to my post correctly and directly. I referred to the issues from the standard universal academic perspective, and you have not responded to this.

The traditional theist may claim to 'know.' but providing a coherent, convincing argument to the non-believer why one claims to know is the problem.

Person A 'I know X'.
Person B 'I believe X.'

Why, in your scheme, does Person A have to provide a coherent convincing argument to the non-believer yet Person B doesn't have to?

Why does an atheist/agnostic accept Person B's statement? Come to think of it, Why is 'I don't believe in X' exempt from this rule?

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

Person A 'I know X'.
Person B 'I believe X.'

Why, in your scheme, does Person A have to provide a coherent convincing argument to the non-believer yet Person B doesn't have to?

Both have to if the want to convince the other.

Why does an atheist/agnostic accept Person B's statement? Come to think of it, Why is 'I don't believe in X' exempt from this rule?

Magellan

do not know. I do not have the information involved with these statements to make such a judgement.

[Juice]

Give up on the ECREE and let's talk straight accepted academic historial methods/ Those that claim ECREE do not know how academic historians do things.

Again, it is best to Dump ECREE, it is not used by academic historians, and those that use it are clueless as to how academic historical methods apply to these events.

Finally something we agree on. I feel kinda weird now...

Okay, I left this thread alone for a few days to allow anyone to add more evidence for the assassination of Caesar. So I take it there is no more than what I listed?

[shunyadragon]

Finally something we agree on. I feel kinda weird now...

Okay, I left this thread alone for a few days to allow anyone to add more evidence for the assassination of Caesar. So I take it there is no more than what I listed?

No, there is no more, but as academic history deals with records and evidence of events and draws its conclusions, They use historical methods, which do not conclude any ancient event as 'proven fact.' ECREE does not apply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am approaching this from the pure academic methods perspective, and the assassination of Caesar cannot be compared directly with the resurrection and other miraculous claims of any religion, nor those like the claims of virgin birth of Roman emperors.

[Chrawnus]

I am approaching this from the pure academic methods perspective, and the assassination of Caesar cannot be compared directly with the resurrection and other miraculous claims of any religion, nor those like the claims of virgin birth of Roman emperors.

What is the distinction between miraculous claims and non-miraculous claims that make them impossible to compare directly?

[shunyadragon]

What is the distinction between miraculous claims and non-miraculous claims that make them impossible to compare directly?

Academic historical methods cover the present back to the point we have written records of any sort. Today, and even in the well documented recent past there are numerous claims of miraculous events, but unfortunately the claims remain highly anecdotal and virtually none are documented to the point they are accepted as historical events equivalent to mundane reports of natural events like assassination. The assassination of Caesar is not considered absolutely a fact, but the most likely accepted record given the events as reported. This like the reports of all events would be subject to change if new information is discovered . Many claims of miracles are acknowledged as claimed religious events that are believed by the faithful of a religion, but not considered neither definitively true nor false. To be relatively unbiased and not endorse any one religion's claims historically over others, Historians could no more endorse the claims of the resurrection of Christ as an historical fact than the the claim of Mohammud ascending into heaven and returning, moving mountains, nor the miracles reported for Buddha's life.

Equally problematic would be historical sightings in China of dragons, and in Europe in the past where there are claims of sightings and knights slaying dragons.

[Chrawnus]

Academic historical methods cover the present back to the point we have written records of any sort. Today, and even in the well documented recent past there are numerous claims of miraculous events, but unfortunately the claims remain highly anecdotal and virtually none are documented to the point they are accepted as historical events equivalent to mundane reports of natural events like assassination.

I think I might have phrased my question vaguely. When I asked for a distinction I did not mean to ask what the difference was in terms of the quality or amount of evidence for a miraculous claim vs. a non-miraculous, but a distinction in the nature of these claims.

The assassination of Caesar is not considered absolutely a fact, but the most likely accepted record given the events as reported. This like the reports of all events would be subject to change if new information is discovered . Many claims of miracles are acknowledged as claimed religious events that are believed by the faithful of a religion, but not considered neither definitively true nor false. To be relatively unbiased and not endorse any one religion's claims historically over others, Historians could no more endorse the claims of the resurrection of Christ as an historical fact than the the claim of Mohammud ascending into heaven and returning, moving mountains, nor the miracles reported for Buddha's life.

There are certainly biases which are unhealthy to hold when working as a historian, such as presupposing that a particular religion's historical claim(s) is/are true before weighing the evidence. However, I don't see how a person who believes himself to have examined the historical data as objectively and impartially as could reasonably be demanded of him, could not conclude that a particular religious claim is more probably true than not (or that it explains the data to a more satisfactory degree than competing theories) in light of the historical details. I've yet to see a to me convincing argument to why this division between religious and non-religious, or miraculous and non-miraculous claims is justified.

Equally problematic would be historical sightings in China of dragons, and in Europe in the past where there are claims of sightings and knights slaying dragons.

Not saying that I find the reports of dragons anywhere reliable or anything, but surely, the reason why historians reject the reports of dragons, and dragon slayings is a bit more nuanced than that the claims are miraculous in nature?

[shunyadragon]

I think I might have phrased my question vaguely. When I asked for a distinction I did not mean to ask what the difference was in terms of the quality or amount of evidence for a miraculous claim vs. a non-miraculous, but a distinction in the nature of these claims.


There are certainly biases which are unhealthy to hold when working as a historian, such as presupposing that a particular religion's historical claim(s) is/are true before weighing the evidence. However, I don't see how a person who believes himself to have examined the historical data as objectively and impartially as could reasonably be demanded of him, could not conclude that a particular religious claim is more probably true than not (or that it explains the data to a more satisfactory degree than competing theories) in light of the historical details. I've yet to see a to me convincing argument to why this division between religious and non-religious, or miraculous and non-miraculous claims is justified.

If you read my post carefully I said, historians do not determine whether an event is true false, neither do the propose the probability that an event is true nor false. They do not make their determinations before weighing the evidence. There are extensive volumes written by historians and theologians that are available to all.

I have covered this in other threads and can provide the titles of a number of books written concerning academic historical methods by both sectarian and theological historians.

Not saying that I find the reports of dragons anywhere reliable or anything, but surely, the reason why historians reject the reports of dragons, and dragon slayings is a bit more nuanced than that the claims are miraculous in nature?

No, not more nuanced at all there are reputable first person written claims of seeing dragons in China, sworn claims written by witnesses in European history.

The following is an interesting account, one of many . . .

http://celedriel2.tripod.com/dragonsight.html

". . . In Rome, Italy the Historia naturalis of Pliny the Elder reported that a dragon killed on Vatican Hill during the reign of Emperor Claudius (died 54 A.D.) contained the body of a child; centuries later, in 1660, the German Athanatius Kircher examined a dragon killed near the city. He commented on its unuasual webbed feet..."

© source where applicable

.

[Chrawnus]

If you read my post carefully I said, historians do not determine whether an event is true false, neither do the propose the probability that an event is true nor false. They do not make their determinations before weighing the evidence. There are extensive volumes written by historians and theologians that are available to all.

I have covered this in other threads and can provide the titles of a number of books written concerning academic historical methods by both sectarian and theological historians.

I did read your post. But I never said that historians make their determination before weighing the evidence, or that they should, nor did I claim that you did either, so I'm not really sure what part of my post your responding to with that comment.

I'll gladly accept any tips about books concerning historical methodology.

No, not more nuanced at all there are reputable first person written claims of seeing dragons in China, sworn claims written by witnesses in European history.

Are you saying that the sole reason for rejecting claims about dragons is because they're claims that are supernatural/miraculous in nature? There's no assessment of reliability, or anything like that?

The following is an interesting account, one of many . . .

http://celedriel2.tripod.com/dragonsight.html

". . . In Rome, Italy the Historia naturalis of Pliny the Elder reported that a dragon killed on Vatican Hill during the reign of Emperor Claudius (died 54 A.D.) contained the body of a child; centuries later, in 1660, the German Athanatius Kircher examined a dragon killed near the city. He commented on its unuasual webbed feet..."

© source where applicable

.

[shunyadragon]

I did read your post. But I never said that historians make their determination before weighing the evidence, or that they should, nor did I claim that you did either, so I'm not really sure what part of my post your responding to with that comment.

If it is necessary. I will say it specifically. Historians do consider ALL the evidence available, and over time all the sources. The make their determinations based on nature of the claims, and the evidence involved. Read the first post in this series.

I'll gladly accept any tips about books concerning historical methodology.

Based on your responses so far it is questionable whether your following my line of reasoning. I will cite some sources, but this study can be done by yourself online to understand how academic historical methods work.

Are you saying that the sole reason for rejecting claims about dragons is because they're claims that are supernatural/miraculous in nature? There's no assessment of reliability, or anything like that?

I responded to your claims of some sort of nuance in the differences in the claims of the witnesses of things like dragons, and claims of resurrection. I also outlined the nature of miraculous claims and academic historical methods. The fact is not one miraculous claim whether claimed to have been witnessed last week nor two thousand years ago has passed muster for academic history methods. Simply because such claims are far to anecdotal in nature to go beyond reporting the claims in history, and describing the context and nature of the claim in the historical context without judgement as to whether it is true nor false.

The Resurrection does not represent a well documented miracle, based on a comparison of other recorded supernatural or recorded miraculous events as I previously cited. An example I have often given in the past is the miracle of the execution of the Bab in Baha'i history in the mid 19th century. There were outside witnesses, Russian envoys and others who recorded the events that were not involved nor carry the bias of believers. There is good documented evidence that exceeds anecdotal claims, but I do not believe nor expect historians to make the determination that this miracle was a historical fact. I doubt the good documentation of the this miracle would influence you of the nature of the claim, nor the justification of the Baha'i religious claim.

Again, believers, whether Christian, Islamic, Buddhist or whatever, present a biased claim of the truth of miracles recorded in their scripture that have to considered from an unbiased perspective, and cannot.be considered selectively as a superior claim over any of the others. .

[Teallaura]

My apologies - I thought I'd have time to get back to this and it just isn't gonna happen. Catch you guys later!